Godless-Mimicry wrote: Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.
Probably large ones like LVO or similar. Where you have tons of people in a nice hotel or convention center. Those spaces are not cheap. Smaller tournaments run in local stores are cheap to run, big events at hotels? Not so much.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.
For the larger tournaments that are hosted in a hotel, they have to promise a certain number of rooms will be booked in addition to the amount it costs to rent. The more booked rooms, the less the rental will be.
However if they dont match the promised rooms the difference comes out of their pocket.
So yea, pretty big financial risk for the bigger tournaments. Not to mention the cost of terrain, tables, peoples time, prep, promotion, prize support.
Yes, when I'm not excluded from them by TFG policies on what is allowed.
We get it, you think the game ought to be played as is out of the book, great.
No, I think the standard for making changes to the game should be "this is a game-breaking balance problem that needs to be fixed to have an enjoyable tournament", not "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING BAN EVERYTHING THAT WASN'T IN 5TH EDITION" or "I don't like your army, you're not allowed here". So far all we've seen is lots of ranting about how unbound/superheavies/etc are completely broken and need to be banned, but no real justification beyond a personal dislike of unbound lists that don't have an "acceptable" theme.
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?
Because "comp is stupid" is a constructive response. Unlike you, I don't just assume that each new edition requires things to be banned and then start looking for what things I can ban.
I think Peregrine has several good points, but I think the most important bears repeating: TOs should fix something only if it's broken. He's right, most of the suggested changes equate to playing 5th ed 40K, not the game that a new player sees when they pick up the BRB for the first time. Alot of people played 5th, so it's what we/they are used to, but it's not really 7th edition. I agree that for some tournaments and games there should be various comp limits imposed, but I think that we need to be wary of changing the game too much from what is in the book because it's the baseline. That's why there's a whole forum devoted to discussing "RAW", because regardless of the interpretations there needs to be a SINGLE source for the game that Player A and Player B can both have access to. Alot of players don't follow every Dakka thread, or keep up with "Internet 40K" at all. Thus, the BRB is the common denominator.
This edition changed alot of things, and understandably alot of people are trying to figure out how to have fun with it (and win). However, as was said earlier I think we should give the edition a little more time to breathe before rushing to alter things to suit a particular paradigm.
greyknight12 wrote: This edition changed alot of things, and understandably alot of people are trying to figure out how to have fun with it (and win). However, as was said earlier I think we should give the edition a little more time to breathe before rushing to alter things to suit a particular paradigm.
This is the most critical part; balancing the win and the fun.
Some people play tournaments for fun, some to win, and all in between. I agree with Peregrine to find out what makes 7th edition broken, then we can have a discussion about the game. I do hate the summoning and think it should be fixed, but for tournaments, let the TOs hash out what is broken after finding the broken things.
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.
What makes 7th broken is what makes apocalypse a terrible starting point for tournaments.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.
The total risk for the LVO 2014 was about $50,000 when we calculated everything. 2015 Is significantly more than that. The first BAO, with no hotel rooms, borrowed terrain, etc. was about $10K. We had quotes for venues in the Bay Area that cost over $10K a DAY to rent. That doesn't even include the other commitments you have, that is just the room rental. It costs a lot more than most people think.
As for some of the ideas here, I agree with a lot of them.
GW isn't allowing unbound in their tournament which I think says a lot.
I think a baseline that everyone can agree to for tournaments as below would be pretty easy:
No unbound
1 Primary detachment
1 Other detachment (ally or formation)
Tournament missions (as we have always done)
That resolves a lot of the craziness of 7th ed. From there you can stick to the book if you want. I think some further limitations will make events more fun for everyone, though. For us we are 99% likely to do the following:
Limit the 2+ reroll save to 2+/4+ as we have been doing
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
Limit invisibility in some way. It's flat out too good.
Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.
Limit certain Lords of War if we decide to allow them. I like LoW personally and enjoy having them. The changes to D weapons were positive, IMO, but some models that can remove multiple units form play at a time are a bit much like the Sonic Lance Rev, Tranny C'Tan, Hellhammer, etc. I think those could very easily kill the fun for other players.
That is as we see it here, the main issues to address.
I like almost all those ideas. But how hard are we nerfing invisibility? And then why not nerf the grimoire as well. Invincible fateweaver is horrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can you ally with yourself?
LValx wrote: I like almost all those ideas. But how hard are we nerfing invisibility? And then why not nerf the grimoire as well. Invincible fateweaver is horrible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can you ally with yourself?
The Grimoire isn't a problem. It's already nerfed....to 2++/4++. And then there is Banishment which GK's will easily spam without even trying.
As for Invisibility, here is my solution, up for review: opponents shoots at the Invisible unit at BS1 and fights against them in combat at WS1. Simple, achieves sort of the same effect, but not nearly as powerful.
Allying with yourself is a No from the BRB, unless your codex explicitly says that you can (like the Space Marines dex does).
I think limiting unbound isn't actually going to be super important. I think a lot of people will want it, but unbound armies won't win tournaments.
The loss of objective secured is HUGE. An unbound army essentially needs to table their opponent to win. I haven't seen an unbound army yet that does that significantly better than a battle forged army using multiple CAD's.
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
What in particular about the new psychic phase needs limiting? Only a handful of individual powers are more powerful than last edition, but all are significantly more difficult to cast, easier to dispel, more dangerous to the caster, and less powers can be cast per phase.
Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.
Is it too powerful? I keep hearing this but I haven't heard about it winning any games yet - even the ridiculous Frontline battle report they didn't win, though that was a lot to do with objective cards.
Taking too long to play seems like something that the slow player should be punished for, rather than banning the army altogether even for fast players. A summoning daemon player would be bringing on less models per turn than a tervigon spawning army of 6th edition. With proper preparation (checklists, tokens, priority sheets, etc) the daemon player could be relatively quick - their psychic phase may take a while but they have short other phases.
Exactly. It should be a reduction in firepower aimed at the unit, not total immunity to a whole class of weapons (especially one that is often necessary to deal with death stars).
Reecius wrote:...
That resolves a lot of the craziness of 7th ed. From there you can stick to the book if you want. I think some further limitations will make events more fun for everyone, though. For us we are 99% likely to do the following:
...
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
...
I'm not sure why this is necessary, without limiting other codexes supremacy in other phases. If you limit the psychic phase, you primarily nerf daemons, with secondary impacts on IG, Eldar and Grey Knights (off the top of my head). Does this significantly help the game?
Why not nerf the shooting phase? There are far more units made obsolete by the uber shooty armies than anything the psychic phase is likely to cause. Cutting out some of the guns might see units like berserkers, banshees, slugga boyz and wyches show up in games again.
What about the movement phase? Only a couple of armies can move 48" to contest things, that seems highly unfair to the others. Maybe you could cap how many inches any model may move.
I think a baseline that everyone can agree to for tournaments as below would be pretty easy:
No unbound
1 Primary detachment
1 Other detachment (ally or formation)
Tournament missions (as we have always done)
What about limiting it to two Detachments, which allows for two Combined Arms Detachments which doesn't hurt Tau/Farsight or Eldar/Iyanden, etc.
For instance my Farsight with Tau allies is impossible if left as written here, but is perfectly legal by BRB. Why are Farsight/Tau penalized while Space Marines are not? In fact, being able to take an allied Detatchment is better than being forced to fill a true Combined Arms Detatchment.
Limiting the 2+ Retollable to 2+/4+ is great! I made the same suggestion when the Screamerstar hit in 6th.
BS/WS1 for Invisibility is great and fixes everything.
I think at the end of the day the final changes will be this
Invisibility changed to remove snap shot ability and become a flat value
Deny the witch mechanic tweaked to work with blessing and conjurations (deny on a 5+)
FOC org changes to a limited source
Yeah, a lot of folks are discussing that option, too. However, a Seer Council that you can only hit on 6's (or a LoW, or Paladins, or whatever) may still be too crazy. We'll have to try it out.
I was also thinking just use the 6th ed rules for it as that was quite good, but we'll see.
@Trasvi
One creative solution I heard was to allow Unbound but to screen the lists for a more laid back style event. So, if it is a thematic unbound list, cool, if not, no. That could work although you will almost certainly run into issues when you reject a list someone else thinks is fluffy and you do not.
For us, it is easier to simply say no. An army of all named Characters or something could be a lot of fun but not in the context of flying to an event to have fair games. I think unbound is great in a club where players come to the table expecting the same thing.
When I said limit the psychic phase, I meant limiting the extremes of it. I think the psychic phase works great on it's own, but when you abuse the mechanics of it to max out warp charge it gets stupid. Fantasy caps magic does for just that reason and I am actually surprised that GW didn't do it with 40K.
Try a game against a 40 WP list, it is nutty. You have to keep track of so much stuff each turn it gets confusing as hell and it takes ages.
As for keeping track of who is playing slow, that is REALLY difficult to do in 40K. On paper it sounds easy, but in effect it is super hard to do as there is no objective way to measure it without using chess clocks or something like that. People are often not aware that they play slowly, and when it happens there's no way to turn back the clock.
@RedBeard
A lot of folks are making that counter-argument. However, I don't think it holds water.
For one, if I have more shooting than you, that doesn't mean almost all of my shots hit and none of yours do. However, if I have 40+ WC and you have 2, I will get almost all of the powers I want off, and you will get none. See the difference? It really isn't the same comparison. It negates the phase for one player. It is the same thing that sucks about 2+ reroll saves, or Tau blast weapons that can't miss, and ignore armor and cover. It causes one player to not participate in what is happening.
That is not fun.
We're talking about a lot of creative ways to try to tone down the extremes while still letting players have fun with their army and not feel limited. It is not easy to do.
A lot of folks are making that counter-argument. However, I don't think it holds water.
For one, if I have more shooting than you, that doesn't mean almost all of my shots hit and none of yours do. However, if I have 40+ WC and you have 2, I will get almost all of the powers I want off, and you will get none. See the difference?
No. Let me rephrase what you just wrote...
If I have 40+ 24"+ range guns, and you have 2, I will get to shoot all your stuff and kill everything important, and you will get none (as yours will die). At that point, you're not "participating" in the shooting phase, unless your idea of participation is rolling saves and removing models.
To further go into this, if I take an army with only 2 guns, I don't expect to win the shooting phase. If you take an army with only 2 WC, you shouldn't expect to win the psychic phase. These are choices that players can make. I could take a stealer-shock army. Do I have a right to complain that I don't get to participate in the shooting phase if I do this?
You're looking at this through the lens of past editions. The psychic phase is now a thing. Some armies may not be able to win the psychic phase and that's alright. Daemons cannot win the shooting phase, with only a handful of models that traditionally shoot. Tau may never win the assault phase.
There's no reason to believe that one of these phases should be treated differently and nerfed, simply because some codexes don't do it well. The entire game is now designed to limit assault armies, and if anything needs help, it is them. If your goal is to increase the number of viable builds in the game, then limiting the shooting phase is the place to start, because that would open the game up to assault armies again, and we'd instantly see a much larger variety in what people bring. The psychic phase is new, so you're targeting it, but it's really not the source of the imbalances in the game.
The problem is that for many of those armies they are still investing points into everything and statistically only half of those points are going to have returns assuming no denies.
You always get to shoot, and it is almost always fixed, either BS 1 for snap shots, or your bs.
For casting, there is warp charge generation, there is spells you actually get, there is deny the witch. There are many more barriers to casting. How is it any different from having 10 powers last edition where your opponent could do next to nothing. Its just now it takes place all at once instead of being spread out. There are less powers going off now for the same points investment and there was little to no desire to nerf them last edition.
I think give them some time, give people a chance to adapt their lists to 7th edition before me put restrictions on things. I would rather have a few growing pains and identify the true problem rather than guess at what part is the problem and nerf the wrong part.
Is having 40 warp charges the problem, or is it conjuration? If we have conjouration with fewer charges does that solve it? Or is it the lore itself and not the number of dice that are the problem?
Is it that people are still needing to adjust to an edition or is it actually something wrong with the core rules? Is it something we can resolve through mission design or do we have to make changes to the core rules?
I think it is too soon to answer any of these questions and we need more play testing, learning the edition, development of lists that work toward the edition, identification of missions and mission design. If none of these steps seem to work than I think at that point you start banning things, but I feel it is too soon to ban things out the gate, especially when we are consistently getting conflicting reports and results of the effectiveness of things.
If you are a TO with significant investment of resources into an event I understand the desire to curb things, but I think a lot of people want to play 7th edition, not 5th edition with a psyker phase(which is limited). Even with the 2+ re-rolled. I think if you learn to play, have a decent list, and have dynamic progressive missions it solves a lot of the problems.
Because in that instance you end up with 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknight lists. I don't think most players want to see that on the table.
That does stink big time that your army got invalidated though, that sucks.
6 Riptides? Who cares? We already could field five in 6th and it was a mediocre list at 1850 at best, four was the sweet spot and now what made that work, the O'VesaStar is gone. Definitely not a concern, any halfway decent Objective Secured army will neuter it. Easy win for many armies, the Meta will learn that quickly and it won't last. No one is going to bring it, if they do, they'll lose anyway,
6 Wraithknights, 78% of an 1850 Army that gives 12 shots per turn. 1440pts not spent on Objective Secured Wave Serpents. I'm not seeing the problem.
My point is, there are tons of possibilities of spamming crazy units, but how many are actually going to be effective armies? How many are going to beat Objective Secured Wave Serpents?
If not allowing two full Detachments, allowing self Allying for Supplements is not a bad compromise.
Well, that is an odd argument, don't you think? You simultaneously say that the overpowered shooting phase is a problem, but then use it as an example of why we should not limit the psychic phase. Doesn't that seem like an at least slightly hypocritical argument?
But, we do limit the shooting phase. We use a LOT of LoS blocking terrain at our events to force the game to be about maneuver. It just isn't as obvious of a change. Every choice we make for policy is meant to make the game more fair fore more people. That may not be obvious or you may disagree, but that is our motivation.
@Leth
Last edition, we found the 2+ reroll save within 3 days of the edition dropping. We decided to wait and see how it would pan out and ended up seeing it become entrenched. It became MUCH more difficult to change that rule after players got used to using it and didn't want to change. I wish we would have trusted our instincts and took action immediately, then.
Now, we see another similar situation and don't want to sit on our hands until we're neck deep in another problem that kills the fun for a lot of players, watching more and more players quit 40K, because that is what is happening. Every month, we lost players to other games with more balanced rules.
I would rather make a mistake being overly conservative now, and then change it back later than let something in now and then see it become normal when we could have easily changed it and made the game more fun for more people in the early stages.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @zagman
You may not care, which is fine, but most players do. Most people do not want to play against those lists. You are free to disagree. However, not a single TO I have talked to has said they were ever considering 2 primary detachments.
And if you think OS Wave Serpents are bad (which I agree) imagine having access to twice as many. It's silly.
Its a little on the conservative side but the unbound seems to be a shoe in. They appear to be on the fence about LoW as well. They mentioned invisibility on a guard blob. That would be disgusting.
gigasnail wrote: what? seems pretty clear they're not using unbound to me:
"Thus, we are
unlikely to use Unbound (aka, basically the
same as Apocalypse) in our GT, Invitational, or
Narrative Events."
said they were pretty sold on a 2 source army, allowing double CAD, CAD/ally, CAD/formation
I needed a comma in there. As a whole they seem to be threading lightly but obviously acknowledge that there are problems with the edition. I think a general acceptance with that fact is what is needed. We can start making changes... Once we accept that there is a problem.
I would imagine so. This would in fact be the traditional way to deal with something you can't see. Can't see it? just blast the whole area. That's exactly how I'd imagine most battlefield commanders would deal with something like that.
I would imagine so. This would in fact be the traditional way to deal with something you can't see. Can't see it? just blast the whole area. That's exactly how I'd imagine most battlefield commanders would deal with something like that.
Even without the change wyverns and other blast weapons that can re-roll to hit could theoretically target something nearby and hope for a scatter onto the models in question. The only restriction is you cant target them.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Sorry, but what sort of tournament costs 10 grand to run? Seems like a vast exaggeration to me.
The total risk for the LVO 2014 was about $50,000 when we calculated everything. 2015 Is significantly more than that. The first BAO, with no hotel rooms, borrowed terrain, etc. was about $10K. We had quotes for venues in the Bay Area that cost over $10K a DAY to rent. That doesn't even include the other commitments you have, that is just the room rental. It costs a lot more than most people think.
As for some of the ideas here, I agree with a lot of them.
GW isn't allowing unbound in their tournament which I think says a lot.
I think a baseline that everyone can agree to for tournaments as below would be pretty easy:
No unbound
1 Primary detachment
1 Other detachment (ally or formation)
Tournament missions (as we have always done)
That resolves a lot of the craziness of 7th ed. From there you can stick to the book if you want. I think some further limitations will make events more fun for everyone, though. For us we are 99% likely to do the following:
Limit the 2+ reroll save to 2+/4+ as we have been doing
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
Limit invisibility in some way. It's flat out too good.
Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.
Limit certain Lords of War if we decide to allow them. I like LoW personally and enjoy having them. The changes to D weapons were positive, IMO, but some models that can remove multiple units form play at a time are a bit much like the Sonic Lance Rev, Tranny C'Tan, Hellhammer, etc. I think those could very easily kill the fun for other players.
That is as we see it here, the main issues to address.
Good to see people discussing it!
Dear sweet jesus Reece. I love you man and I know GT's are expensive to run but you don't feel like this is over the top?
Let's start with the force org restrictions. If you're going to limit it to 2 sources you need allow double force org. Since it's an actual rule for the way things work and you'd be destroying legal armies from last edition that are still legal this edition it seems silly to not go this route. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Combined Arms and Ally only restrictions massively favor the armies with BB's.
-The 2++ reroll being dominant is gone. Basic mission design (i.e. not including KP's in every mission) will eliminate this. Everything scoring and Objective Secured troops and transports mean this that Seer Council is done. Especially under double force org.
-Why would you limit the psychic phase? It actually hurts slowing down Eldar to limit it. 20 powers will only cast 5 level 1 powers with anything like the consistency of 6th but with an massively increased risk and with them being deniable. Do you know how many points that costs? I could get that many powers in 6th for 265pts (Coteaz & Tiggy). That would cost even GK's 712pts now (assuming double force org, more for single force org) or Daemons 776pts. To cast 5 level 1 powers like back in 6th. Could I feasibly cast more? Sure. On average am I likely to? Nope. Even if I roll 2 dice each I'm only looking at 7.5 powers a turn on level 1 spells. And I think you're missing Redbeard's point. People pay for psychic powers like people pay for the shooting phase. So why limit one and not the other? Basically it's a bias against the new system and edition.
-Inivisibility is fine. We've already discussed how the seer council is dead. And now I can stop it. Unless you limit dice..
-Summoning is fine. See above.
-On LoW I'm on the fence. The Hellstorm templates are nasty but I also like the idea of LoW now. But I'm all for saying no on this one if people like it.
Couldn't we play 7th edition? Not a blend of 5th and 6th? Just my thoughts.
Reecius wrote:One creative solution I heard was to allow Unbound but to screen the lists for a more laid back style event. So, if it is a thematic unbound list, cool, if not, no. That could work although you will almost certainly run into issues when you reject a list someone else thinks is fluffy and you do not.
For us, it is easier to simply say no. An army of all named Characters or something could be a lot of fun but not in the context of flying to an event to have fair games. I think unbound is great in a club where players come to the table expecting the same thing.
Fairy nuff. I guess if you limit to one CAD then the difference between unbound /battleforged becomes much lower - as NOVA correctly says, there is very little real difference between the two otherwise.
When I said limit the psychic phase, I meant limiting the extremes of it. I think the psychic phase works great on it's own, but when you abuse the mechanics of it to max out warp charge it gets stupid. Fantasy caps magic does for just that reason and I am actually surprised that GW didn't do it with 40K.
Try a game against a 40 WP list, it is nutty. You have to keep track of so much stuff each turn it gets confusing as hell and it takes ages.
How many armies can 'abuse' the psychic phase? Tzeentch Daemons and Grey Knights, which have always been presented as psyker heavy armies both on the table and in the fluff. Anything other than those armies is capped at around 15 warp charges. Is it that bad that the armies presented as the supreme psykers actually do well in the psychic phase - especially if, sans summoning, a Tzeentch army would need ~40 WC to put out a decent 'shooting' phase with Flickering Fire? (and that less powerful, more risky and more easily dispelled than last edition?). A 20 WC army (~700pts of Tzeentch Horrors and Heralds) will on average manage to cast 2 WC3 powers and suffer one perils per psychic phase. That doesn't seem broken to me by any stretch....
I'm planning to run a daemon summoning army this weekend, I'll see how I go. I doubt it will be much slower than my Tau gunline.
I haven't played fantasy in many years... is the cap on power dice in the rulebook or in tournaments, and what is the cap usually set at?
As for keeping track of who is playing slow, that is REALLY difficult to do in 40K. On paper it sounds easy, but in effect it is super hard to do as there is no objective way to measure it without using chess clocks or something like that. People are often not aware that they play slowly, and when it happens there's no way to turn back the clock.
Perhaps it is more difficult for an event as large as yours. At the smaller (~32 player) tournaments we tend to have here, we have flags showing what turn number you're on so the TO can see across the hall how people are going; and if players aren't progressing smoothly (eg, finishing turn 2 towards the 1 hr mark out of 2.5) the TO starts keeping track of specific people.
Reecius wrote:@Red Beard
Well, that is an odd argument, don't you think? You simultaneously say that the overpowered shooting phase is a problem, but then use it as an example of why we should not limit the psychic phase. Doesn't that seem like an at least slightly hypocritical argument?
Isn't that what you just did before? Use an example of the shooting phase that you don't limit, as a reason why we should limit the psychic phase?
It is the same thing that sucks about [...] Tau blast weapons that can't miss, and ignore armor and cover. It causes one player to not participate in what is happening. You can limit half the psychic powers by using LOS blocking terrain, or even just craters to hamper summoning, if you consider LOS blocking terrain to limit shooting.
Considering that there are natively armies that have absolutely no participation in the psychic phase anyway (Tau, Dark Eldar, Necrons) it doesn't seem like a game-breakingly 'ruining the fun' deal to me that an army with 1-2 mastery levels can be blocked by the two deliberately psyker heavy armies.
If you're worried about a ~6 WC army being shut down by a ~30 WC army, then may I suggest a limit in the number of dice used to dispel (eg, X times the number of dice/successes rolled by the opponent).
Reecius wrote: An army of all named Characters or something could be a lot of fun but not in the context of flying to an event to have fair games.
You're right, but I think if you are going to fly to an event with a list that is so unlikely to win (or even be competitive most of the time) then that's your choice to make, we don't need to ban a whole section of the game just to protect people from themselves.
Reecius wrote: Because in that instance you end up with 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknight lists. I don't think most players want to see that on the table.
But why not? The battle-forged scoring bonus is going to make that a rather suicidal list. Without any support elements those MCs aren't all that great, and with such a huge disadvantage in scoring objectives they're probably not going to do well. I think the panic over these lists is more of a reflex "one Riptide is bad, what if people bring nothing but Riptides" response, not a serious analysis of the situation that has discovered a game-breaking balance problem. And I certainly don't think that they're going to be any scarier than going up against a good battle-forged tournament list. So at this point the question becomes "should we ban unbound armies to satisfy the people who reflexively decided that they're overpowered and refuse to think about it anymore".
Reecius wrote: And if you think OS Wave Serpents are bad (which I agree) imagine having access to twice as many. It's silly.
Are there really that many lists that run out of FOC slots for Wave Serpents before they run out of points to bring them? I guess an unlimited number of FOC slots might let you take them as transports for cheaper troops units instead of having to resort to more expensive units from other slots, but I can't imagine lists bringing twice as many. And that's assuming you also ban allies/formations/etc and restrict it to a single FOC, without that restriction there's no way you're doubling your transport count just because you remove the FOC limits.
Redbeard wrote: You're looking at this through the lens of past editions. The psychic phase is now a thing. Some armies may not be able to win the psychic phase and that's alright. Daemons cannot win the shooting phase, with only a handful of models that traditionally shoot. Tau may never win the assault phase.
But there are three issues here:
1) There are no codices that can't participate in the other three phases. Some of them aren't so great at all three phases, but at least they have something. With the psychic phase, on the other hand, there are entire codices that have literally no chance of participating. Tau, Necrons and DE can never do more than their laughably ineffective D6 deny dice.
2) There's no real middle ground. With the other phases you have a whole range between "not very good at it" and "best in the game at it". Even most melee-focused armies can still bring some shooting, and an "average" army has a balanced amount of it. Meanwhile the best shooting armies aren't complete out of proportion to everyone else (and if/when they get there it's considered a major balance issue that needs to be fixed). That doesn't happen with the psychic phase. An army with no psykers doesn't participate at all (at least in any meaningful way), while an army with a librarian as an HQ or a similar small psychic element can only hope to do anything against similar low/no-psyker armies. Then on the other end of the scale you have armies with effectively unlimited warp charge that cast whatever they want and shut down everything their opponent tries to cast. And there's no middle ground between the two, either you're average/weak at it, or you dominate the phase so much that there's no point in your opponent even being there for it.
3) There's no denial. With the other three phases if you have an ability you get to use it. Units always get to move, guns always get to shoot, and assault units always get to charge (or move into position to set up a charge). Things that deny those actions are extremely rare, and so you can always count on being able to use your army even if it doesn't always produce the best possible results. The psychic phase is the exact opposite, if you run into a psychic-heavy army you might as well not even attempt to cast or deny powers. Anything you invested in psykers is just wasted points, and the best thing you can do with them is put them out in front of the unit so they absorb a wound or two that would otherwise go to a more useful model (like a guardsman with a lasgun).
The combination of these three factors produces an all-or-nothing environment where you either don't participate in the psychic phase at all and don't even consider bringing psyker units, or you bring an army that dominates the psychic phase and laughs at your opponent's attempts to participate. Until/unless you limit the the mass-psyker armies you might as well remove librarians/IG psyker squads/etc from the codex.
Last edition, we found the 2+ reroll save within 3 days of the edition dropping. We decided to wait and see how it would pan out and ended up seeing it become entrenched. It became MUCH more difficult to change that rule after players got used to using it and didn't want to change. I wish we would have trusted our instincts and took action immediately, then.
Now, we see another similar situation and don't want to sit on our hands until we're neck deep in another problem that kills the fun for a lot of players, watching more and more players quit 40K, because that is what is happening. Every month, we lost players to other games with more balanced rules.
I would rather make a mistake being overly conservative now, and then change it back later than let something in now and then see it become normal when we could have easily changed it and made the game more fun for more people in the early stages.
While I agree that the 2+ re-roll was a problem, as you saw at your event, changing it to 2+/4+ didnt change the fact that the army won. The problem was never the 2+ re-roll/death star 40k the problem was in the missions. Once you change and resolve the missions I think a lot of the problems are solved without changing the core rules of the game.
Leth wrote: While I agree that the 2+ re-roll was a problem, as you saw at your event, changing it to 2+/4+ didnt change the fact that the army won. The problem was never the 2+ re-roll/death star 40k the problem was in the missions. Once you change and resolve the missions I think a lot of the problems are solved without changing the core rules of the game.
Except even if the 2++ army doesn't win the whole tournament it's still incredibly frustrating to play against, to the point that I'd probably just concede defeat and go get lunch instead of even bothering to deploy my army against it. That alone is a problem that needs to be fixed. If nerfing it to a 2+/4+ doesn't fix it then nerf the save even more.
I'd like to emphasise two ideas from earlier in the thread, because I thought they were pretty good.
1. Invisibility. Enemies that target the unit are BS1. State that this set modifier always comes last, and cannot be modified in any way (including things like Marker Lights). Enemies that hit the unit in CC need 6's. This is different than being WS1, which would just make enemies hit on 5s most of the time (except for models like Kharn, whose WS is never taken into account when he hits).
2. Warp Charge. Each Faction of your army has its own WC pool, that only that Faction may draw from. This could be even further restricted by limiting it to Detachments.
Perhaps to boost the power of the non-Psyker armies, you could give a Detachment with no Psykers its own d6WC to DtW. For example, a Tau Primary CAD would get the same d6 the opponent rolled that Psychic Phase, as normal; and its Necron Allied Detachment would also get a d6 for DtW.
Limit the 2+ reroll save to 2+/4+ as we have been doing
2++ invo rerolls against shooting attacks are going to be less commonplace and less of a problem now, but 2++ cover rerolls against shooting attacks, 2+ armor rerolls in close combat, and 2++ invo rerolls in CC are now a dime a dozen thanks to shrouded Tzeentch deamons, adding Yarrik and priests to space marine units, nemesis force staffs + priests, and sanctuary + priests. IMO 7th ed needs your house rule of 2+ 4 more than 6th ed did.
Limit the psychic phase in some way. We're looking at a lot of options.
Limit summoning in some way. The psychic phase changes may fix it, but it as is is both too powerful and takes too dang long to play.
When I said limit the psychic phase, I meant limiting the extremes of it. I think the psychic phase works great on it's own, but when you abuse the mechanics of it to max out warp charge it gets stupid. Fantasy caps magic does for just that reason and I am actually surprised that GW didn't do it with 40K.
I think a limit on Conjurations is likely, too, as well as a limit to psyker spam armies that can totally shut down the psychic phase of other armies.
I don't think conjuration is broken nor do I think full blown deamon factory is competitive, but only time and playtesting can tell. For now it's time to agree to disagree, wait for more playtesting, and keep an open mind.
The +1 power/dispel dice per mastery level is a terribly written rule and broken mechanic. My 2 cents.
Dispel pool can not be under 1/2 of the power dice. 36 power dice=minimum dispel pool is 18.
Dispel pool can not double the power dice. 9 power dice = maximum 18 power dispel dice.
Add to perils result #1 "If the leadership test is passed 1/2 of all remaining power and dispel dice are immediately lost."
I think that should be sufficient to balance out the 30 psyker level lists with the guy that only brings a single lvl3 psyker.
Summoned deamons should follow the allies matrix instead of being counted as part of it's summoning unit's CAD. Come the APOC allies should keep objectives to themselves and contest both players for it. That would kill 2 birds with 1 stone dealing both with Eldar deamon summoning lists and discouraging 99% of players from taking come the apoc allies.
Because in that instance you end up with 6 Riptides and 6 Wraithknight lists. I don't think most players want to see that on the table.
And if you think OS Wave Serpents are bad (which I agree) imagine having access to twice as many. It's silly.
6 riptides took a serious hit with 7th ed and IMO is longer OP. 6 wraith knights is way to expensive to be competitive. Wave serpents are also not going to be a problem because the maximum # that can fit into a 1,750 is 8 +40 dire avengers which can be done with the 2 extra troop slots from an allied detachment. I think the real problems are going to be inexpensive units that are really good like 6 annihilation barges (540 points) or 6 soul grinders (840 to 900 points depending on the mark).
The big problems with double CAD come from spamming HS and FA options, which can be solved by altering big guns and scouring. After 2 HS/FA are completely destroyed ie both halves of a combat squad and/or the squad + dedicated transport then any future HS/FA become worth 2 VP per unit destroyed. After 4 units are completely destroyed then any future HS/FA become worth 3 VP per unit. That would add a serious level of risk to spamming a HS/FA option in 1 out of 3 missions.
One creative solution I heard was to allow Unbound but to screen the lists for a more laid back style event
I say try unbound for beerhammer, and all it takes is 1 simple house rule to keep the cholesterol level of unbound lists under control. Players roll off before deployment, whoever wins decides if they want to play their own army or use their opponent's army. A player can build Frankenstein's monster, but would then suffer a 50/50 chance that the monster would turn on him.
I would rather make a mistake being overly conservative now, and then change it back later than let something in now and then see it become normal when we could have easily changed it and made the game more fun for more people in the early stages.
Last edition, we found the 2+ reroll save within 3 days of the edition dropping. We decided to wait and see how it would pan out and ended up seeing it become entrenched. It became MUCH more difficult to change that rule after players got used to using it and didn't want to change. I wish we would have trusted our instincts and took action immediately, then.
not a single TO I have talked to has said they were ever considering 2 primary detachments.
I would rather be over conservative says the man placing $50,000 worth of risk to host the LVO. Every other TO that you are talking to is thinking with the same financial risk in mind. You guys are by your nature a cautious group (or timid depending on perspective) when it comes to gambling with your livelihood. The only thing you're going to get from other TOs is the same thing your gut is telling you, and that is what the most cautious options are. The only way to convince you or other TOs to take a risk (Like when you allowed forge world into the BAO) is when sufficient playtesting overcomes your instincts and/or the mainstream advice from other TOs.
Leth wrote:The problem is that for many of those armies they are still investing points into everything and statistically only half of those points are going to have returns assuming no denies.
You always get to shoot, and it is almost always fixed, either BS 1 for snap shots, or your bs.
That's not true. It might sound good, but in practice, if your opponent has the same sort of numerical edge in shooting that 40-2 WC represents, you don't get to shoot. Your shooting stuff is dead. If you went first, you got to shoot once, otherwise, you didn't.
Reecius wrote:@Red Beard
Well, that is an odd argument, don't you think? You simultaneously say that the overpowered shooting phase is a problem, but then use it as an example of why we should not limit the psychic phase. Doesn't that seem like an at least slightly hypocritical argument?
How's that hypocritical? I think you're using the wrong word there. The idea that you're looking to nerf a phase when that phase isn't even the most problematic in the game - no hypocrisy there. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. I'm not saying you should nerf anything - in fact, the opposite, I'm saying you explicitly shouldn't nerf anything. BUT, if you were to go nerfing a phase, the psychic phase isn't the one I'd choose to start with.
But, we do limit the shooting phase. We use a LOT of LoS blocking terrain at our events to force the game to be about maneuver. It just isn't as obvious of a change.
How many assault armies were in the top-ten in your last event? Was this "limit" even noticed?
1) There are no codices that can't participate in the other three phases. Some of them aren't so great at all three phases, but at least they have something. With the psychic phase, on the other hand, there are entire codices that have literally no chance of participating. Tau, Necrons and DE can never do more than their laughably ineffective D6 deny dice.
2) There's no real middle ground. With the other phases you have a whole range between "not very good at it" and "best in the game at it". Even most melee-focused armies can still bring some shooting, and an "average" army has a balanced amount of it. Meanwhile the best shooting armies aren't complete out of proportion to everyone else (and if/when they get there it's considered a major balance issue that needs to be fixed). That doesn't happen with the psychic phase. An army with no psykers doesn't participate at all (at least in any meaningful way), while an army with a librarian as an HQ or a similar small psychic element can only hope to do anything against similar low/no-psyker armies. Then on the other end of the scale you have armies with effectively unlimited warp charge that cast whatever they want and shut down everything their opponent tries to cast. And there's no middle ground between the two, either you're average/weak at it, or you dominate the phase so much that there's no point in your opponent even being there for it.
3) There's no denial. With the other three phases if you have an ability you get to use it. Units always get to move, guns always get to shoot, and assault units always get to charge (or move into position to set up a charge). Things that deny those actions are extremely rare, and so you can always count on being able to use your army even if it doesn't always produce the best possible results. The psychic phase is the exact opposite, if you run into a psychic-heavy army you might as well not even attempt to cast or deny powers. Anything you invested in psykers is just wasted points, and the best thing you can do with them is put them out in front of the unit so they absorb a wound or two that would otherwise go to a more useful model (like a guardsman with a lasgun).
The combination of these three factors produces an all-or-nothing environment where you either don't participate in the psychic phase at all and don't even consider bringing psyker units, or you bring an army that dominates the psychic phase and laughs at your opponent's attempts to participate. Until/unless you limit the the mass-psyker armies you might as well remove librarians/IG psyker squads/etc from the codex.
#1 is largely untrue, many Daemon armies don't participate at all in the shooting phase beyond rolling warpstorm now that Witchfires don't occur during that phase, so you are looking at largely the equivalent of D6 dice being rolled. Sure there are some units that you could take, but you could also take allies to every codex to allow participation in the psychic phase.
#2 also false the phases range from terrible ( or not participating) to super OP, just like the psychic phase. An army with 2 Warp Charges borders on terrible with the new system, an army with say 12-18 is middle of the road powerful, and 40 might be super OP. Same as any other phase.
#3 Also false to a degree, if you have an ability you get to roll dice for it no matter what, that does not always make its use meaningful. If I run into an Imperial Knight army with and I have a bunch of bolters and Krak grenades, I have paid for abilities that I can roll for but have no meaningful use. In fact casting a psychic power on 6 dice against 40 has arguably more meaningful effect (because there is a chance something will happen, like I roll 6 successes, and you don't roll six 6s on 40 dice) vs my Bolters having no chance to do anything. It is no different. Furthermore, it also means you always as an opponent have a chance (no matter how unlikely) to counter your opponent, vs the inability for some armies to do that against shooting or assault.
In general having played some games now the psychic phase needs no real limiting IMO at the moment. If it did I think I prefer some of the other suggestions such as ( you never get less than 50% your opponents pool in dispel dice, or twice as many dispel dice as they have power dice). Perils happens often, powers fail often, and get shut down not infrequently.
I think people are really discounting how frequent perils will be in this edition. We were screwing around trying to get WC3 spells to go off with 6 dice. Perils went off (on 6's only) about 15-20% of the time. This is a dramatic change.
Also, where was all this outrage in 5th when people would take Eldrad and make it extremely dangerous to cast psychic powers? Wasn't that OP in that one model could shut down all of your psychic powers?
Honestly other than the potential abuse of extreme summoning disparity once people figure that out, and I don't know that there IS an extreme abuse possible, I don't think the psychic phase is all that big a deal.
It's poorly designed compared to how it SHOULD have been designed, which is why there's so much discussion about it, and why there are a half dozen easily made suggestions for how to improve it that people readily rally behind (b/c they are patently better, even at a first swag).
But as soon as you start getting through diverse playtesting with invisibility and others, most of the powers - even the ones made much better - aren't that big a deal compared to other broken things we've seen in 40k going back 25 or so years.
I do think it bears look at whether Summoning intensive armies are or aren't unreasonable to deal with from both a time and fun perspective. I think they have some weaknesses in terms of pursuing mission in a lot of situations, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eval'ed pretty closely.
Same time, that eval may yield a conclusion of "well they aren't a big deal." But given there is no "true" way to play 40k anymore by GW's own design, there are going to be rules changes or tweaks or exclusions in every single even pick-up game played, and we all know they aren't perfect rules designers. The point to be drawn from that is - those who are swearing up and down that summoning and psy phase are perfectly fine and that they can't possibly wrong are as inexperienced and unproven in the claim as those who are swearing the psychic phase is just the worst thing ever and unplayable without changes.
Game's been out less than 2 weeks. So far I've felt the psychic phase leaves a ton to be desired from a design and smooth mechanics point of view. That said, I haven't yet seen it being game-breaking or unplayable. There's a difference. If you want a game that has near-flawless mechanics design, play Malifaux. If you want a game with thousands of peers who play it almost anywhere you go and a huge, rich, decades-old background story development and sweet models and an enormous community of both tournament-minded and pick-up-game-minded players ... well, you really should still be playing 40k regardless of their continued implementation of poorly-stresstested new rules ideas.
Also, if you stop talking about the psychic phase for a moment, the game is pretty substantially improved on a lot of levels. The scoring change alone instantly destroyed Jetbike seer councils and other units, which were invincible already (so why do we care that they are a different form of invincible anyway?), rendering those armies no longer capable of playing and completing missions in the fashion they did. Implementation of modified Maelstrom or the Asymmetrical Mission Catalog further boofs that sorta stuff, and largely does the same for dealing with summoning spam.
Long story short, the focus probably should start on how armies are constructed to minimize craziness and/or at least give people clear expectations ... I'm sure we'll all figure out if anything is too absurd sooner than later, and I will give some serious support to Reece in saying if anything truly is just awful, it's better to deal with it now than in a year.
But I don't know there's anything that needs dealing with yet.
Hey Mike. Quick question re two source. Are you going to consider Stronghold Assault (ie fortifications) as a 'source' or will any fortifications just be part of that detachment, so to speak?
Also along those lines, I thought I'd point out to all that there is a difference between a two source list and a two detachment list, even without the inclusion of fortifications and LoW. A single source Combined Arms detachment can only contain units drawn from one codex. A regular CAD can draw from multiple codexes, as long as they are all from the same faction. So a CSM Primary detachment can (by RAW) contain units from any CSM supplement, limited only by the Force Org chart. Or the Tau/Farsight issue someone mentioned a page or so back.
That would be hilarious! Iron Hand Dreads, Salamander assault squads w/flamers, Imperial Fist Devastators, White Scar Commander, Tiggy, all without allies....
Don't have my book on me though so I'm not 100% that holds up but it's something I have to check at home now
A lot of folks are making that counter-argument. However, I don't think it holds water.
For one, if I have more shooting than you, that doesn't mean almost all of my shots hit and none of yours do. However, if I have 40+ WC and you have 2, I will get almost all of the powers I want off, and you will get none. See the difference? It really isn't the same comparison. It negates the phase for one player. It is the same thing that sucks about 2+ reroll saves, or Tau blast weapons that can't miss, and ignore armor and cover. It causes one player to not participate in what is happening.
That is not fun.
So if someone brings a single ML2 Psyker to a game or tournament they should expect to have close to the same impact on the Psychic phase as a player that brought enough Psykers to hit 40 WC? I'd suggest that if you bring a single Librarian (or whatever) to a game that you get what you deserve. If you've only brought a single ML2 Psyker to a game you're really not 'participating' in the psychic phase anyway with your one (maybe two) spell that you'll be able to cast with your available power dice.
It is almost exactly like facing a flyer-heavy army with no AA. Or a tank-heavy army with no anti-tank. Some games you'll play a non-psychic army and you'll get to cast your one or two spells that you have enough WC to muster. Sometimes you'll fight Daemons or Eldar and not get a single cast off. That's the game. I think the Tau comparisons are spot on personally. They don't get to 'participate' in the assault phase do they? Should we nerf all assault even more so that they don't feel left out? Should everyone get a trophy?
If you start limiting things that you don't like, you can't just stop there. You have to take a look at the whole game and tone down the other abuses.
Reecius wrote: We're talking about a lot of creative ways to try to tone down the extremes while still letting players have fun with their army and not feel limited. It is not easy to do.
The new editing is barely a week old, I think some time should be allowed so see what the extremes are before making ill-advised changes.
Hulksmash wrote: That would be hilarious! Iron Hand Dreads, Salamander assault squads w/flamers, Imperial Fist Devastators, White Scar Commander, Tiggy, all without allies....
Don't have my book on me though so I'm not 100% that holds up but it's something I have to check at home now
I think the SMFAQ basically makes some of that impossible, but I think Don's logic holds up accurately that separate supplements can no longer be directly allied to as we know, but can now be included within. That's actually kinda neat.
Also, the rule I think we're all looking at now (and look, I don't have any formal rulings yet, though we're all pretty close to trying to work together on this stuff) is 2 detachments ... so rather than being source-centric, it would just be oriented toward following the BRB descriptions and regs about what a detachment is.
Hulk:
Based on their example detachments on pages 120 and 122, Restrictions, All units chosen must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).
From Factions on page 118:
In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codexs it is a supplement of.
To prevent it would be fairly simple, just make sure that you list (and advertise!) Restrictions as single source, ie codex or supplement, plus fortifications and/or Lords of War (if allowing either/both).
As for the ruling you're looking at I'm ok with it. Glad to see 2 combined arms being considered as i think it helps the game a lot more than hurts it.
I assume you guys going to go through Stronghold Assault and nominate what's legal and what isn't? Because now that fortifications are only there it's something that'll need to be clarified.
As for the ruling you're looking at I'm ok with it. Glad to see 2 combined arms being considered as i think it helps the game a lot more than hurts it.
I assume you guys going to go through Stronghold Assault and nominate what's legal and what isn't? Because now that fortifications are only there it's something that'll need to be clarified.
Yeah - I think all / most TOs are on the same page about how to build armies, how there's a need to clarify terrain rules, etc. etc. I think like the community at large, there's a wide range of opinions on changing rules like psy powers and such, so I think those types of changes are likely to end up being TO specific or slower to develop. Long and short, the "well we just need to figure out how you can actually use gak" rules are the ones that will be very shortly publicized and released and decided upon and all that by varying folks. Not sure of course.
I still like the idea of allowing all armies to ally with themselves, instead of going with 2 combined arms detachments.
Double FOC has always been restricted to high point levels to keep away spam of cheap effective units (or at least, to limit it to the 6 troops slots available or the like).
Allying with yourself allows for 3 HQ and 8 troops slots versus 4 HQ and 12 troops slots with two detachments.
Hulk showed the numbers for 12 scoring psybacks with psykers inside for around 800 points (plus HQ costs which bring it closer to 1K) a few pages back. I can just see the pendulum swinging all the way back towards the parking lots of 5th edition... plus, running out of time to actually get games in with all those cheap units.
Allying with yourself seems like an elegant, easy solution that also fixes the issues with the armies that are invalidated otherwise (like Farsight), unless I'm missing something...
How many assault armies were in the top-ten in your last event? Was this "limit" even noticed?
Ironically, assault armies have been dominating the last few tournaments, both the LVO and Adepticon. Other than the occasional White Scars army (ok, 1 White Scars army), you're seeing in the Top 10 beaststars, seer councils and FMC daemons mainly.
Actually, it isn't even the Assault armies that are dominating. What is really dominating the tournament scene are the mobile armies.
RiTides wrote: I still like the idea of allowing all armies to ally with themselves, instead of going with 2 combined arms detachments.
Double FOC has always been restricted to high point levels to keep away spam of cheap effective units (or at least, to limit it to the 6 troops slots available or the like).
Allying with yourself allows for 3 HQ and 8 troops slots versus 4 HQ and 12 troops slots with two detachments.
Hulk showed the numbers for 12 scoring psybacks with psykers inside for around 800 points (plus HQ costs which bring it closer to 1K) a few pages back. I can just see the pendulum swinging all the way back towards the parking lots of 5th edition... plus, running out of time to actually get games in with all those cheap units.
Allying with yourself seems like an elegant, easy solution that also fixes the issues with the armies that are invalidated otherwise (like Farsight), unless I'm missing something...
I'm all for this. I'd prefer 1 ally (even if it's allying with yourself) or formation over 2 CAD's.
If there are two CAD's then there is no need for Self Allying.
@Ritides
And if the pendulum shifts to parking lots (it won't, they aren't good enough) then it's still more fun than deathstar hammer. At least stuff is blowing up since the drawback to parking lots before was you had to make them explode and you could glance/pen a rhino 500 times and never kill it. Now it only takes 3 successful glance/pens at most.
The most undercosted units like psyback acolyte squads and annihilation barges are already able to reach saturation. Barges took a hit on the Jink rule and on the fact that people in 7th should be bringing more AP2/AP1 ranged weapons for vehicles. 36 TL-St6 AP4 psyback shots hasn't broken the game yet and won't in the future. It's a lot of scoring but it's flimsy scoring.
Honest question to those that are against basically 1 more HQ, 4 more troops, and 2 more of each other slot. What armies are you guys worried about showing up?
yeah, everyone calling for across the baord nerfs to the already nerfed psychic phase is totally out of whack...
maybe I think its unfair that you can "stack" as many shooting guys as you want, 300+ shooting attacks a turn is "unfair"
instead, each unit should generate one shooting charge, that gives you a dice to roll, and on a 4+ you get to shoot, 1-3, no shooting for you. after that, still roll to hit.
oh, and we are capping it at 12, because "fairness", and marker lights, well be back rolls, are a "crutch buffs" thats unfair, you only get max 12 rolls for those now too, and your opponent gets d6 dice to dispell your RP or marker light rolls.
think that is rediculous?
hey, thats how horrors have to shoot... thats how gk's entire army has to buff itself...
seriously... there is nothing in the p phase beyond invisability that needs fixing
fix 2++'s, fix invis, agree to us a pts limit, and how many detachments (two CADS or one CAD + allied, or allow ally with self all seem fine)
but do NOT nerf an already nerfed P phase just because its new, and you dont understand how BAD it just made all our pyskers that are not Uber buffed eldrads or belakors...
make specific nerfs to guys like eldrad/belakor if you feel those specific guys are too OP for 40k in a 40k where we have D weapons, apoc blasts, WS spam, flyer spam, wraithstar and super heavies in the BRB and on the table at tournaments.
If there are two CAD's then there is no need for Self Allying.
@Ritides
And if the pendulum shifts to parking lots (it won't, they aren't good enough) then it's still more fun than deathstar hammer. At least stuff is blowing up since the drawback to parking lots before was you had to make them explode and you could glance/pen a rhino 500 times and never kill it. Now it only takes 3 successful glance/pens at most.
The most undercosted units like psyback acolyte squads and annihilation barges are already able to reach saturation. Barges took a hit on the Jink rule and on the fact that people in 7th should be bringing more AP2/AP1 ranged weapons for vehicles. 36 TL-St6 AP4 psyback shots hasn't broken the game yet and won't in the future. It's a lot of scoring but it's flimsy scoring.
Honest question to those that are against basically 1 more HQ, 4 more troops, and 2 more of each other slot. What armies are you guys worried about showing up?
2 CADS would be great, but I figured it unlikely to be allowed.
If there are two CAD's then there is no need for Self Allying.
...
Honest question to those that are against basically 1 more HQ, 4 more troops, and 2 more of each other slot. What armies are you guys worried about showing up?
Snipping this quote out since I think these two parts address the same thing.
I'm not the expert on this, but it just seems too wide open to me. A quick check of the 40k army list forum for eldar found this list focused on objective securing:
No objective is safe the non-mantle 'tarch joins a 6 man unit and plows into soft targets should I need a CC kill. Knight and Walkers kill armour and possibly MCs dependent on that turns Objective. The Solitarch and Knight go for CC too. What do you think?
Maybe it will fall easily to other things, but armies that can take cheap objective secured units will vastly benefit from being able to take 12.
I.e., to make this list more extreme, just take 12 units of 3 jetbikes each (51 points apiece). That has used up 600 points of your 1850 point army. Let's say it's another 250 for two farseers with toys to lead them.
Now you have another 1000 points to spend on whatever else you'd like from all the other slots... it just seems like too much to me. Dropping the point level doesn't even help really, because you still have all the slots available for a 1500 point game.
That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.
Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.
So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.
Green is Best! wrote: I think people are really discounting how frequent perils will be in this edition. We were screwing around trying to get WC3 spells to go off with 6 dice. Perils went off (on 6's only) about 15-20% of the time. This is a dramatic change.
On 6d6, the chance success for WC3 is 65.62%; chance of Perils is 26.32%. Pretty high. On 8d6, which is what I'd roll to have a better chance of success (85.54%), the rate of Perils is now 39.52%! Yikes!
Also, where was all this outrage in 5th when people would take Eldrad and make it extremely dangerous to cast psychic powers? Wasn't that OP in that one model could shut down all of your psychic powers?
This is definitely true. As I was a newbie GK player, my brother would ALWAYS take Rues of Warding. It was very frustrating. I was glad to see that change in the new Eldar book.
How many assault armies were in the top-ten in your last event? Was this "limit" even noticed?
Ironically, assault armies have been dominating the last few tournaments, both the LVO and Adepticon. Other than the occasional White Scars army (ok, 1 White Scars army), you're seeing in the Top 10 beaststars, seer councils and FMC daemons mainly.
Actually, it isn't even the Assault armies that are dominating. What is really dominating the tournament scene are the mobile armies.
That's a fair analysis. I guess I consider a deathstar army to be a different archetype than what I'd call a traditional assault army. The ones I'm thinking about are things like World Eaters, or Green Tide or Stealer Shock or Descent of Angels type lists - an entire approach to the game that worked throughout much of 5th ed, and then disappeared as GW nerfed the hell out of assault. Deathstars can still pull off assaults, but not much else, and I'm sure someone complained about how easy it was to get FMCs into combat, because they're a casualty of the 7th update as well.
What if TO's gave additional mission VP's (potentially alot) for destroying entire dettachments? Its a way to deter players from taking too many dettachments.
maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars
now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.
instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,
where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,
so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely
easysauce wrote: maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars
now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.
instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,
where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,
so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely
yeah... makes sense
D-weapons hard-countered Deathstars. The D-nerf was a huge buff for them.
easysauce wrote: maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars
now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.
instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,
where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,
so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely
yeah... makes sense
D-weapons hard-countered Deathstars. The D-nerf was a huge buff for them.
yes, the new D weapon rules did nerf the anti death star ness of super heavies a bit, but people were frothing at the mouth about how unfair D weapons were, so no one got to use them, so GW nerfed it a bit.
but since no one was allowed to take D weapons pre nerf, that they got nerfed is not a "buff" to death stars, as now, instead of never facing D weapons/stomps ever, they will actually have to face them.
The STOMP and thunderblitz tables are still the best against INVIS death stars as they will auto hit.
and both Stomp and D weapons work well enough against ++'s (re rollable 2++ still would need a nerf along the 2++/4++ lines) and that 2++ will also be a -1 to your ++ 1/3 of the time, that 1/3 chance to back fire, and the multiple stomps/D blasts fishing for 6's gives you a *decent* chance to wipe that unit, not guaranteed, but hey, they paid a lot of pts to get that 2++ right? and we can just nerf re roll 2++ anyways.
And if the pendulum shifts to parking lots (it won't, they aren't good enough) then it's still more fun than deathstar hammer. At least stuff is blowing up since the drawback to parking lots before was you had to make them explode and you could glance/pen a rhino 500 times and never kill it. Now it only takes 3 successful glance/pens at most.
The most undercosted units like psyback acolyte squads and annihilation barges are already able to reach saturation. Barges took a hit on the Jink rule and on the fact that people in 7th should be bringing more AP2/AP1 ranged weapons for vehicles. 36 TL-St6 AP4 psyback shots hasn't broken the game yet and won't in the future. It's a lot of scoring but it's flimsy scoring.
Honest question to those that are against basically 1 more HQ, 4 more troops, and 2 more of each other slot. What armies are you guys worried about showing up?
Does a FOC benefit from a HQ effects both CAD? I play GK henchmen and IMO it should not ie Cotaez should only be able to effect the CAD that he was purchased in and each space marine CAD needs a bike captain if they want their bikes to be troops.
Right now the doomsday scenario for double CAD appears to be 6 annihilation barges or 12 henchment psybacks as troops. The later of which can be eliminated by not allowing an HQ to effect purchasing in both CAD. The doomsday scenario doesn't seem that scary. Most of the 2k double force org shenanigans we saw at the start of 6th ed had a hard counter introduced since then or just don't work as well anymore.
RiTides wrote: I.e., to make this list more extreme, just take 12 units of 3 jetbikes each (51 points apiece). That has used up 600 points of your 1850 point army. Let's say it's another 250 for two farseers with toys to lead them.
Now you have another 1000 points to spend on whatever else you'd like from all the other slots... it just seems like too much to me. Dropping the point level doesn't even help really, because you still have all the slots available for a 1500 point game.
Bikes peak somewhere between 2 to 3 units and then start to suffer diminishing returns. It's dangerous to keep them within 12" if your board edge due to their 3D6 fall back range. Objective secured bikes are not a sure fire objective grab if the eldar player gets 1st turn, 12 bikes would easily give up 1st blood, and 12 bikes would give up a lot of KP. The list is strong, but I would say 4 troop wave serpents and 8 bikes is stronger, and even that isn't the doomsday scenario that requires the banning of double CAD. Also 4 wave serpents and 4 bikes is kosher under current popular tournament house rules of go ahead and ally with yourself, and IMO going from 4 to 8 bikes is unnecessary when you already have 4 scoring wave serpents.
Hulksmash wrote: That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.
Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.
So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.
It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.
I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.
Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.
Hulksmash wrote: That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.
Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.
So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.
It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.
I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.
Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.
Just throwing this out there. The new jink rules make the 6 barge list that much better. People dont really mind snap firing a twin linked tesla weapon. I fought against 3 barges the other day and found it very hard to take them out when my opponent made some decent 4+ saves. Seeing 6 of them on the board would drive me crazy. Not many armies can take out 6 barges in the course of a game especially when half their damage results are getting ignored.
Hulksmash wrote: That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.
Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.
So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.
It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.
I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.
Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.
Just throwing this out there. The new jink rules make the 6 barge list that much better. People dont really mind snap firing a twin linked tesla weapon. I fought against 3 barges the other day and found it very hard to take them out when my opponent made some decent 4+ saves. Seeing 6 of them on the board would drive me crazy. Not many armies can take out 6 barges in the course of a game especially when half their damage results are getting ignored.
Stop telling everyone my plans for 7th edition...
I have to admit I am against double force org on pretty much every level.
greyknight12 wrote: To the question posed above, the GKFAQ states that the troop-making special rules only apply to the detachment, not the army.
I totally missed that, but am glad my instincts were correct for a change. That limits henchmen to 6 from coteaz + 3 elites from an inquisitorial detachment which can be done without double CAD.
The doomsday scenario for double CAD still seems to be 6 annihilation barges, and that doesn't seem broken OP scary.
Try to remember guys, that this isn't a fight, we're all trying to accomplish the same goals: to create fun events.
In the end, we all want to have a fun tournament/event/league night to go to, so try and keep that in mind. Just because folks may disagree on a point doesn't mean it's time for verbal combat. Some civility will go a long way to facilitating communication.
The BAO is coming up soon, we're going to be July 25th-26th, so as we do, we will poll our attendees to see what they want to do as we do not have the luxury of time. We are open minded, but having played a lot of 7th already (more I would guess a lot of folks here have had the opportunity to play yet) we have a good idea on what's happening.
Everything is going to work out fine and remember, no matter what TOs decide to do for their events, nothing is set in stone, either. If a ruling comes down either to permit or alter/ban something, if it doesn't work so well in application, it can be altered later.
As for multiple Primary Detachments, having played in Double FoC events in 6th, I can say that those events are fun on occasion, but I wouldn't want to do it as the norm. 6 Anni Barges or Ravagers or Wyverns or whatever, can be pretty brutal and fun killing for a lot of folks. While some of you reading this may think that that is no big deal (and to you, it may not be) but in general terms, most gamers do not want to play in that type of environment.
Any decisions we come to will be for what we believe to be the benefit of the largest number of gamers, not an attack on any individual players or their specific armies.
@RedBeard
Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.
@Hulk
You build cool, themed armies, you little snowflake, and that is cool. A lot of people want dual FoC or unbound to make themed lists, which is cool. But, a lot of folks will take what is already powerful in their army and crank it up to an 11.
We're already bleeding players away to other games every month in 40K. Allowing more of the crazy into mainstream play is only going to push more people away. While the hardcore guys will adjust to anything, the regular player with a "normal" 40K list is getting further margenalized in 7th ed where power combos are even more potent than they were.
You know I am a competitive as hell player myself, but I genuinely fear that if we go too far down the rabbit hole with 7th and don't show some restraint, we're going to screw ourselves. Try not to think about building a specific list, but the tournament scene in general. I think that helps put things into perspective a bit.
@thread
Also, again, GW's own tournament format is full of restrictions. I think that shows a lot about their intent.
Reecius wrote: Try to remember guys, that this isn't a fight, we're all trying to accomplish the same goals: to create fun events.
In the end, we all want to have a fun tournament/event/league night to go to, so try and keep that in mind. Just because folks may disagree on a point doesn't mean it's time for verbal combat. Some civility will go a long way to facilitating communication.
The BAO is coming up soon, we're going to be July 25th-26th, so as we do, we will poll our attendees to see what they want to do as we do not have the luxury of time. We are open minded, but having played a lot of 7th already (more I would guess a lot of folks here have had the opportunity to play yet) we have a good idea on what's happening.
Everything is going to work out fine and remember, no matter what TOs decide to do for their events, nothing is set in stone, either. If a ruling comes down either to permit or alter/ban something, if it doesn't work so well in application, it can be altered later.
As for multiple Primary Detachments, having played in Double FoC events in 6th, I can say that those events are fun on occasion, but I wouldn't want to do it as the norm. 6 Anni Barges or Ravagers or Wyverns or whatever, can be pretty brutal and fun killing for a lot of folks. While some of you reading this may think that that is no big deal (and to you, it may not be) but in general terms, most gamers do not want to play in that type of environment.
Any decisions we come to will be for what we believe to be the benefit of the largest number of gamers, not an attack on any individual players or their specific armies.
@RedBeard
Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.
@Hulk
You build cool, themed armies, you little snowflake, and that is cool. A lot of people want dual FoC or unbound to make themed lists, which is cool. But, a lot of folks will take what is already powerful in their army and crank it up to an 11.
We're already bleeding players away to other games every month in 40K. Allowing more of the crazy into mainstream play is only going to push more people away. While the hardcore guys will adjust to anything, the regular player with a "normal" 40K list is getting further margenalized in 7th ed where power combos are even more potent than they were.
You know I am a competitive as hell player myself, but I genuinely fear that if we go too far down the rabbit hole with 7th and don't show some restraint, we're going to screw ourselves. Try not to think about building a specific list, but the tournament scene in general. I think that helps put things into perspective a bit.
@thread
Also, again, GW's own tournament format is full of restrictions. I think that shows a lot about their intent.
There are a lot of good points in that post. I am one of those players Reece is referencing, I have more or less dropped out of tournaments and 40k in general. Through no fault of Reece the LVO really showed me just how much 40k felt like a chore not a game. I played buffmander Tau/SM then buffmander Tau/Necrons (for Imhotep night fight shenanigans) then IG/sm thudd gun/saber/TFC spam with an iron hands bike master all day one. My last game my opponent literally said, if I seize I win, he seized and killed half my army easy by the end of turn 1. I won the first two games, but neither game was fun, the third game was not only a terrible loss but zero fun to play.
It really is important for TOs to keep the player base, not just the top dogs, in mind when figuring this out. GW clearly has no interest in helping us out on this front. I haven't posted seriously in this thread because I no longer consider myself a real tournament player and will bow out now that I have said my peace. Just keep in mind, while you may not agree with the final decisions of FrontlineGaming they are the only TOs who go over and above the call to make sure the game is what their constituents want. That is a lot of work and I for one will always appreciate and respect that.
I guess my issue with that statement though is that we aren't also addressing those lists(other than Tau sm because Gw addressed it). So it is ok for those armies to exist, and be unfun to play against, or get blown away, but we need to stop deathstars, or summoning armies, or just psykers in general. At some point If we want to comp we might as well do it across the board because as you point out their is a lot of stuff that is unfun to play against, but people limit it to things like deathstars when talking comp.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Reece, so they limit FOC which most people are in favor of but not psykers, they don't change invisibility etc.
I'm not saying you are definitely wrong about stuff, but I feel strongly that as I said above we target somethings players don't like, but not all of them, and as is evidenced above, even with restrictions at LVO people still found games un-fun.
Summoning is a really interesting issue. While broken for some armies, it's ok with others. Really weird issue.
So far, we agreed on:
a) You are able to ally with yourself or a valid non-CtA ally. No second detachment from your own army (unless allying), not allowed to ally with CtA under any circumstances.
b) Invisibility is changed back to grant Stealth and Shrouded.
c) CCBs cannot join any other units.
Lots of other stuff is being playtested right now. In regards to the 2++ issue, so far, every non-armor save with a re-roll ability gets a 4+ re-roll. So you first get your 2++, but if it fails, it becomes a 4+ re-roll instead of another 2++. Maybe changing it to a 5+, depends on how this works.
PD / DD are likely to be capped in some sort, the most likely solution so far is not allowing generated PD to be shared among Psykers. Another very likely change is that summons cannot summon anything themselves.
Very interesting and productive debate though. Looking forward to the first playtest results =)
Work and custody arrangements with darth X are going to stop me from going to BAO this year so I'm in sad panda mode.
I found something in the tactics section to cheer me up.
GK inquisitors with a null rod can not be affected in any way by psychic powers, so the entire unit which probably also has bs10 versus a psyker gets to totally ignore invisivility.
The same doesn't work for codex inquisition. Different wording their null rod only says they can't be the target of a psychic power.
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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
You must be reading a different thread my friend. Things that seem to be in universal agreement from the above:
-No Unbound
-Lord of War (event by event)
-Fortifications need clarification
-Maelstrom Missions in current format are not for tourney play.
The rest is either you pushing your idea of 40k (the no CtA allies) or it's still being discussed by major TO's such as which detachments they want (some are leaning toward just two detachments period for ease of wording and consistancy with 7th edition rules). Also some people are leaning toward invisibility not being as broken as it's being touted. Unless you restrict warp charges in which case it becomes much nastier since it eliminates a contending major counter.
@Reece
While I respect you as a TO and player I just feel like making the decisions on the force org before seeing a 7th edition codex is a bad move. I also feel that changing the essential way the games plays period is a bad call. For Fantasy it took them a year or two before they put limitations on the magic phase (which functions completely differently than 40k anyway). Why are we looking to do it in less than 3 weeks?
What you're suggesting as a limiter keeps the status quo regarding how armies are built and played. And that status quo is, as you put it, bleeding players to other games currently. So why are you trying to maintain it?
Also, I honestly don't consider myself a "competitive" player anymore. I grew up in the both sides of the table are supposed to have fun school of 40k. So I do my best to make sure my opponent is playing the game too. I was one of the people pushing hard for a change on the 2++ issue because I saw it as unfun for people to play against. I could beat it but it wasn't fun for me and it's likely less fun for others that can't. I'm of the opinion that 7th's basic rules eliminate 99% of the issues of 6th. It adds one or two (mostly shooting groups) but overall it fixes almost every major issue I had with 6th, if it's allowed to be played like it's 7th.
Honestly, if you're going to change 7th this much then, god help me I agree with Phazael, I'd prefer you leave it alone and re-institute comp scores. If someone has to worry about not scoring high due to bringing an army it shifts the middle of the field more heavily away from dick lists and the top tables as well.
There, it's said. I equate the knee jerk reactions currently being discussed for "fixing" 7th with COMP!
Love you guys and remember, the internet has no tone. Please go back and re-read in Alvin the Chipmunks voice
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
You must be reading a different thread my friend. Things that seem to be in universal agreement from the above:
-No Unbound
-Lord of War (event by event)
-Fortifications need clarification
-Maelstrom Missions in current format are not for tourney play.
The rest is either you pushing your idea of 40k (the no CtA allies) or it's still being discussed by major TO's such as which detachments they want (some are leaning toward just two detachments period for ease of wording and consistancy with 7th edition rules). Also some people are leaning toward invisibility not being as broken as it's being touted. Unless you restrict warp charges in which case it becomes much nastier since it eliminates a contending major counter.
@Reece
While I respect you as a TO and player I just feel like making the decisions on the force org before seeing a 7th edition codex is a bad move. I also feel that changing the essential way the games plays period is a bad call. For Fantasy it took them a year or two before they put limitations on the magic phase (which functions completely differently than 40k anyway). Why are we looking to do it in less than 3 weeks?
What you're suggesting as a limiter keeps the status quo regarding how armies are built and played. And that status quo is, as you put it, bleeding players to other games currently. So why are you trying to maintain it?
Also, I honestly don't consider myself a "competitive" player anymore. I grew up in the both sides of the table are supposed to have fun school of 40k. So I do my best to make sure my opponent is playing the game too. I was one of the people pushing hard for a change on the 2++ issue because I saw it as unfun for people to play against. I could beat it but it wasn't fun for me and it's likely less fun for others that can't. I'm of the opinion that 7th's basic rules eliminate 99% of the issues of 6th. It adds one or two (mostly shooting groups) but overall it fixes almost every major issue I had with 6th, if it's allowed to be played like it's 7th.
Honestly, if you're going to change 7th this much then, god help me I agree with Phazael, I'd prefer you leave it alone and re-institute comp scores. If someone has to worry about not scoring high due to bringing an army it shifts the middle of the field more heavily away from dick lists and the top tables as well.
There, it's said. I equate the knee jerk reactions currently being discussed for "fixing" 7th with COMP!
Love you guys and remember, the internet has no tone. Please go back and re-read in Alvin the Chipmunks voice
I'm with Hulksmash here. I've been playing since 3rd Edition and I've now reached the point where I miss comp scores. I'm about 10 games into 7th Edition, so admittedly still a small sampling, but it includes a team tournament last weekend. The most unfun list to play there by consensus was the 1000 points of Tau allied to 1000 points of Inquisition, 2 Knights and a VSG network (I think two generators and six shields). I'd gladly go back to Army Comp scores to shift the meta back towards more balanced, TAC army builds as the norm rather than spam armies.
That said, for the local RTTs I run I'm just sticking with some simple rules for now:
-Unbound Armies are allowed with prior approval by the TO (Subjective? Yes. But I want to allow the people with cool, themed armies to play and reward people who bring battle forged armies by not having every troop choice be objective secured. Force players to make cost-benefit decisions ahead of time in army building)
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
-I'm deliberately not modifing the psychic phase. Psychic powers are nowhere near as reliable as they were before. Even Invisibility is not that bad as in the local area I'm already seeing a shift back to MSU armies. Plus, the big drawback to Invisibility is you have to commit the unit to a goal through movement and then see if its buffed. It'll usually draw 7-9 dice out of the pool to cast and Perils is much more common. I'm going to let it play out for a few months and see what the consensus will be before toying with it. But even the 18 warp charge Imperial Fist/Gray Knight army I played against was only reliably getting off 3-5 powers a turn.
-I'm going to maintain my current scoring system of battle points, painting and sportsmanship for now. Before moving to comp, what I'm going to do is shift my prize support from Best Overall, Best General, Best Army, and Best Sports to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Overall, Best Army and Best Sports. I'm no longer going to reward people who bring unpainted or partially painted armies by giving them a prize to compete for. 90% of my players put tons of time and effort into building and painting their armies. This will let me better reward the total hobbyists and not just the on the board tacticians.
Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.
I dare you to win an event with World Eaters or Mono-Khorne CSM in general. Hell, any Mono-Khorne, I'll take it!
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot
Yeah, only from a rules availability standpoint does limiting FW really come into effect anymore. There are a few units that are crazy but they have either been supplanted by codex choices or the edition change.
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
I'm not saying everyone agrees with this (Hi Hulk ) but I do think it's reasonable and that a lot of folks will. I'd certainly be much more likely to attend an event like this... although I think you need to allow armies to ally with themselves if adding these restrictions.
Looking forward to seeing what the BAO and Nova Open end up running.
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot
Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.
Well, arguing for comp is fine but imo is a slightly different approach to take. I would not be opposed, but would prefer to try some basic restrictions like those listed above first.
See, I would rather play 7th with a comp score on the score card than a worse version of 6th (for anyone not a BB with someone) without it. Which is what the above suggestions boil down to. 6th edition.
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
You must be reading a different thread my friend. Things that seem to be in universal agreement from the above:
-No Unbound
-Lord of War (event by event)
-Fortifications need clarification
-Maelstrom Missions in current format are not for tourney play.
The rest is either you pushing your idea of 40k (the no CtA allies) or it's still being discussed by major TO's such as which detachments they want (some are leaning toward just two detachments period for ease of wording and consistancy with 7th edition rules). Also some people are leaning toward invisibility not being as broken as it's being touted. Unless you restrict warp charges in which case it becomes much nastier since it eliminates a contending major counter.
@Reece
While I respect you as a TO and player I just feel like making the decisions on the force org before seeing a 7th edition codex is a bad move. I also feel that changing the essential way the games plays period is a bad call. For Fantasy it took them a year or two before they put limitations on the magic phase (which functions completely differently than 40k anyway). Why are we looking to do it in less than 3 weeks?
What you're suggesting as a limiter keeps the status quo regarding how armies are built and played. And that status quo is, as you put it, bleeding players to other games currently. So why are you trying to maintain it?
Also, I honestly don't consider myself a "competitive" player anymore. I grew up in the both sides of the table are supposed to have fun school of 40k. So I do my best to make sure my opponent is playing the game too. I was one of the people pushing hard for a change on the 2++ issue because I saw it as unfun for people to play against. I could beat it but it wasn't fun for me and it's likely less fun for others that can't. I'm of the opinion that 7th's basic rules eliminate 99% of the issues of 6th. It adds one or two (mostly shooting groups) but overall it fixes almost every major issue I had with 6th, if it's allowed to be played like it's 7th.
Honestly, if you're going to change 7th this much then, god help me I agree with Phazael, I'd prefer you leave it alone and re-institute comp scores. If someone has to worry about not scoring high due to bringing an army it shifts the middle of the field more heavily away from dick lists and the top tables as well.
There, it's said. I equate the knee jerk reactions currently being discussed for "fixing" 7th with COMP!
Love you guys and remember, the internet has no tone. Please go back and re-read in Alvin the Chipmunks voice
I'm with Hulksmash here. I've been playing since 3rd Edition and I've now reached the point where I miss comp scores. I'm about 10 games into 7th Edition, so admittedly still a small sampling, but it includes a team tournament last weekend. The most unfun list to play there by consensus was the 1000 points of Tau allied to 1000 points of Inquisition, 2 Knights and a VSG network (I think two generators and six shields). I'd gladly go back to Army Comp scores to shift the meta back towards more balanced, TAC army builds as the norm rather than spam armies.
That said, for the local RTTs I run I'm just sticking with some simple rules for now:
-Unbound Armies are allowed with prior approval by the TO (Subjective? Yes. But I want to allow the people with cool, themed armies to play and reward people who bring battle forged armies by not having every troop choice be objective secured. Force players to make cost-benefit decisions ahead of time in army building)
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
-I'm deliberately not modifing the psychic phase. Psychic powers are nowhere near as reliable as they were before. Even Invisibility is not that bad as in the local area I'm already seeing a shift back to MSU armies. Plus, the big drawback to Invisibility is you have to commit the unit to a goal through movement and then see if its buffed. It'll usually draw 7-9 dice out of the pool to cast and Perils is much more common. I'm going to let it play out for a few months and see what the consensus will be before toying with it. But even the 18 warp charge Imperial Fist/Gray Knight army I played against was only reliably getting off 3-5 powers a turn.
-I'm going to maintain my current scoring system of battle points, painting and sportsmanship for now. Before moving to comp, what I'm going to do is shift my prize support from Best Overall, Best General, Best Army, and Best Sports to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Overall, Best Army and Best Sports. I'm no longer going to reward people who bring unpainted or partially painted armies by giving them a prize to compete for. 90% of my players put tons of time and effort into building and painting their armies. This will let me better reward the total hobbyists and not just the on the board tacticians.
Both of you have an exalt! I think this is what will keep the heart and soul of 40k. Too much comp is silly but where things have gone now is just as bad if not worse.
Want to stop the hemorrhage of the player base? This is how you will do it. the louder bunch will complain plenty on forums, but they will attend no matter what. Be the voice for the rest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: Well, arguing for comp is fine but imo is a slightly different approach to take. I would not be opposed, but would prefer to try some basic restrictions like those listed above first.
This has already been attempted for 2 years. Didn't stop the loss of players at all really.
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.
I also agree this list is all good, with one exception, the "maybe" to LOW's, as we have a whole codex of super heavies now, each army having acess to one lord of war is a pretty large thing to omit, especially after the D nerf. Id rather see it as LOW allowed, with the eldar titan getting a "maybe" on a per event basis.
but as a whole that list is acceptable to a wide range of people, myself included
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot
Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.
To be fair, the Wyverns can move if they want, aren't subject to Ld tests, and don't need psychic support or orders to get Twin Linked and Ignores Cover
Spam is always an issue, but if someone would be surprised by something like Thudd Guns, they'd be a lot more upset by the Codex tank There's very few things from FW that opponents will have no experience with anymore, I think facing combinations of things from different armies would be a much bigger issue in general, and I'd imagine at this point there's probably more people familiar with FW stuff than some of the less popular codex books (e.g Sisters) at this point.
I still don't see where a "consensus" for "no CTA allies" has come from. A couple people mentioned it, seeming to assume it was fait accompli, but there have been a huge number of people disagreeing with the necessity of it. Along with a few other things, thread participants are trying to see things that just aren't there.
At some point, somebody is going to have to demonstrate a real need to ban CTA allies. At the moment, I've yet to see anybody show that it's going to cause any sort of problem that doesn't have a far worse version in the Armies of the Imperium Battle Brother Blob (tm). Like so many other things that people seem to be worried about, the CTA issue is related to basic gamer conservatism rather than any substantial need.
@PanzerLeader. Normally it is good to connect an online alias to a facr but I think you have me confused with another. I have never ean FW or thud guns in an event.
@Snow flake come the apocalypse can be adjusted by event. As well as the limits on battle forged. We just know there will be an adjustment of some sort.
From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.
I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)
Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.
Vaktathi wrote: From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.
Which means absolutely nothing for a discussion relating to "making 7th edition playable". If we are going to start limiting things due to fluff reasons, there are far more egregious combinations out there, just at Battle Brother level.
Inquisition allying with Space Wolves or Dark Angels comes to mind first...
Leth wrote: I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)
Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.
I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.
Invisibility as wc3 or back to shroud stealth is awful. The latter makes the power too similar to the new one, shrouding, while wc3 makes it far too difficult to cast. Once again. If you nerf invis so heavily, why arent we looking at fortune? 1/12 wounds (2+/4+) is still essentially unkillable and people will just flock back to seers/beasts.
And as Hulk/MVB have preached, the new objective scoring method (IMO, the defining feature of 7th), will weed out deathstars due to their inability to simply contest everything/kill off MSU scorers.
Vaktathi wrote: From a purely balance perspective, you're probably right, CTA allies are probably amongst the least problematic from a competitive/balance issue, but they also are amongst the most offensive just from a fluff/"things that should not be" sense.
Which means absolutely nothing for a discussion relating to "making 7th edition playable". If we are going to start limiting things due to fluff reasons, there are far more egregious combinations out there, just at Battle Brother level.
I don't disagree (though the SW's didn't seem to have problems with the INQ until relatively recently in 40k history), only stating why most people have issues with CTA allies.
Nevermind, someone already brought it up so I'll edit that comment out
@Tomb King
But you were trying for a baseline consensus. And you presented it like it was the way everyone in the thread was thinking while another major TO isn't totally headed that direction and others have pointed out time and again the issues and inaccuracies.
An honest look at what seems to be a consensus at this point is:
-Tactical Cards aren't going to work in their current incarnation for tournaments -Forticiations will need clarifications -2 Detachments (variable by event) -No Unbound
That's the consensus I see throughout the thread that almost anyone will get behind with the final determiner for people being how the 2 detachments are handled.
Some will want to play 7th with it being how it's ruled in the BRB. Others will want to stick with what they know and play it like 6th. I think this one will honestly hinge on how the Ork codex is formatted. If it has multiple detachment types it hinders the 1 CAD & 1 Ally and/or Formation version.
Pretending there is anything more than the above that's been broadly agreed to be reasonable by the thread is being willfully blind to what's been said back and forth.
As an aside these are the things each event will likely determine for themselves over 7th that have been brought up:
-Lords of War -Forge World Inclusion -Whether to flat out change the rules of 7th edition in relation to the psychic phase (individual powers and warp charge generation.) -Terrain (something that hasn't been discussed enough in my opinion).
Leth wrote: I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)
Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.
I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.
Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.
But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.
Leth wrote: I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)
Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.
I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.
Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.
But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.
I have seen multiple thousand sons grey knight counts as which debunks your stance. Your not giving your opponents any credit here and are just assuming cover art besides cover art.
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)
I definitely disagree with this proposal.
Changing it to Stealth-Shroud makes Marker Lights fantastic against it. Sure, ML can raise the BS of a Snap Shot, but at least I'd get a cover save against whatever is using the ML in that case.
Additionally, making it confer Stealth-Shroud makes the power essentially the same as Shrouding. If you DON'T want a cover-save power, and you're rolling on Telepathy, now there are TWO powers you hope to avoid, rather than just one.
Changing it to WS1 means that most things will hit on 5s, rather than on the RAW 6s. And if you make a WS3 unit Invisible (like Soroitas), then everyone hits you on 4s, which is definitely not the same as 6s. It should be kept as "hits on 6s."
Finally, a WC2 power needs 5d6 to get 81% pass rate. That's a lot of dice. A WC3 power, to get the same level of success, needs 8d6. That's making it ~60% harder to pass, which is a HUGE nerf, especially in combination with the nerfs you're already proposing. You're changing this from a great power, to a crappy power. That's too much of a swing.
Leth wrote: I am personally not a fan of come the apocalypse allies, mainly because it hurts parts of my brain for the potential combinations(although fluffy combinations would also be pretty cool)
Something like Grey knights being used to power daemon summoning, or Eldar being used for the same purpose.....It just hurts, hurts so bad.
I've been working on a GK/Daemon list, the basic idea is a rogue Inquisitor in league with Chaos. Almost any combination can be justified in fluff with a liberal application of 'counts as' and some creative thinking. I think Eldar summoning Daemons is a possible exception to that though. A guy at the FLGS last weekend was running three groups of 5 Spirit Seers and a couple Farseers and was summoning craploads of Daemons. I don't really care much about the fluff when I play, but even I wanted to smack him.
Thats why I said Grey Knights, not inquisition. Can totally see a rogue inquisitor doing it.
But one of my personal rules when I make a list is that if my opponents dont have a decent time because of the list then I dont bring it out to play again. I have no shortage of lists that I want to try and be competative with. No reason to make it so they dont have fun in the process. Winning is not that important to me.
I have seen multiple thousand sons grey knight counts as which debunks your stance. Your not giving your opponents any credit here and are just assuming cover art besides cover art.
I once again said grey knights. Now if someone puts the time and effort into making the army work I really don't give a damn. But we are talking about tournaments. I find it highly unlikely that the person who is going to cheese out to the max is going to put the hobbyist effort in.
If you put the effort in I will play whatever list you bring happily. Like there is a guy who is working on nurgle infested eldar. If that person started summoning daemons 100% thumbs up from me. Now would I not play someone who did grey knights next to daemons? Of course I would still play them, but I would constantly give them good natured ribbing the entire match
Madness! wrote: How about scoring "Objective Secured" points at the end of the opponent's turn. Gives players the chance to kill units off the objective.
I think most tournaments are going to stick to the alternate scoring missions that were being developed at the end of sixth which had you scoring points at the start of your turn. Nice little mix of both.
LValx wrote: If you nerf invis so heavily, why arent we looking at fortune? 1/12 wounds (2+/4+) is still essentially unkillable
This is true. If you start messing with one Psychic power, you're going to have to take an honest look at all the Psychic Powers. And Fortune is at the top of the list. I'd say it's the worst offender, far outstripping the current Invisibility. Be fair and honest, and nerf that first, please.
Tomb King wrote: 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)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play
Agreeing with this. We are still playtesting but are likely to do the (almost) exact same things for comp.
I also agree this list is all good, with one exception, the "maybe" to LOW's, as we have a whole codex of super heavies now, each army having acess to one lord of war is a pretty large thing to omit, especially after the D nerf. Id rather see it as LOW allowed, with the eldar titan getting a "maybe" on a per event basis.
but as a whole that list is acceptable to a wide range of people, myself included
I agree of course (as stated). But as Hulk fairly points out, let's leave out the words "conclusions" or "consensus"... I do think, though, that a large number of people (definitely not all- when has it ever been all?) would be fine / happy with these restrictions.
Tomb King wrote:@PanzerLeader. Normally it is good to connect an online alias to a facr but I think you have me confused with another. I have never ean FW or thud guns in an event.
@Snow flake come the apocalypse can be adjusted by event. As well as the limits on battle forged. We just know there will be an adjustment of some sort.
Entirely possible I'm confusing you with someone else. I'm thinking of Tim Gorham's army from last years Wargamescon.
-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)
Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot
Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.
To be fair, the Wyverns can move if they want, aren't subject to Ld tests, and don't need psychic support or orders to get Twin Linked and Ignores Cover
Spam is always an issue, but if someone would be surprised by something like Thudd Guns, they'd be a lot more upset by the Codex tank There's very few things from FW that opponents will have no experience with anymore, I think facing combinations of things from different armies would be a much bigger issue in general, and I'd imagine at this point there's probably more people familiar with FW stuff than some of the less popular codex books (e.g Sisters) at this point.
I disagree on the Forgeworld only because of the vastness of the books. Stock Imperial Armor stuff isn't the issue so much as units from niche books like Fall of Orpheus, Doom of Mymeara, Raid on Kastorel-Novem or The Anphelion Project. Plenty of small, nasty units in there that aren't talked about alot but have the potential to be pretty brutal.
I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.
I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.
Arcanthrites (spelling?) come to mind. T5, W3 wraiths with Stealth and a meltagun (but no ++ save to be fair). The Orc Mega Dread is pretty brutal, especially now that it takes a 7 to explode vehicles. The Eldar Hornet is annoying (AV11, HP2 fast skimmer with 2x pulse lasers. Has scout and a special rule that allows it move flatout and then snap shoot its pulse lasers. Can be bought in squadrons and its cheaper than a Typhoon).
I think something that occurs with Forgeworld is the same thing that is occurring with things like Summoning spam, and it's similar in nature to sticker shock.
People've never seen a 95 point herald suddenly turn into a 230 point lord of change, then seen it swoop halfway across the board before crapping out a squad of plague drones. Yet, that's exactly the kind of thing that's going to be happening with regularity.
They also never saw a Wave Serpent put 13 armor saves on a marine squad or one-shot a night scythe, but they got used to it. People got used to Wave Serpents more or less faster than 2+ re-rolls. Both are beatable and work-aroundable, but a giant super fast unit of 2+ cover/invul/armor type re-roll models that can hurt anything and can't be pinned is almost unprecedented in 40k history ... whereas Wave Serpents being d-bags isn't (hello 4th edition). Familiarity matters to acceptance.
The frequency with which certain things occur at the LGS level locally / regionally / nationally directly impact the readiness with which people socialize them into their understanding of the game. The more egregious and/or rare something is, the more negatively that can impact the average gamer's perception of what they come across.
Frankly, I think it's going to be pretty common to see people getting 'free' mid-game Lord of Change "upgrades" and dropping plague drone units all over the place. I think it will probably be less common to spend 3 hours in 3 turns of mass horror summoning spam. So these things will be perceived, incorporated into the standard acceptance, and played around with differently from each other.
This ties back to FW of course - frankly, there probably aren't that many issues with it, but each TO has a different prime constituency, and if the regional / local / national / international attendee combination that primarily fuels a given event is uncomfortable with FW still, they aren't likely to change their comfort level very quickly, b/c they likely never have to deal with it or become accustomed to it locally.
Some of the freakout about new crazy game mechanics is basically oriented around the fact that things are new that have never been seen or possible before, and everyone has to play with them for now, because they are mainstream components of the game. The initial kneejerking is affecting everything from TOs on down.
I think, however, on the bright side ... the game is also incredibly flexible while still being the game. When I see someone say "unlimited detachments is how 7th edition should be" or "2 CAD is how 7th should be" or "unbound is how 7th should be" or "2 detachments but only one CAD is how 7th should be" ... it's kinda hilarious ... because every one of those quotes is both right and wrong. They're wrong because there is no one way it should be ... so when you say "well unless you do this it isn't 7th," you're wrong ... sorry!
At the same time, they're all right ... b/c they're all choosing to in some way restrict or organize how 7th should be played, and the rulebook itself quite early on (I think within the first 10 pages of the rules, no?) has a line that effectively says "these are more like guidelines, get creative and do w/e the hell you want."
It's good to see so many people taking that suggestion seriously ... and maybe not so good to see the already-visible beginnings of the internet culture clash between a wide swathe of people who will adamantly start to claim that THEIR idea for how to organize 7th is "the" way the game should be played, and that someone else's idea is "just 6th all over again" or in some other way fundamentally "wrong."
Sigvatr wrote: One issue I see with FW is their extremely slow to non-existant reaction to updates.
If a book still isn't updated via a FAQ after 3 (?) weeks, that's just extremely poor work.
I don't disagree, but that's not unique to FW. To be fair, GW hasn't FAQ'd the Inquisition or Adeptus Sororitas armies at all, and the rest of their FAQ's are very barebones with massive gaps.
I can't think of any that are terribly more brutal that anything they might face out of codex books, especially that aren't required to be run as part of an FW list.
Arcanthrites (spelling?) come to mind. T5, W3 wraiths with Stealth and a meltagun (but no ++ save to be fair). The Orc Mega Dread is pretty brutal, especially now that it takes a 7 to explode vehicles. The Eldar Hornet is annoying (AV11, HP2 fast skimmer with 2x pulse lasers. Has scout and a special rule that allows it move flatout and then snap shoot its pulse lasers. Can be bought in squadrons and its cheaper than a Typhoon).
IIRC equipping a Hornet with dual pulse lasers and no other wargear costs as much as a Leman Russ Eradicator (don't have my book on me right now though). The Acanthrites can be powerful, but I don't think they're necessarily scarier than other stuff people currently face, and IIRC their meltas are S6 (though again, I don't have my book on me). I don't recall the Mega Dread specifically so I can't comment on that .
Sigvatr wrote: One issue I see with FW is their extremely slow to non-existant reaction to updates.
If a book still isn't updated via a FAQ after 3 (?) weeks, that's just extremely poor work.
I don't disagree, but that's not unique to FW. To be fair, GW hasn't FAQ'd the Inquisition or Adeptus Sororitas armies at all, and the rest of their FAQ's are very barebones with massive gaps.
What bothers me isn't that their books are always up-to-date. 7th has been released and there hasn't been a FAQ to get the books up-to-date. That isn't a sloppy oversight, that's unacceptable.
MVBrandt wrote: They also never saw a Wave Serpent put 13 armor saves on a marine squad or one-shot a night scythe, but they got used to it. People got used to Wave Serpents more or less faster than 2+ re-rolls. Both are beatable and work-aroundable, but a giant super fast unit of 2+ cover/invul/armor type re-roll models that can hurt anything and can't be pinned is almost unprecedented in 40k history ... whereas Wave Serpents being d-bags isn't (hello 4th edition). Familiarity matters to acceptance.
For the record, I'm still not used to it (but unfortunately don't get to play 40k as much as I'd like, with my local group being primarily into Warmachine and Infinity, currently). Even with my limited play experience, I feel like Wave Serpents are more problematic than a lot of the things we're freaking out about in here...
And that is part of why I don't like the idea of 2 CADs. One limitation of serpent spam before was this:
...After Wave Serpents, Jetbikes are perhaps the best option in the Eldar codex but we've already sucked up all of our Troop slots so for the moment, we'll give them a miss.
Quoted from here in an article on running serpent spam. Now you can run objective secured serpent spam and a bunch of cheap objective secured jetbikes!
I'm not really upset about summoning, it just seems like a new kind of army, the only issue with it being whether it can finish on time (which may really be an issue). But making already super strong armies that much stronger by allowing 2 CADs is the issue I see. I.e. the often mentioned 6 Annihilation Barges, or my Serpent spam + jetbikes example above.
Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be
Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be
I had a really long response that my computer ate to Mike's post but this pretty much summed it up (not the 1 CAD part, the rest). I'm not saying you're not playing 7th if you play one CAD & 1 Ally detachment only. I'm saying you're playing 7th with 6th edition army structures
And honestly army selection is extremely unlikely to keep me from attending an event. I think simple is better and two detachments is simple. Two detachments but only one of each kind and you can ally with each other is more complicated. Not much, but more complicated and it could get worse depending on how codexes are formatted moving forward
The thing that would keep me from attending events is changing the basic rules in the phases. How movement works. How shooting works. How the Psychic phase works. Those to me are a far cry from army structure discussion. At that point, even with the caveat that you can do what you want, I don't feel like you're playing 7th edition anymore. Vs. the army list discussion where you're playing 7th, just with 6th edition army structure
Anyway, I'm sure people can poke holes in any example I give, but I'd like to be clear that I'm saying I'd like to see only 1 CAD allowed... not that that is "how 7th ought to be played" . Honestly I think very few people are saying that about any stance here. It's pretty obvious 7th ed was intended to be whatever people want it to be, in order to sell the maximum amount of models. So, we just have to sort out what we want it to be
I had a really long response that my computer ate to Mike's post but this pretty much summed it up (not the 1 CAD part, the rest). I'm not saying you're not playing 7th if you play one CAD & 1 Ally detachment only. I'm saying you're playing 7th with 6th edition army structures
And honestly army selection is extremely unlikely to keep me from attending an event. I think simple is better and two detachments is simple. Two detachments but only one of each kind and you can ally with each other is more complicated. Not much, but more complicated and it could get worse depending on how codexes are formatted moving forward
The thing that would keep me from attending events is changing the basic rules in the phases. How movement works. How shooting works. How the Psychic phase works. Those to me are a far cry from army structure discussion. At that point, even with the caveat that you can do what you want, I don't feel like you're playing 7th edition anymore. Vs. the army list discussion where you're playing 7th, just with 6th edition army structure
There is no such thing as a 7th edition army structure, was my point about that last bit. It doesn't exist. It's a myth. It only works if players agree what you're going to do and how you're going to do it, now, and the rulebook starts off saying "do whatever you want, use the rules as a baseline." It's as wrong to say "7th edition army structure is 2 CAD" as it is to say "7th edition army structure is 1 CAD and 1 allied" or anything else, for that matter. It's also as right. Seriously.
I agree, and we're basically all talking about restrictions at this point (i.e. not unlimited CADs, which is also easily possible "by the book"). The question is where to apply them.
I'm also with Hulk in that army construction restrictions are the least drastic, and since as MVB points out there is no real "standard" army construction rules in 7th ed (other than to decide what you want to play with your opponent) it's great that we're having the discussion on what kind of army constructions rules we'd like to see in events.
Nevermind, someone already brought it up so I'll edit that comment out
@Tomb King
But you were trying for a baseline consensus. And you presented it like it was the way everyone in the thread was thinking while another major TO isn't totally headed that direction and others have pointed out time and again the issues and inaccuracies.
An honest look at what seems to be a consensus at this point is:
-Tactical Cards aren't going to work in their current incarnation for tournaments
-Forticiations will need clarifications
-2 Detachments (variable by event)
-No Unbound
That's the consensus I see throughout the thread that almost anyone will get behind with the final determiner for people being how the 2 detachments are handled.
Some will want to play 7th with it being how it's ruled in the BRB. Others will want to stick with what they know and play it like 6th. I think this one will honestly hinge on how the Ork codex is formatted. If it has multiple detachment types it hinders the 1 CAD & 1 Ally and/or Formation version.
Pretending there is anything more than the above that's been broadly agreed to be reasonable by the thread is being willfully blind to what's been said back and forth.
As an aside these are the things each event will likely determine for themselves over 7th that have been brought up:
-Lords of War
-Forge World Inclusion
-Whether to flat out change the rules of 7th edition in relation to the psychic phase (individual powers and warp charge generation.)
-Terrain (something that hasn't been discussed enough in my opinion).
Only thing I would add the to event by event is the CTA allies.
Also it needs to be clarified what summoned units count as. They technically don't use the allied chart as they are not allies. Your army is still battle forged and you still get objective secured etc... also do you have to roll for units within 6" etc...?
Sigh....I'm going to assume it's the written word and my inability to communicate properly.
Where, in that, did I say 7th edition army structure? I didn't. I said 6TH EDITION army structure because there was a structure to 6th. And a fair number of people are for porting it over into 7th. So you're playing 7th edition, with a 6th edition army structure. It's still 7th edition and a legal way to build an army in 7th. But it is a 6th edition army structure that you're limiting 7th too. Nothing wrong with it. I have a preference for open season I think everyone can see But like I said, it won't keep me from attending an event.
And I've now gone back and taken a look at what I wrote and I can't seem to find ever saying that you're not playing 7th if you're not playing double force org or that "it's the only way to play". I've said I feel it's closer to the idea the game was conceived for. I've said I think it's better for army building purposes for flexibility. But I've never said that's the only way to play. I've asked people to give 7th a shot as 7th but everyone of those seems to be in regards to psychic powers or changing of actual rules, not army structure.
Silly internet. Mountains to molehills and back again
@Tomb King
If you're battle forged then they get objective secured. If you are running an imperial faction and they are within 6" then you have to roll to not get stupid. They still follow the allied faction charts rules. (at least I think, I'm away from my rulebook right now )
Only thing I would add the to event by event is the CTA allies.
Also it needs to be clarified what summoned units count as. They technically don't use the allied chart as they are not allies. Your army is still battle forged and you still get objective secured etc... also do you have to roll for units within 6" etc...?
Actually the Allies Matrix is simply Faction dependent and they still have the Chaos Daemons Faction which means the Allies chart is always in play for summoned units.
What really needs to be clarified is if they get Objective Secured and there are rules debates on this topic right now.
Hulksmash wrote:
@Tomb King
If you're battle forged then they get objective secured. If you are running an imperial faction and they are within 6" then you have to roll to not get stupid. They still follow the allied faction charts rules. (at least I think, I'm away from my rulebook right now )
It is definitely not clear if they get Objective Secured. They might, but there are very strong rules arguments against it as there is no rules support for a summoned unit being added to a detachment. If they can't be added to a Detachment, they cannot be Objective Secured Scoring. And if they are, it breaks so many rules, ie Battle Forged Restrictions, Faction Restrictions etc. What happens when you Possession a Warlock into a Lord of Change in a dual Farseer list. Now you have a Detachment with 3 HQs(Now Unbound) and have different Factions in one Detachment which is expressly forbidden.
GW is going to need to FAQ/Errata this topic. But I'm confident when the nuts and bolts are examined, they are not Objective Secured Scoring, but all summoned units are merely Scoring units.
They do follow the Allies Matrix as it is Faction dependent and doesn't even require an Allies Detachment, etc to be in play.
I have to agree with Hulk on the terrain front. IMO some of the biggest issues are with the new terrain rules. Yakface pointed this out the other day in a different thread and I looked through it. I am waiting for the announcement of individual terrain piece dataslates. The new rules for forests make the do it yourself forest base with 3 trees that most tournaments use difficult to use with the current rules. They wrote the rules for and with GW terrain sets in mind. So much for forging the narrative. In the grim dark future every battle takes place in identical cities and woodlands apparently...
OverwatchCNC wrote: I have to agree with Hulk on the terrain front. IMO some of the biggest issues are with the new terrain rules. Yakface pointed this out the other day in a different thread and I looked through it. I am waiting for the announcement of individual terrain piece dataslates. The new rules for forests make the do it yourself forest base with 3 trees that most tournaments use difficult to use with the current rules. They wrote the rules for and with GW terrain sets in mind. So much for forging the narrative. In the grim dark future every battle takes place in identical cities and woodlands apparently...
Except they specifically said in the rules that you are free to make additional rules for your own pieces of terrain. In tournaments you typically clarified what each piece was with your opponent or the TO anyway so no big deal there IMO.
"Certain terrain is Area Terrain" BAMN problems solved.
I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..
I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.
You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.
The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..
We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..
However adjusting the core rules outside serious need is what throws me off.
2+ re-roll, meh, summoning, meh. Even invis I would like to see data before we limit most of these.
However I understand as tournament organizers marketing is half of the battle, and so if you take steps to limit what people perceive as a problem that might make it so they don't attend I completely understand. Also you have the bind of needing to limit somethings that while not broken would lead to people not having a good time, so things like summoning could get out of hand, and it wouldnt be fun to only get 1-2 turns in during a game.
Yet the rules have been out like 2 weeks and people are like " gotta change this".
I thnk the next couple of months will be interesting, I'mt trying to think one the next big tournament is but can't.
The best thing people could do is instead of saying " You can't use the FOC like the book" is to say" You are limited to X% of total for each HQ slot you take". It'd still allow for really intereting armies and not be stale as it is now with people severely limited by what they choose. I mean you'll always see 10 Warlock armies , it's not a nerf though because if they want to do that. They can with Combined arms, but they'll have to providetroops and it still maxes out percentage wise.
Hollismason wrote:I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..
I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.
You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.
The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..
We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..
Roger suggesting refinements and solutions makes us egotistical ass holes because you dont like our ideas.
Hollismason wrote:Yet the rules have been out like 2 weeks and people are like " gotta change this".
I thnk the next couple of months will be interesting, I'mt trying to think one the next big tournament is but can't.
The best thing people could do is instead of saying " You can't use the FOC like the book" is to say" You are limited to X% of total for each HQ slot you take". It'd still allow for really intereting armies and not be stale as it is now with people severely limited by what they choose. I mean you'll always see 10 Warlock armies , it's not a nerf though because if they want to do that. They can with Combined arms, but they'll have to providetroops and it still maxes out percentage wise.
But your idea is the perfect solution.
I am personally not a fan of percentage in fantasy and would not like to see it make an appearance in 40k. It can be balancing but some armies have to take more of a certain type of unit to be successful(Ex: Vampire counts have most of their viable units in the rare choices but can only take 1 to 2 things from their rare slot in a standard game).
I agree that terrain has taken too much of a backseat in the overall scheme of things. it's area that TO's should definitley regulate on. I'm not really thrilled with the over simplification of ruins, its a big step back.
Hollismason wrote: I think it's kind of silly to not embrace the biggest change that has happened with restrictions on Psyhics, Combined Arms, etc..
I can understand restrictions on Come the Apocalpyse and unbound but seriously saying.
You can only take X FOCs when the rules set out quiet clearly is just egotism. It's egotistical to say " I know better" without at first seeing it played.
The biggest change in the FOC has happened, Combined Arms, Battle Forged , etc..
We have literally had the same FOC for over a DECADE. it's finally changed you should embrace it and see what it brings to the tournament scene not immediately disregard it and in your own egoism say " i know what is best". Without waiting and at least seeing what it brings. If it does start breaking it sure apply restrictions but 40k was never meant as a balanced game to begin with. It'll bring more variety to the table , more interesting army choices etc..
Isn't your whole post basically "I know what's best!"?
FOC expansion has been part of 6th already. It's terrible. That's why all tournaments went to 1999+1 games or stayed at 1850 in order to avoid double FoC.
The reason is the terrible balance in 40k. A codex is good if it has 2-3 overpowered units / combinations. Guess what happens if you expand the FoC. Hint: the additional slots aren't used to bring weaker units in.
Face it, the first tournaments will be run with 6E like rules. Nothing wrong with it, people are risking money on this and will take their best chances of bringing more players.
That said, the next couple months will be crucial to define the true tournament rules. If you want to to have a place in this process then post battle reports, that's the best way to make your point.
We've come to discussing the Skyfire / Interceptor thing and it's widely considered a bad move.
The problem in 6th was that Skyfire / Interceptor was too easy to come by, mainly because of the ADL being very cheap and the Quadgun / Icarus Lascannon being cheap upgrades that were very versatile.
In 7th, it's the other extreme where Skyfire / Interceptor weapons now are too expensive as they might be a big waste of points in TAC lists.
The actual problem was cheap availability of Skyfire / Interceptor. Right now, we're discussing a few ideas.
I prefer the idea of reverting the change to Interceptor, thus it allowing Skyfire weapons to fire at ground targets at full BS, but making it an optional upgrade for the Quadgun / Icarus Lasgun that has to be purchased for points (20-30ish?). Other weapons will be checked as well yet those two weapons stand out as having been too cheap the most.
It still has enough use against a significant number of targets(skimmers, etc) that it doesnt need to be messed with at all IMO. I bring meltaguns to plan for vehicles. If they dont bring any vehicles I dont complain about meltaguns.
Dozer Blades wrote: That's hilarious you want to change even more core rules... But discuss! That's why we have forums.
Pretty much this. We don't deny any input that has seen some thought put into it, we just discuss it, think of solutions, playtest, re-evaluate etc. Skyfire / Interceptor is a more sensible issue than clearly overpowered stuff because the consequences can hardly been predicted. Yes, it might lead to more flyers (which would be bad). But it does not necessarily has to. Therefore, it's a low priority issue.
Leth wrote: No need to change the skyfire/icarus IMO.
It still has enough use against a significant number of targets(skimmers, etc) that it doesnt need to be messed with at all IMO. I bring meltaguns to plan for vehicles. If they dont bring any vehicles I dont complain about meltaguns.
Meltaguns are different, though, as they also do a great job against MC and basically anything with a good armor save or high T...or both.
I like that it's discussed, though, as it's one thing that doesn't immediately pop up as wrong such as Invisibility or Unbound.
...and on a less serious note, this might just come from a few people not liking Sentry Pylons now carrying Focussed Death Rays, annihiliating stuff left and right ;D
Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?
116th Mechanized wrote: Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?
Don't think that there's enough time for the incoming events, but could someone please playtest Maelstrom with the following rules and with properly tailored lists?
- You can discard starting hand
- TacOs 1x, 2x, 3x, 44 , 45 and 46 are scored at the end of the enemy turn
- TacOs 1x, 2x and 3x cannot be scored on the first turn of game.
- D3=2
- You can discard impossible TacOs
I think that this could be a good ruleset to allow Maelstrom missions into competitive play. It's a too important part of the rulebook to ignore completely in competitive play.
We have a straight from the rulebook tournament coming up in two weeks at my Local shop. Everyone is willing to throw there hats in the ring and see how it all pans out I will give some feedback on what it looks like and how it all boiled down afterwards.
116th Mechanized wrote: Am I understanding the 7th ed correctly in that lords of war (super-heavies) can now be taken in a standard mission FOC (now tournament legal outside apocalipse/escalation)?
7th ed basically is apocalypse. Sadly.
Depending on the Superheavy it's not that much of an issue. I ran a Baneblade in two games last night, replacing three Leman Russ tanks that I normally ran, and it basically provided identical value, being a little harder to shut down through the damage table but easier to concentrate fire on. One cryptek with the haywire gun and a round of turn 2 combat with a couple Warscythes later and it was dead.
It's bigger stuff like Heirophants and multiple D-strength pieplate tosssing titan walkers that are the problem.
On the subject of deathstars, would capping invulnerable saves at a 3++ work? There's enough ignores cover and low ap to make those types of re-rollables not as big a deal.
I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.
Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.
Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.
What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.
greyknight12 wrote: On the subject of deathstars, would capping invulnerable saves at a 3++ work? There's enough ignores cover and low ap to make those types of re-rollables not as big a deal.
I personally would be in favor of this. I always though super-solid Invul saves were something that should be very rare indeed, and not long ago at all 2+ invul saves (aside from one piece of DE wargear that broke when it failed) were purely the stuff of internet hyperbole, much less rerollable ones. Though that's just me.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.
Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.
What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.
Unbound isn't for tourneyhammer, though if you are running an event that requires list approval, it certainly wouldn't matter what you used.
Lords of War are less a problem than they were, but there are still several problem children (S10AP1 super large blast ignores cover IG tanks, the C'Tran, etc.).
Unlimited Battle Forged Detachments is interesting for some armies, and effectively the same thing as Unbound for others. This probably makes it unreasonably unfair in a tournament setting.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.
Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.
What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.
Unbound isn't for tourneyhammer, though if you are running an event that requires list approval, it certainly wouldn't matter what you used.
Lords of War are less a problem than they were, but there are still several problem children (S10AP1 super large blast ignores cover IG tanks, the C'Tran, etc.).
Unlimited Battle Forged Detachments is interesting for some armies, and effectively the same thing as Unbound for others. This probably makes it unreasonably unfair in a tournament setting.
Looks solid and you nailed most of the underlying problems that exist in 7th. They pretty much dropped a lot of the structure. An idea for terrain if its an issue and there are no rules for that piece in the 7ed then just use the 6th rules for that piece of terrain if two opponents agree to it.
I also like that you all are keeping lords of war off the table. At least for the time being. I am looking forward to seeing which armies take it this year.
As for the summoning army, sure the LOC is the best bargain to keep summoning. However, for combat power take the guys that can charge the next turn GUO or even KOS. I wouldnt be suprised to see the top army use summoning at least to a small degree in this manner. Maybe not a full own summoning army but an extra greater daemon here or there.
Dozer Blades wrote: There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.
Maybe that is where Marbo is as well...
Ghaz shouldnt be because Yarrick isn't and I feel they are both hand and hand. Yarrick literally defies death though... because he doesn't feel like it. So who knows.
Dozer Blades wrote: There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.
It would be interesting to see if as they release new books, and re do older ones, if Chapter Masters etc level characters (Dante, Abbadon, Azrael, Calgar etc) get hero'fied and jacked in points/abilities and moved into the LoW spots.
Dozer Blades wrote: There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.
I feel like a lot of the rules changes that GW are doing could potentially be to force player's hands in this way. Although that may be ascribing too much intelligence to the designers...
- Players universally disallowed D-Weapons.... until Knights show up as a bona fide codex where all models have D weapons. What's a TO to do?
- Players generally disallowed Stronghold Assault fortifications... until 7th ed removed the forts from the BRB and now players must use the SA forts.
- Players generally didn't like the double-force-org or multiple detachment/allies shenanigans... yet in 7th ed all of that is turned up to 11 in the core rules even when building battle-forged lists, let alone unbound.
- And now, players are discussing restrictions on LOW, and mysteriously Ghaz shows up as an in-codex LOW.
TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.
Trasvi wrote: TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.
Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.
Trasvi wrote: TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.
Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.
Depends. A lot of tournaments outright banned FW stuff (which is debatable), others explicitely banned the truly overpowered stuff and allowed the, mostly actually underpowered, rest.
Trasvi wrote: TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.
Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.
Depends. A lot of tournaments outright banned FW stuff (which is debatable), others explicitely banned the truly overpowered stuff and allowed the, mostly actually underpowered, rest.
Most seem to be doing a 0-1 thing or "no duplicates" or not allowing FW lists of late it seems. There's a lot of weird restrictions. For instance, the Broadside Bash in San Diego just a couple months ago had the restriction that you could only take 3 FW units, and only 2 could be the same (was also the primary reason I chose not to attend this year).
Like Peregrine said, it seems like a largely arbitrary decision, it's not like FW units are so much more powerful as to require a restriction, people are just terrified of them for some reason
If anyone gets a chance, would you look over my 7th edition updated rulespack for the Tournament I organise here in the UK, any comments and critiscm would be massively appreciated!
Eldercaveman wrote: If anyone gets a chance, would you look over my 7th edition updated rulespack for the Tournament I organise here in the UK, any comments and critiscm would be massively appreciated!
I like it, however I would remove the 30k part unless most of your attendies are going to be familiar with the rules for it.
I know I would have no idea how it works, especially if someone threw down mortarion I would be like "wwahhhhh"
For fortifications is it just the primary fortification or are add ons included as well such as the escape tunnel and ammo dump.
Also dont understand the removal of objective secured for transports, but okay.
Are you going to include spawned units for the summoned units or not(I.E portalglyph, skyblight, tervigons) or just daemons getting punished for summoning.
I would shift to battle points instead of win/l/d so that it gives you a variety of scores, but that is just my personal preference.
Leth wrote: I like it, however I would remove the 30k part unless most of your attendies are going to be familiar with the rules for it.
I know I would have no idea how it works, especially if someone threw down mortarion I would be like "wwahhhhh"
For fortifications is it just the primary fortification or are add ons included as well such as the escape tunnel and ammo dump.
Also dont understand the removal of objective secured for transports, but okay.
Are you going to include spawned units for the summoned units or not(I.E portalglyph, skyblight, tervigons) or just daemons getting punished for summoning.
I would shift to battle points instead of win/l/d so that it gives you a variety of scores, but that is just my personal preference.
The 30k part is a localised thing, and not something I'd expect to see widespread.
A fortification is allowed to take any upgrades available to it (aslong as they are modelled). Thanks for pointing this out and I will edit to suit!
The removal of objective secured on Dedicated transports, is to stop the extra abuse of Wave Serpent, Drop pod and razorback lists for scoring. They still score, but not uber score.
Spawned units are any units that aren't part of your original list. No matter the means of getting them.
Again W/L/D is a localised thing, and seems to work well round here so I'll stick with that.
While I didn't bother to read through ALL of the posts my 2 cents is that those complaining about tournaments setting up a standard for rules is such:
Don't play the tournament.
I play for fun; I go to my local game store tournaments for fun and if I win, great. If I don't, no big deal.
If you don't like the way a tournament is setup because the organizers don't like certain rules that, in their mind, are unfair/unbalanced, etc then it's you who has the problem. Make your own tournament with your own rules that allow everything if you have an issue with how others are setting up their tournaments.
OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.
Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.
LValx wrote: OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.
Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.
I think like everything else you need to build to face lots of armor to deal with serpents.
LValx wrote: OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.
Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.
Or just do what I have done and make no dedicated transport objective secure. It's a silly rule anyway. Why should a Land Raider be better at holding an objective than a unit of Devastators?
LValx wrote: OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.
Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.
Or just do what I have done and make no dedicated transport objective secure. It's a silly rule anyway. Why should a Land Raider be better at holding an objective than a unit of Devastators?
I think this is a good idea. However, I was opposed to capping Warp Charges and nerfing/banning Malefic Daemonology before letting the meta find its level. I think eventually OS will have to be removed from Dedicated Transports, but I'd like to leave it as-is for a bit to see how big of an issue it really is.
i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.
NorseSig wrote: i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.
Pretty much, I was watching a game last night and the guy had psyback spam on top of purifiers and he realized half way through that he didnt really need 24 dice, he could reliably get what he wanted off with about 16. That would open up the ability to take more things like dreadknights and purifiers which are where the serious damage are going to come from( I am seriously considering allying crowe with two 5 man units of purifiers with double psycannon.
NorseSig wrote: i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.
So you played to the mission and won while your opponent ignored his missions and lost? Sounds like skill, strategy and planning to me.
NorseSig wrote: i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.
So you played to the mission and won while your opponent ignored his missions and lost? Sounds like skill, strategy and planning to me.
Lol I wish. More like I kept getting points for things I managed to get first turn before I got crippled by poor rolls and bad moves (on my part) top of 2nd round. I am still learning so I decided to keep playing even though I was sure he was going to table me. He had several bad rolls I made several FNP rolls and just managed to win through points with only my CM left on table with 1 wound left. I had 18 points to his 7. About all I managed to do was kill his warlord Daigo. I guess I proved it was better to be lucky than good.
Eldercaveman wrote: If anyone gets a chance, would you look over my 7th edition updated rulespack for the Tournament I organise here in the UK, any comments and critiscm would be massively appreciated!
Allowing knights because they "aren't lords of war" is a really bad policy. They aren't labeled as lords of war, but they function exactly the same way as lords of war: superheavy unit type and rules, D-weapons, etc. In fact a knight is probably a much bigger threat as a lord of war than, say, a Malcador. Like the FW ban this is a case of making a decision based on whether a product has the magic "codex" label or not instead of how it functions, and that's just not a good way to do things.
Allowing lords of war but not allowing FW is a bad policy because some armies depend on their FW options. For example, Tau have an absolutely terrible unit as their only LoW choice in the Escalation and need their FW options (specifically, the railgun Tigershark) to have any hope of competing with other LoW options. Eldar have only one option, the Revenant, and you're talking about banning it, which means they need their FW tank options to have a LoW choice at all.
Banning the Stormlord because of its ability to take a ton of techpriests and repair 999999 HP per turn but not banning the Thunderhawk and Stompa (which can both do the exact same thing) is a bad rule. In fact, the Thunderhawk is probably even worse than the Stormlord because it has all the defensive upgrades of a flyer and is incredibly hard to kill with a single turn of shooting before it repairs all of its HP next turn.
Banning the Stormsword/Hellhammer seems like a reflex response to "OMG NO COVER SAVES" rather than a reasonable analysis of its rules. It's a 500 point tank that is limited to 36" range, and the 10" blast is often wasted against units that don't occupy that much space. Cover-ignoring Riptides and IG "no cover" orders are usually going to do just as much damage, if not more because they don't suffer from the same range issues.
Banning the Lord of Skulls seems like a similar reflex response. Yes, it ignores cover and kills a lot of stuff, but only at short range. And it costs 900 points. I find it hard to believe that a single hellstorm template of death, which doesn't even kill TEQs or vehicles very well, is such an effective use of half your points that it has to be banned.
Overall it's an incredibly inconsistent list, and takes away too many options. You might as well just ban lords of war and knights entirely if you're only going to allow them under such strict limits.
Allowing knights because they "aren't lords of war" is a really bad policy. They aren't labeled as lords of war, but they function exactly the same way as lords of war: superheavy unit type and rules, D-weapons, etc. In fact a knight is probably a much bigger threat as a lord of war than, say, a Malcador. Like the FW ban this is a case of making a decision based on whether a product has the magic "codex" label or not instead of how it functions, and that's just not a good way to do things.
Allowing lords of war but not allowing FW is a bad policy because some armies depend on their FW options. For example, Tau have an absolutely terrible unit as their only LoW choice in the Escalation and need their FW options (specifically, the railgun Tigershark) to have any hope of competing with other LoW options. Eldar have only one option, the Revenant, and you're talking about banning it, which means they need their FW tank options to have a LoW choice at all.
Banning the Stormlord because of its ability to take a ton of techpriests and repair 999999 HP per turn but not banning the Thunderhawk and Stompa (which can both do the exact same thing) is a bad rule. In fact, the Thunderhawk is probably even worse than the Stormlord because it has all the defensive upgrades of a flyer and is incredibly hard to kill with a single turn of shooting before it repairs all of its HP next turn.
Banning the Stormsword/Hellhammer seems like a reflex response to "OMG NO COVER SAVES" rather than a reasonable analysis of its rules. It's a 500 point tank that is limited to 36" range, and the 10" blast is often wasted against units that don't occupy that much space. Cover-ignoring Riptides and IG "no cover" orders are usually going to do just as much damage, if not more because they don't suffer from the same range issues.
Banning the Lord of Skulls seems like a similar reflex response. Yes, it ignores cover and kills a lot of stuff, but only at short range. And it costs 900 points. I find it hard to believe that a single hellstorm template of death, which doesn't even kill TEQs or vehicles very well, is such an effective use of half your points that it has to be banned.
Overall it's an incredibly inconsistent list, and takes away too many options. You might as well just ban lords of war and knights entirely if you're only going to allow them under such strict limits.
Except the stormsword can delete an IG BLOB in one turn of shooting with little you can do about it. If a stormsword played dark eldar...
Leth wrote: Same as before, they have their own detachment structure that is laid out in their book.
Not anymore, per the FAQ you just take an "Imperial Knight detachment" of 1-3 knights, as many dets as you want (in additon to or in lieu of a combined arms detachment)
Tomb King wrote: Except the stormsword can delete an IG BLOB in one turn of shooting with little you can do about it.
So can 500 points worth of Wyverns.
Wyverns arent AP1, need 3's to wound guardsman, and dont kill vehicles just as easy... point being its a model that can delete part of an army easily and that is just one turn of shooting. I have actually faced off against this vehicle... unfortunately I was tyranids at the time.
One suggestion for toning down the pyskic armies that create balance problems: Currently, one has to nullify ALL the successful warp charge rolls in order to deny. My suggestion is change this concept so that after the deny rolls are made, subtract the deny rolls from the success rolls and if there are sufficient warp charges remaining, then the power works.
For example, Bob wants to cast a Warp Charge 3 power, and throws 6 dice, getting 1,3,4,5,5,6. That's 4 successes. Tom throws 3 dice to deny, getting 2,6,6. That's 2 deny's. 4 - 2 = 2 success dice left, which is not enough to make the power succeed.
browntj007 wrote: One suggestion for toning down the pyskic armies that create balance problems: Currently, one has to nullify ALL the successful warp charge rolls in order to deny. My suggestion is change this concept so that after the deny rolls are made, subtract the deny rolls from the success rolls and if there are sufficient warp charges remaining, then the power works.
For example, Bob wants to cast a Warp Charge 3 power, and throws 6 dice, getting 1,3,4,5,5,6. That's 4 successes. Tom throws 3 dice to deny, getting 2,6,6. That's 2 deny's. 4 - 2 = 2 success dice left, which is not enough to make the power succeed.
Thoughts?
This would be a strong nerf for all Psykers / Psychic Powers as they would have to throw even more dice in order to lower the chance of being disspelled. The problem does not lie in how the Psychic Phase works, it lies in very few select powers. Some stuff is very easy to fix (Invsibility changed to give Shrouded instead), some is more difficult (summoning).
browntj007 wrote: One suggestion for toning down the pyskic armies that create balance problems: Currently, one has to nullify ALL the successful warp charge rolls in order to deny. My suggestion is change this concept so that after the deny rolls are made, subtract the deny rolls from the success rolls and if there are sufficient warp charges remaining, then the power works.
For example, Bob wants to cast a Warp Charge 3 power, and throws 6 dice, getting 1,3,4,5,5,6. That's 4 successes. Tom throws 3 dice to deny, getting 2,6,6. That's 2 deny's. 4 - 2 = 2 success dice left, which is not enough to make the power succeed.
Thoughts?
This would be a strong nerf for all Psykers / Psychic Powers as they would have to throw even more dice in order to lower the chance of being disspelled. The problem does not lie in how the Psychic Phase works, it lies in very few select powers. Some stuff is very easy to fix (Invsibility changed to give Shrouded instead), some is more difficult (summoning).
Right and by changing Invisibility to give shrouded, you've created a redundant power that is actually worse than the Shrouding power.
There are enough ways to get around invisibility that I dont think it needs to be changed right now. The biggest units you have to worry about invis on you werent going to kill anyway for the most part, and for the other ones that actually do damage(like draigowing) you can just do what you were gonna do anyway, use mobility to avoid it.
Scatter blasts on it, hit it with beams and novas, death rays, templates targetting something else, so on and so forth. I am not exactly worried about it.
browntj007 wrote: One suggestion for toning down the pyskic armies that create balance problems: Currently, one has to nullify ALL the successful warp charge rolls in order to deny. My suggestion is change this concept so that after the deny rolls are made, subtract the deny rolls from the success rolls and if there are sufficient warp charges remaining, then the power works.
For example, Bob wants to cast a Warp Charge 3 power, and throws 6 dice, getting 1,3,4,5,5,6. That's 4 successes. Tom throws 3 dice to deny, getting 2,6,6. That's 2 deny's. 4 - 2 = 2 success dice left, which is not enough to make the power succeed.
Thoughts?
This would be a strong nerf for all Psykers / Psychic Powers as they would have to throw even more dice in order to lower the chance of being disspelled. The problem does not lie in how the Psychic Phase works, it lies in very few select powers. Some stuff is very easy to fix (Invsibility changed to give Shrouded instead), some is more difficult (summoning).
Right and by changing Invisibility to give shrouded, you've created a redundant power that is actually worse than the Shrouding power.
Meant to say Shrouded / Stealth, aka 6th Invsibility.
Yet again agreed with what you say here, I dont see a issue with D weapons now, but I did before. IMO the worst thing for a player is having to remove large amounts models off the board with no possible ways to save them, so kudos for pointing out the ignoring cover low ap weapons avaliable to LOW's, most I didnt acutally know about.
browntj007 wrote: One suggestion for toning down the pyskic armies that create balance problems: Currently, one has to nullify ALL the successful warp charge rolls in order to deny. My suggestion is change this concept so that after the deny rolls are made, subtract the deny rolls from the success rolls and if there are sufficient warp charges remaining, then the power works.
For example, Bob wants to cast a Warp Charge 3 power, and throws 6 dice, getting 1,3,4,5,5,6. That's 4 successes. Tom throws 3 dice to deny, getting 2,6,6. That's 2 deny's. 4 - 2 = 2 success dice left, which is not enough to make the power succeed.
Thoughts?
This would be a strong nerf for all Psykers / Psychic Powers as they would have to throw even more dice in order to lower the chance of being disspelled. The problem does not lie in how the Psychic Phase works, it lies in very few select powers. Some stuff is very easy to fix (Invsibility changed to give Shrouded instead), some is more difficult (summoning).
Right and by changing Invisibility to give shrouded, you've created a redundant power that is actually worse than the Shrouding power.
Meant to say Shrouded / Stealth, aka 6th Invsibility.
It would still be both too similar to shrouding and worse than shrouding.
Invisibility is here to stay. It really isnt any worse than Cursed Earth/Grimoire shenanigans, Fortune, or on certain units Forewarning. You deal with invisible units the same way you deal with Fortune or invincible Screamers. Ignore them, spread your forces, etc. 7th made it much easier to combat super units by giving objective secured to troops and also allowing transports to score. Deathstars have been indirectly nerfed.
And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls. Tau/Eldar/IG/Necrons can all do it very easily. Marines can alpha strike with pods, Khan, etc. Imperial Knights can stomp them to death.... you see where I am going.
LValx wrote: And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls.
That doesn't help with blast/template weapons. And that's the real issue, the complete immunity to a whole class of weapons, not the increase in durability compared to to other defensive options (which the invisible unit may also have, but that's a separate issue).
LValx wrote: And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls.
That doesn't help with blast/template weapons. And that's the real issue, the complete immunity to a whole class of weapons, not the increase in durability compared to to other defensive options (which the invisible unit may also have, but that's a separate issue).
Flyers are immune to certain types of weapons as well...
Having a 2++ rerollable invalidates ALL weapons.
How much it increases the durability of whatever unit has it, is IMO the biggest factor when deciding whether or not to nerf it.
And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls. Tau/Eldar/IG/Necrons can all do it very easily. Marines can alpha strike with pods, Khan, etc. Imperial Knights can stomp them to death.... you see where I am going.
I, personally, don't care for Invis at all. I got a battery of Sentry Pylons with Focused Death Rays that ignore any Invis effect.
The problem is the multiplicator it offers. Re-rollabe high invulnerabe and invis? Good luck.
Therefore, our comp quickly decided to change it back into what it previously was and almost everyone appreciated the change. Surprise, the two people who didn't like it play...guess it.
And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls. Tau/Eldar/IG/Necrons can all do it very easily. Marines can alpha strike with pods, Khan, etc. Imperial Knights can stomp them to death.... you see where I am going.
I, personally, don't care for Invis at all. I got a battery of Sentry Pylons with Focused Death Rays that ignore any Invis effect.
The problem is the multiplicator it offers. Re-rollabe high invulnerabe and invis? Good luck.
Therefore, our comp quickly decided to change it back into what it previously was and almost everyone appreciated the change. Surprise, the two people who didn't like it play...guess it.
So something that was not going to die anyway was now not going to die anyway even more? hurray?
The more I read and the more I see people actually playing with invis, its really not bad. The death stars were not going to die anyway so adding invis on that just makes it easier for you to not make a bad decision.
And if you really want to kill Invisible units, find ways to get re-rolls. Tau/Eldar/IG/Necrons can all do it very easily. Marines can alpha strike with pods, Khan, etc. Imperial Knights can stomp them to death.... you see where I am going.
I, personally, don't care for Invis at all. I got a battery of Sentry Pylons with Focused Death Rays that ignore any Invis effect.
The problem is the multiplicator it offers. Re-rollabe high invulnerabe and invis? Good luck.
Therefore, our comp quickly decided to change it back into what it previously was and almost everyone appreciated the change. Surprise, the two people who didn't like it play...guess it.
Very unlikely to get both Fortune and Invis, Grimoired units with a 2++ were already indestructible.
Invis can lead to some ridiculously durable units, sure, but those existed all throughout 6th and nobody nerfed specific powers. I don't think Invisibility is good enough to warrant that treatment.
MarkyMark wrote: IMO the worst thing for a player is having to remove large amounts models off the board with no possible ways to save them, so kudos for pointing out the ignoring cover low ap weapons avaliable to LOW's, most I didnt acutally know about.
But this already happens with codex units. I think it's silly to ban an inefficient 900 point unit just because it has a big template that doesn't allow MEQs to have a save, while letting you take all the Riptides you want and bring more "wound on a 2+, no saves" firepower per point along with AP 2 and no range issues.
MarkyMark wrote: IMO the worst thing for a player is having to remove large amounts models off the board with no possible ways to save them, so kudos for pointing out the ignoring cover low ap weapons avaliable to LOW's, most I didnt acutally know about.
But this already happens with codex units. I think it's silly to ban an inefficient 900 point unit just because it has a big template that doesn't allow MEQs to have a save, while letting you take all the Riptides you want and bring more "wound on a 2+, no saves" firepower per point along with AP 2 and no range issues.
The 'problem' is that the game is unbalanced and we want to balance it, but the moment you start banning codex units no-one will talk to you. To have some semblance of legitimacy the banhammer must appear objective - on clear cut lines that target everyone equally - as opposed the targeted changes; even though it is targeted rather than sweeping changes which are needed. Escalation/Stronghold/LOW are easy targets because not many people have them or have had any real recent expectation to use them in tournaments.
Trasvi wrote: The 'problem' is that the game is unbalanced and we want to balance it, but the moment you start banning codex units no-one will talk to you.
And this is a huge problem: certain people treat "codex" like a magic word that determines legality instead of looking at how things function in the game. So FW units are banned because they don't have the magic "codex" label, but feel free to bring whatever utterly broken tournament list you want as long as it only uses codex rules. Don't take a Baneblade in your IG army because Escalation isn't a codex, but feel free to take a whole army of nothing but superheavies because the knight rules are a "codex". Until people get over this attitude 40k tournament play will continue to be a joke.
To have some semblance of legitimacy the banhammer must appear objective - on clear cut lines that target everyone equally - as opposed the targeted changes; even though it is targeted rather than sweeping changes which are needed.
Banning whole categories of rules just so that you can pretend that you aren't just targeting the specific problems is absolutely insane. Do you see WOTC doing that with MTG (a much more successful tournament game)? Of course not, if something is a problem they ban the minimum list of cards required to fix the problem. They don't ban the whole set the card comes from just so they can pretend that they weren't targeting anyone.
Escalation/Stronghold/LOW are easy targets because not many people have them or have had any real recent expectation to use them in tournaments.
And this is also a huge problem. What is legal is being determined by which things are used by the most people, not by what actually needs banning. I hate the fact that people feel entitled to vote to ban something just because they don't happen to use it in their own armies.
While I agree with you, can you suggest a way to do it that you can get a large number of players to agree with?
I mean, I can't ban Wave Serpents from a tournament even though I think they're broken. I'd literally get death threats. And if I try to start altering the points of wave serpents to make them more balanced, there will be a hundred players telling me what is/isn't the correct points, who the hell put me in charge anyway, what am I doing telling them that they can't play the big army they just spent hundreds of dollars on knowing full well the only reason they were buying those units was because they were overpowered?
The best that you can do is attempt to target specific problems via changes to core rules, but that will often have unintended knock-on effects.
40k *needs* a scalpel to fix, but the only tool that the community will let you use is a hammer.
Trasvi wrote: While I agree with you, can you suggest a way to do it that you can get a large number of players to agree with?
Tell the players to STFU and accept that these are the only tournaments that exist anymore. If that means lots of them ragequit then great, you can have much better games with the ones that are left now that all the TFGs are gone.
I mean, I can't ban Wave Serpents from a tournament even though I think they're broken. I'd literally get death threats.
If you're getting death threats because of your tournament policy then you have much bigger problems than what balance changes to make.
And if I try to start altering the points of wave serpents to make them more balanced, there will be a hundred players telling me what is/isn't the correct points, who the hell put me in charge anyway, what am I doing telling them that they can't play the big army they just spent hundreds of dollars on knowing full well the only reason they were buying those units was because they were overpowered?
So why do you feel that you're entitled to make those kind of changes to other parts of the rules? Why are you telling me that I can't play the Baneblade I just spent $150 on?
Peregrine wrote: So why do you feel that you're entitled to make those kind of changes to other parts of the rules? Why are you telling me that I can't play the Baneblade I just spent $150 on?
Yes, and if you don't like it then just STFU and accept that this is the only type of tournament that exists anymore. If that means you ragequit then great, the rest of us can have much better games with the each other now that people like you are gone.
See what I did there?
Basically, I feel justified telling minority groups of players that my tournaments don't support X rule/model because the aim of my tournaments is to raise money, and if the best way to attract more players unfortunately leaves a small set of players out, so be it.
I don't really understand what you want. Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that? I think you're definitely in the minority of players if you would.
Trasvi wrote: Basically, I feel justified telling minority groups of players that my tournaments don't support X rule/model because the aim of my tournaments is to raise money, and if the best way to attract more players unfortunately leaves a small set of players out, so be it.
Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.
Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?
No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.
Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.
Warhammer is never going to be a competitive balanced tournament game. Peregrinehammer might be. Trasvihammer might be. How many people can you get to play those games? If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?
Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?
No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.
Substitute Baneblade for Waveserpent or Transcendent C'tan or Manta or whatever else you want. The point isn't what the unit is: it is would you accept individual TO's changing points levels and weapons profiles, or would you just rage at them for banning things they don't like if their solution isn't exactly the same as your desired solution?
Trasvi wrote: If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?
Because 99% of the game is exactly the same, and because you want to use your 40k army and play a game against other 40k armies. It's certainly a lot closer to the normal game of 40k than the average tournament, where whole categories of rules are banned entirely so that the TO can pretend that they aren't targeting specific problem units/armies.
Substitute Baneblade for Waveserpent or Transcendent C'tan or Manta or whatever else you want. The point isn't what the unit is: it is would you accept individual TO's changing points levels and weapons profiles, or would you just rage at them for banning things they don't like if their solution isn't exactly the same as your desired solution?
Yes, that's exactly what they should be doing, if it is justified. The problem we have here is that things that don't have the magic "codex" label or weren't in the 5th edition FOC are assumed to be banned by default, while anything from a codex is assumed to be sacred and untouchable. Escalation is banned, FW is banned, multiple FOCs is banned, CTA allies are banned, etc. Meanwhile even blatant codex balance issues that virtually everyone agrees on are ignored. I mean, FFS, look how hard it was to convince people to accept even the smallest nerf to re-rollable 2++ saves, something that pretty much everyone agreed was overpowered and not fun to play against. It's just like the good old days of "I don't like your fluff" comp scoring, except with different comp rules.
And no, I'm not going to ragequit if someone makes Wave Serpents +10 points instead of +15 like I want. It isn't the specific solutions I hate, it's the attitude of banning whole categories of stuff that isn't even close to a balance problem while ignoring even the most obvious codex issues. As long as a TO is following my general principle of making the fewest changes necessary and making them based on how a unit functions, not which GW book it was published in, I'm not going to nitpick the fine details of it.
Trasvi wrote: If you're going to start altering rules specifically for your event at the granularity of points levels or weapon profiles, such that people need to learn Trasvihammer before they come to my events, why not just play a completely different game instead?
Because 99% of the game is exactly the same, and because you want to use your 40k army and play a game against other 40k armies. It's certainly a lot closer to the normal game of 40k than the average tournament, where whole categories of rules are banned entirely so that the TO can pretend that they aren't targeting specific problem units/armies.
Substitute Baneblade for Waveserpent or Transcendent C'tan or Manta or whatever else you want. The point isn't what the unit is: it is would you accept individual TO's changing points levels and weapons profiles, or would you just rage at them for banning things they don't like if their solution isn't exactly the same as your desired solution?
Yes, that's exactly what they should be doing, if it is justified. The problem we have here is that things that don't have the magic "codex" label or weren't in the 5th edition FOC are assumed to be banned by default, while anything from a codex is assumed to be sacred and untouchable. Escalation is banned, FW is banned, multiple FOCs is banned, CTA allies are banned, etc. Meanwhile even blatant codex balance issues that virtually everyone agrees on are ignored. I mean, FFS, look how hard it was to convince people to accept even the smallest nerf to re-rollable 2++ saves, something that pretty much everyone agreed was overpowered and not fun to play against. It's just like the good old days of "I don't like your fluff" comp scoring, except with different comp rules.
As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes. If a solution is unfeasible, it is not a valid solution. The 'if it is justified' words are a problem there too. I actually happen to think that baneblades are too powerful, yet you obviously don't. How does a TO resolve this and still maintain a good turnout of players?
So I agree with you that the meta-problem is the magic codex word; but we can't solve that problem, so we need to find a different way other than telling people to piss off and we don't need them in our tournaments.
And no, I'm not going to ragequit if someone makes Wave Serpents +10 points instead of +15 like I want. It isn't the specific solutions I hate, it's the attitude of banning whole categories of stuff that isn't even close to a balance problem while ignoring even the most obvious codex issues. As long as a TO is following my general principle of making the fewest changes necessary and making them based on how a unit functions, not which GW book it was published in, I'm not going to nitpick the fine details of it.
I think you're very much in the minority there then. I wouldn't play in tournaments that decide to increase the points cost or change the rules of my units - even though I recognise that as the problem. Why? Because most of my games are non-tournament games anyway, and I don't want to show up at the FLGS and discuss with my opponent about which upcoming tournament's set of rules and points costs he should use and why his army is suddenly illegal.
Trasvi wrote: As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes.
The problem isn't that it's hard, it's that too many TOs agree with the players. If every TO in the country decided (after careful consideration) to impose the new balance changes then the players would have a choice: either quit playing 40k in tournaments, or accept that this is just how the game works now. I can understand people with thousands of dollars in hotel fees not wanting to take that risk, but the solution can start with local TOs and smaller events. But that's not going to happen because way too many TOs genuinely think that banning FW/Escalation/etc is absolutely necessary, but everything in a codex is the sacred word of god and must never be changed.
I actually happen to think that baneblades are too powerful, yet you obviously don't.
I really don't see how. Compare what it can do to what an equivalent point value in conventional units can do. Sure, it has a big pie plate, but it dies in one turn against anti-superheavy threats like melta sternguard pods, and when it dies it can take out half your army. I'd only take a Baneblade for fluff reasons, if I just want to win I'd much rather have 500 points worth of Riptides and markerlight support for my pie plates. I've used superheavies in normal games since before Escalation, and most of the time the most useful thing it does is draw a bunch of fire away from more important units. Then once my opponents figured out how little damage a single pie plate can do when you have a good cover save they just started ignoring the superheavies, focusing on killing the rest of my army (especially scoring units), and winning games.
And, regardless of whether or not it's overpowered, the question is whether it is more overpowered than the codex units that are "indisputably" legal. I don't think there's a very convincing case for that once you've played against a Baneblade a few times.
I think you're very much in the minority there then. I wouldn't play in tournaments that decide to increase the points cost or change the rules of my units - even though I recognise that as the problem. Why? Because most of my games are non-tournament games anyway, and I don't want to show up at the FLGS and discuss with my opponent about which upcoming tournament's set of rules and points costs he should use and why his army is suddenly illegal.
But (I presume) you play in tournaments that decide to make much more significant changes to the game. How do you consider this a consistent set of standards?
I say go back to 5th ed and tweak to allow the newer codices from there. You will have the benifit of the INATFAQ and It will be easier than trying to sort out the subjective rules mess that GW has created in 6th/7th eds
Take 5th ed, change wound allocation, take cover saves back to 4th ed and add greater variety of missions with a couple of missions having a random objective that shows up 2nd to 3rd turn.
Trasvi wrote: As you say: look how hard it is to do a tiny nerf to 2++/+ saves. If it is that hard to make such a small change, it is going to be massively harder to do bigger changes.
The problem isn't that it's hard, it's that too many TOs agree with the players. If every TO in the country decided (after careful consideration) to impose the new balance changes then the players would have a choice: either quit playing 40k in tournaments, or accept that this is just how the game works now. I can understand people with thousands of dollars in hotel fees not wanting to take that risk, but the solution can start with local TOs and smaller events. But that's not going to happen because way too many TOs genuinely think that banning FW/Escalation/etc is absolutely necessary, but everything in a codex is the sacred word of god and must never be changed.
Frankly, driving players away from the hobby is not an option. I would rather continue running horribly unbalanced tournaments than have a single player have to 'suck it up and play by Trasvi's rules or quit 40k'. Or the other option is all the disgruntled players who don't like playing Trasvihammer and want to play 40k according to the rulebook start their own tournaments, o
Without a centralised authority on the rules (which is GW) no-one is going to accept changes to individual models. I agree that it is needed, but I completely disagree that it is possible.
And, regardless of whether or not it's overpowered, the question is whether it is more overpowered than the codex units that are "indisputably" legal. I don't think there's a very convincing case for that once you've played against a Baneblade a few times.
The point is that you and I disagree about whether the rules should be altered, and therefore the standard solution is to not alter the rules.
Repeat for transcendent c'tan, wave serpents, etc, etc.
But (I presume) you play in tournaments that decide to make much more significant changes to the game. How do you consider this a consistent set of standards?
Because even though it's not the right thing to do, it's a lot easier to get everyone to agree to consistent but sweeping bans (eg, no Forgeworld) or specific bans (no Transcendent C'tan/ no D Weapons) and all playing those rules by default within the local area, than to get lots of people to agree on a multitude of individual points adjustments. With 3 sentences I can describe the entirity of changes to the game that are necessary, rather than adding a 100-page tome to every player's pack of our particular rules adjustments.
And really, Escalation/Forgeworld etc are on the fringes of 40k. Not to say that they're any less officially legal, but they are less 'core' to the games. The core rules, the rulebook and the codex, should be expected to work as written out of the box it seems logical (and players accept that) the less-core rules (Allies->Supplements->Dataslates->Expansions->Forgeworld) are tweaked or require consent/agreement in some way.
Trasvi wrote: Frankly, driving players away from the hobby is not an option.
Too bad, because it's the ONLY option. The only question here is whether you drive away the players who ragequit if you dare to adjust the points/rules for a codex unit, or the players who don't bother showing up because you banned their army just so you could pretend that you're not picking on Wave Serpents.
The point is that you and I disagree about whether the rules should be altered, and therefore the standard solution is to not alter the rules.
Repeat for transcendent c'tan, wave serpents, etc, etc.
Great, so FW rules, lords of war, fortifications, unbound lists, multiple FOCs, etc, are all legal now? Or when you say "not alter the rules" do you really mean "don't alter the rules, except in the way that I think they should be altered"?
And really, Escalation/Forgeworld etc are on the fringes of 40k. Not to say that they're any less officially legal, but they are less 'core' to the games. The core rules, the rulebook and the codex, should be expected to work as written out of the box it seems logical (and players accept that) the less-core rules (Allies->Supplements->Dataslates->Expansions->Forgeworld) are tweaked or require consent/agreement in some way.
Superheavies are in the core rules. And the "less-core rules" aren't "less-core" because those are the rules GW published, they're "less-core" because certain players have declared that this is how it's going to be.
@Peregrine, I think where you fall down on this is that most of those changes aren't big changes for most people in the hobby. Most players don't own super heavies, and all players were not accustomed to fielding them in tournaments. So a tournament saying NO Escalation, despite it now being allowed, did not effect a large portion of players. Most people don't own a ton of FW models/units, or a FW army, and for a long time no tournaments really allowed FW. SO remaining this way does not effect a majority of players. Most people own standard FOC armies, so saying no unbound does not hurt a majority of players.
I'm not saying all of this makes banning them "right", but it does make it much easier than changing core rules. It also makes the "less core" to a majority of players because they are not typical of the games they play.
Furthermore you act as if all TOs would be on the same page (they aren't/won't be) and that they hold immense ammounts of power (they don't). If some how all TOs decided on the ruleset and still said FW is banned you would not be happy. And if they set up this system, as was stated you could just start your own event and then the "system" falls apart. Futhermore, if all TOs agreed on this the first one ot have an event could end up the fall guy and out a bunch of money, when people don't show up for his/her event.
As a TO players hold all the power, regardless of what I may personally feel, if I get enough push back on something, I'm going to cave because without players I don't have an event.
Breng77 wrote: @Peregrine, I think where you fall down on this is that most of those changes aren't big changes for most people in the hobby. Most players don't own super heavies, and all players were not accustomed to fielding them in tournaments. So a tournament saying NO Escalation, despite it now being allowed, did not effect a large portion of players. Most people don't own a ton of FW models/units, or a FW army, and for a long time no tournaments really allowed FW. SO remaining this way does not effect a majority of players. Most people own standard FOC armies, so saying no unbound does not hurt a majority of players.
I'm not saying all of this makes banning them "right", but it does make it much easier than changing core rules. It also makes the "less core" to a majority of players because they are not typical of the games they play.
Furthermore you act as if all TOs would be on the same page (they aren't/won't be) and that they hold immense ammounts of power (they don't). If some how all TOs decided on the ruleset and still said FW is banned you would not be happy. And if they set up this system, as was stated you could just start your own event and then the "system" falls apart. Futhermore, if all TOs agreed on this the first one ot have an event could end up the fall guy and out a bunch of money, when people don't show up for his/her event.
As a TO players hold all the power, regardless of what I may personally feel, if I get enough push back on something, I'm going to cave because without players I don't have an event.
Everyone I play with, even at my FLGS, does not want to play with LoW/Escalation/FW/Unbound. Anecdotal evidence, sure, but I have experienced the same thing as the Trasvi and Breng77. Most players aren't accustomed to a lot of the new changes and many aren't particularly interested in purchasing LoW, accessing the rules for FW, etc, etc.
FW also presents an issue because it supplies the armies that got the biggest buff in 7th (Imperials) with even more choices and flexibility. Xenos gain very little from FW, but Imperial Guard/Space Marines gain a TON. If you look at codices, each army gets about the same amount of choices. FW completely changes that. I agree that most of the choices aren't any more broken than those in the codices, but it is a case of the rich getting richer and by extension I think that hurts the armies who gain little to nothing from FW.
Invis can lead to some ridiculously durable units, sure, but those existed all throughout 6th and nobody nerfed specific powers. I don't think Invisibility is good enough to warrant that treatment.
Well, that's your personal opinion. We have more than 100 players appreciating the change - so you are happy with the basic rules, we are happy with re-balancing them. Sounds like a win to me.
Invis can lead to some ridiculously durable units, sure, but those existed all throughout 6th and nobody nerfed specific powers. I don't think Invisibility is good enough to warrant that treatment.
Well, that's your personal opinion. We have more than 100 players appreciating the change - so you are happy with the basic rules, we are happy with re-balancing them. Sounds like a win to me.
To each their own and if that is what your player base prefers, so be it. Majority rules is fine by me.
Crablezworth wrote: It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.
What exactly is the difference between vanilla 40k and Apocalypse now?
Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.
Crablezworth wrote: Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.
So it's class warfare to like big models? Seriously?
I like big models. And, yet, I'll point out the obvious - even small models are expensive, and big FW models are largely inefficient use of points.
Consider a reaver titan. 425 + 3x 54 = 587 pounds, Roughly $1000. That's a lot, sure. But he's also 1500 points. Let's say I want to play a top eldar competitive build. Offhand, 2 wraithknights, 12 jetbikes, 10 warlocks, 2 farseers, 3 waveserpents, 15 dire avengers and 3 more jetbikes. (is that 1500?? I have no idea, no army builder at work). But, it's probably not too far off and not too extreme. That'll run you $850.
You might say, "but I can buy my guys at a 20% discount" and I'll say, "I can find a used armourcast titan for $500," and now I've spent less than your 20% off.
To try and make this about money is ridiculous. All the models are expensive, and there aren't a lot of poor people playing these games at all, let alone travelling to GTs. If I choose to spend my cash on a titan, it's not because I'm an entitled wealthy collector, it's that I'm an entitled wealthy collector who chose to spend my entitled wealth differently than how you chose to spend your entitled wealth.
Crablezworth wrote: It's the old story, simply calling apocalypse 40k does not change how a majority of players envision 40k.
What exactly is the difference between vanilla 40k and Apocalypse now?
Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.
So if we're taking a cost/wealth related stance, when are we going to ban Sisters of Battle too at $80 per 10 man unit of basic infantry?
Besides, it's not hard to get superheavy models *very* cheap if one wants too (yoy-cheap...).
Crablezworth wrote: Individuals who collectively want some boundaries and limits on what is acceptable and entitled wealthy toy collectors who think everyone should adopt their free market ideology.
So it's class warfare to like big models? Seriously?
Deregulation helps some more than others. In the end it's terrible for everyone.
In my local group I have yet to see a LoW or Imperial Knight last longer than second turn with the exception to myself, and that is only because I run Iron hands bikes, techmarines, thunderfire canons, and vindicators. I end up having several serious threats that require dealing with forcing my opponent to split resources. Even then the knight isn't a big issue. Blast weapons have a degree of randomness that makes them unpredictable. I either win big or lose horribly and never because of the knight. The guy who runs 3 landraiders pretty much wins every time he plays in my group. I just don't see LoW and Imperial Knights as a problem. Every army has effective means of dismantling them in different ways. Space Marines Sternguard being the unit that comes to mind most often. And models like Imperial knights really aren't too pricey if you budget for them rather than impulse buy.
Forgeworld is never going to be accepted main stream unless they break down and print their rules in the actual armies rulebooks, which they have no intention of doing. Most tournaments are complicated enough without all these options, especially since GW themselves abandoned any pretense that their game was remotely balanced, or put any effort into balanced rules writing. I cant blame TO's one bit for wanting to keep them that much less confusing and banning things they can get away with that 98 precent of the players couldn't care less about.
If there was some way to get everyone to agree on how to internally balance the codices they would do that in a heartbeat. But since you cant nerf unit A without 100 complaints and at least a few players refusing to follow those guidelines, their hands are tied for all but the gamebreaking stuff.
The fact is GW is doing a piss poor job, and the game we all loved to play in tournaments and such just isn't there anymore, and the mess we are left with is so bad you cant do anything without upsetting one crowd or another. The day GW is forced to sell to someone else will probably be the beginning of the best era 40k has known in a lot of years.
Orock wrote: Forgeworld is never going to be accepted main stream unless they break down and print their rules in the actual armies rulebooks, which they have no intention of doing.
This isn't necessarily their decision, though many units have made the transition. Some have then moved back, back again, and back once more (the Griffon was a GW unit in 2E and 3E, then at the end of 3E was made and FW unit until 5E when it became a Codex unit again, and 6E has turned it back to an FW exclusive unit...)
Instead of limiting how many detachments there are, you outlaw duplicate detachment types.
A player may have only one CAD, only one Allied, only one Inquisition, etc. You may take as many Detachments as you like, so long as you don't duplicate.
Or perhaps, since the CAD is so fundamental, allow two CADs but no other duplicates.
Also, count Formations as a Detachment. You may bring one Skyblight, but not two, since that'd be a duplicate.
The issue with that line of thought is that it only benefits imperial armies more or less unless people run a lot of cat stuff.
Tau get 1 formation and allies
Daemons 1 formation and allies
Csm 1 formation and allies
Imperials- formation, ally, inquisition, knights, legion of the damned
Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.
To summarise we ruled it like this
No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.
This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields
Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.
And
Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+
So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.
Formosa wrote: Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.
To summarise we ruled it like this
No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.
This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields
Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.
And
Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+
So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.
Formosa wrote: Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.
To summarise we ruled it like this
No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.
This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields
Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.
And
Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+
So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.
So you rewrote de war gear the specifically gives you a 2++, and daemon wargear and rules that specifically allow re-rolling invul saves. Yes let's make shooting more powerful.....groan. Do you also re-point cost the de wargear option, or rule that they don't lose their invul on the first fail? Do I get to roll again for my greater reward if I roll "re-roll invul saves"? Are daemons of tzeentch cheaper, because they now lose most of their rules benefits?
Sorry I would never play in an event with those rules. 2+\4+. Sure but capping invul a and denying things like 5++ re-rollables.. But why can eldar re-roll 2+ armor and cover in you rules?
Sorry I should have been more specific, it was just a summary.
We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely and to be more specific just the rr for those not, and not all invuns as I stated, Max invun is capped at 3++ and no we didn't re price anything, for example a non cover ignoring serpeant shield with a shorter range and that can be destroyed as its a weapon is still very good as the serp has access to a 3+ cover save jink and thus not as powerful, we did not remove the d6+1 shots that was just a mistake I put in my first post.
And while I understand you may not play at such an event it is not aimed at the hardcore tourny players, it's aimed at the more casual gamer that wants to play such events, I of course do not know which category you fall into.
As to the person that asked about deamonology, no we have not removed that yet and are waiting and seeing how it plays out before re addressing it if it becomes and issue.
2++ still exists, but no 2+ 're roll for anything, and I know de are not op, but baron with 2++ in a jetseer council is op.
Gw should never have allowed any kind of 2+ save with 're rolls, our gamers have expressed this and so have we, so we nerfed something gw either doesn't care about or is too incompetent to deal with.
Many people posting here probably never played any significant number of matches against many of the things that are being banned, or being talked about being banned (LoW, Demonology) and definitely haven't played against them much in 7th since 7th is pretty new.
A lot of it is just knee jerk reactions based on army chair theorycrafting and that one video batrep we saw that one time, or that game over there that some guy was talking about but I never even really saw being played.
Things that people saw over and over again as a problem and many people played against (2++ rerollable saves) are obviously a problem, but some of this stuff is just people complaining without having the support of many games played by many people to back up their complaint. I think the best fix would to say the baron cannotjoin a unit that contains eldar psykers, since he is carrying runes from a farseer he murdered and all but thats just me. Another option would be to change powers/wargear/abilities that allow rerolls to function -like FnP- in that the reroll value is a set number based on the power/wargear/ability and not the units stats/armor/inv
If someone spends 900 points on a LoW unit, and the mission cards are in use, how many objectives is that player going to score a turn? Probably not much. In 1850 points thats half your army, its probably going to secure 0-2 objectives a turn based on killing. I think most armies could pick up 3 Tactical squads in rhinos for about 350 points which would probably outscore a 900 point model since most of the cards are to take objectives and not kill things.
Daemon factory armies, people have already shown as being pretty mediocre, sure they can get a lot of extra models, they can also roll slightly under average and get barely any extra models and will do 0 damage for 1-3 turns as they blow all their WC on summoning, and tzeenetch daemons which are the backbone of the daemon factory aren't doing anything else if they don't have WC left after summoning.
Formosa wrote: We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely and to be more specific just the rr for those not, and not all invuns as I stated, Max invun is capped at 3++
It's still the wrong call, on a statistical level. Let's go with Tzeentch Daemons, since I'm most familiar with them. First, I'll say that taking the Grimoire prevents a Daemon from taking lots of other cool Rewards, like 4+FNP, extra Wounds, regaining Wounds, creating new units of Lesser Daemons, or even COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. Very powerful stuff, that he tactically chooses at list-building. With the new Psychic Phase, half of the Tzeentch rule is basically useless. Yay, when I roll perils my Ld is 10 instead of 8-9. Big whoop. I'll still take a wound. So the part of the rule I've got left is re-rolls. Nerfing that means you've basically told Tzeentch to off and start a new army. Fun times for them!
***Tzeentch Special Rule let's me re-roll saves of 1. My natural save is a 5++, being a Daemon. This raises my pass rate from 6/18, to 7/18, or from 33.3% to 38.8%. ***If I get Forewarning on a Herald/LoC, I can raise that chance to 58.3%. Guess who has basically the same save, and doesn't need to risk Perils to get it? ANYONE IN RUINS COVER . ***What about if I manage to shoot the Grimoire onto someone? Well, first off, there's a 33% chance that it will penalise me instead of help me. That's a pretty huge risk. But I'll risk it, just like I take risky Deep Strikes on occasion. If I actually manage to get it off, now my save is at 77.78%. That's a pretty good invulnerable. But if we factor in the Grimoire failure rate (2/3 of the time I have a 78% save, 1/3 of the time I have a 17% save), it gets much worse: 55.1%. Guess who has that sort of save: ANYONE IN RUINS COVER . So there's a lot of variation depending on the Str of the weapons that hit you, whether you get cover, etc, etc...but a LoC with the Grimoire shot at him every turn will have, throughout the course of the game, has a slightly worse save than a LoC with Forewarning on him. He can Forewarn himself. He can't Grimoire himself. So the Grimoire is statistically a slightly worse save than Forewarning, in addition to requiring two units to utilise. ***Now...what if we combine both? It's impossible to completely calculate the complexities of this situation. Basically it requires at least two separate HQs, since Grimoire can't be used on the carrier. Then both units need to be in range of each other. (If the recipient of the Grimoire doesn't himself have Forewarning, then that's a 12" range, which is pretty crowded for FMCs) Then it needs Forewarning. (Did you know that a PML2 Psyker has only a 33% chance to roll a specific power, assuming he sticks with a single Discipline? That raises to 53% if PML3. Wow! Such great odds! ) When the Grimoire and Forewarning both succeed, that's a 97.2% save. Basically impenetrable. But again, we need to factor in the Grimoire's inherent nerf rate, which drops that down to 75.9%. Worse than a Terminator.
When you play against a Daemon with the Grimoire and Forewarning in his army, does it feel like a single god-unit actually has a worse save than a Termie? No it does not. It feels very debilitating and discouraging. (But isn't that how Daemons should make you feel? Hopeless, like the world is ending and Chaos will eat your soul? ) So, to negate these feelings, large tourneys have made the 2+/2+ into a 2+/4+. Without considering the Grimoire's nerf, that changes your rate to 91.67%. Still pretty impenetrable. Dropping that to a flat 3+? No way. Unfair. That's extreme prejudice against Daemon players. ESPECIALLY if you still allow 2+ cover saves! Why ban 2+ invulns but allow 2+ cover (gained through wargear such as Jetbikes Jinking, and special rules like Stealth/Shroud)? You're prejudiced!
I have played hundreds of games of 6th, usually 4/5 a week, ranging from super competitive to friendly, I played the same amount of 5th, 4th and 3rd, 2nd not as much.
7th is just 6th with a few minor changes, between myself and my large group of game mates we probably have 80 years combined experience in playing 40k, so if we all notice an issue AND people who come to our events take a notice to it, we address the issue.
We have no issue with most super heavies, certain things (like the c'tan, phantom etc.) we simply disallow untill gw sorts them out or we have enough consensus between us to fix them our selves.
For example due to alot of us playing 30k a hell of alot and many variations of the list, we have allowed 30k into our tourny, most would not due to incorrect assumption that it is somehow op, we however do not allow primarchs.
There are many ways to play this game and organise events around it, we want people to have fun mainly and a few armies or players trying their best to break the game or abuse it are not our target audience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rr when it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.
Our main concern is our players have fun, when the majority complain and dislike something, we do our best to accommodate them.
The slight nerf to markerlights helped the majority, this directly increased the numbers of non tau armies
The nerf to the serp and 2+ rr led to more variety in eldar armies
The nerf to 2++ rr led to more variation in the deamon armies we saw
Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rrwhen it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.
This is the part I take issue with. Not counting the manoeuvreing, psychic tests, and alpha strikes, the Grimoire has only a 66% chance of success. That's isn't great. Yet you seem to think it is pretty fantastic. And cover saves do not make your save worse 33% of the time. They're just turned on.
I'd understand a ruling that makes invulns 3+ and allows Tzeentch to re-roll 1's, per his Special Rule. (because it's a bit worse than the 2+/4+ "nerf," which doesn't really make a statistical difference). But saying 3++ is the limit, and removing the Tzeentch special rule completely...that's really just a big "F U Tzeentch" that doesn't hurt anyone else. That's a level of prejudice that I am uncomfortable with. (Although, anything you say on the internet makes someone uncomfortable/angry.)
Just to be clear on my understanding on the BAO format of "you can use any of the following sources, but the whole lot has to fit into a standard FoC's worth of slots" idea, this rules out any Formation that gives you more units of a given type than you could normally take, correct?
e.g., Deathleaper's Assassin Brood is 1x Deathleaper and 5 broods of 1 Lictor, which adds to 1 HQ choice and 5 Elites choices, and so is illegal?
Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rrwhen it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.
This is the part I take issue with. Not counting the manoeuvreing, psychic tests, and alpha strikes, the Grimoire has only a 66% chance of success. That's isn't great. Yet you seem to think it is pretty fantastic. And cover saves do not make your save worse 33% of the time. They're just turned on.
I'd understand a ruling that makes invulns 3+ and allows Tzeentch to re-roll 1's, per his Special Rule. (because it's a bit worse than the 2+/4+ "nerf," which doesn't really make a statistical difference). But saying 3++ is the limit, and removing the Tzeentch special rule completely...that's really just a big "F U Tzeentch" that doesn't hurt anyone else. That's a level of prejudice that I am uncomfortable with. (Although, anything you say on the internet makes someone uncomfortable/angry.)
You misunderstand elric, I don't care one way or the other, but people who are paying hard earned money do, and as stated if we get enough people with issues, then we try to solve it, it's basic customer service and business, if people don't like it theydd don't come and we lose ticket money (and we're small anyway).
Majority wins my good man and if the majority says it's broken and needs fixing and gw can't be arsed, then it's up to us to try.
If you said grimor caps at a 3++. You would get no large argument from me.
But saying no 2++ ever when DE have wargear that specifically gives them one, and one the lose for failing a save, is a bit much.
I can also go with no re-roll save ever being better than 4+, but saying no re-roll invuls period, invalidates rules for armies, that are not by themselve broken, and would IMO require extra rulings to account for this.
Now I'm not likely ever going to be at one of your events. Just seems to have gone to far in the fixing department, or did you really have people arguing that a 5++ with a re-roll was too powerful?
Xyptc wrote: Just to be clear on my understanding on the BAO format of "you can use any of the following sources, but the whole lot has to fit into a standard FoC's worth of slots" idea, this rules out any Formation that gives you more units of a given type than you could normally take, correct?
e.g., Deathleaper's Assassin Brood is 1x Deathleaper and 5 broods of 1 Lictor, which adds to 1 HQ choice and 5 Elites choices, and so is illegal?
If I understand correctly, you can take a Formation as your Allied Detachment slot. Only those Dataslates which add something to your CaD (Ie Be'llakor, Cypher as an HQ) Eat up slots in your Primary Detachment.
In regards to the dark eldar 2++, if someone asked if it was ok we would allow it, but not combined with any other army, again harsh I know, but it's effectively added a hell of alot more variety on our top tables, all we were seeing before was serp spam and seerstars, now we have variation.... God forbid.
And remember these are casual players from all age groups, and no offence but we don't care about power gamers hardcore tourny players, again I don't know what category any of you fall into, but if you want the hardcore game experience, were not theppeople for you.
I would rate myself competitive, but I tend not to run top lists. In fact your changes would not really effect my lists much (they might even make them stronger). It is more that on principle I disagree with rules like "NO RR-invuls ever." Why not ban re-rolling in general. No re-roll to hit, to wound, to save etc. That would be far more fair and balanced a way to go about it, than making changes that largely target a single army, and plenty of units that are not OP.
I understand wanting to curb top builds, and that is largely not my issue, my issue is that you have gone pretty far beyond that IMO.
But as I also said, even if I liked your changes I would never attend simply due to geography.
That's fine Breng and it's one of the reasons I like this forum, it gives me a soundboard to use and if I agree with anyone here I can go to my mate's and tell them.
blaktoof wrote: I think the best fix would to say the baron cannotjoin a unit that contains eldar psykers, since he is carrying runes from a farseer he murdered and all but thats just me.
Better option that makes fewer changes to the game: change the re-roll power to only work on Eldar models in the unit. So you can still put your 2++ character out in front to tank for the unit, but you won't get a re-roll.
Sarge wrote: This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?
If I had to guess, it's because they both have the Hellhammer cannon, which throws out a great big pie plate with the Ignores Cover rule (whereas a D weapon has to now roll a 6 to ignore cover).
Sarge wrote: This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?
Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.
Sarge wrote: This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?
Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.
Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.
Just play 6th Ed and cherry pick the new rules changes in 7th that actually improve the game (e.g. updated Challenges)...basically a 6.5 Ed.
IIRC D&D players did it when they ignored 4th Ed. and just kept playing 3.5. WotC acknowledged they screwed up, abandoned 4th and went back to supporting 3.5. (Not a D&D player so I might be wrong).
Glocknall wrote: Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.
First, no, it can't transport a whole army of repair models. The tanks with the STR 10 AP 1 no-cover gun have no transport capacity at all. If you want to repair it you'll have to have your vulnerable models standing around in the open where they can be killed. And with only 36" range on the main gun you're going to have to keep moving, potentially faster than the infantry repair models can move.
Second, who cares if there was only one weapon like that? Before 6th edition there were no flyers in any codex. Before 7th there were few/no psychic powers that let you create new units. Every new codex and edition adds new things, that's just part of the game. Stop clinging to 5th edition and accept this.
Finally, who cares if it deletes entire units? You know what also deletes entire units? Spending 500 points on Riptides/Wyverns/etc. In fact, the conventional units will probably be more efficient. This ban has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the unit, it's all about how scary a giant marine-killing template is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glocknall wrote: To be fair Wyverns don't do squat to vehicles, 2+ saves, etc..And they are not superheavies with 9 HP, AV14.
A Stormsword isn't going to do anything to vehicles either, at least relative to its 500 point price tag. It's a dedicated infantry killer that can be used against vehicles if there are no infantry targets to shoot at, not a viable anti-tank threat. And you can still probably beat the Stormsword by taking a mix of Wyverns and cheap IG anti-tank units with your 500 points.
Sarge wrote: This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?
Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.
Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.
No he is not. In five editions as an Eldar and Xenos player, every time something gets hit with the nerf bat or ban hammer, its entirely because of the MEQ mentality of "Only I get a 3+ save and I should always get it all the time!" permeating the entire play base. Marine butthurt drives all community whining and bannings, as well the lion share of major design decisions. Its why Star Cannons still only get two shots and cost more than regular plasma cannons, why the Medusa went away, why hamminators even exist, the source of all the skimmer nerfs over the years, and many other things. But its not too shocking since like 90% of the playerbase plays either marines or spikey marines.
But listening to MEQ players cry about things when they have stuff like the no cover whirlwinds and thunderfire crapping out tons of templates, as well as graviton gun spam rendering the bulk of MCs almost completely irrelevant (especially if you are a Nid player), just makes me more and more jaded. This giant push to try and immediately turn 7th into 6th edition "but keep the xenos nerfs and imperial allies buffs" just reinforces the feeling.
In fact, lets just rename this thread to "Making 7ed back into 6ed for tournaments, because SPASS MAREEENZZZZ!!1!!!!!"
No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.
Formosa wrote: No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.
Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.
Formosa wrote: No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.
Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.
Exactly. As someone who also has Orks, Eldar, and Imperial Guard armies, I know how vicious the humble Flamer can be. And that's the cheapest special weapon for Space Marines to get.
Formosa wrote: No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.
Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.
As I own a large chunk of each army I don't see it this way myself but I think I understand what your saying, but since marines are expensive in points and pay for these abilities, should not such counters also pay points to negate this bonus?
I'd also suggest that a large blast high str weapon such as the example given would infact be more devastating to things such as the much needed broadsides, pathfinders or wave serpents, these all rely on heavy armour and cover to be effective.
There is a huge divide between AP4 and AP3 weapons, a deliberate gulf created to reinforce that "3+" magic that causes that jump in AP to result in a bigger cost increase than any other AP jump in the game. One can look at the IG codex for a pretty stark example, gaining AP3 over AP4 is apparently enough to warrant losing the "torrent" ability and take a cost increase between the Hellhound and Banewolf. Between a Leman Russ with an AP4 cover save ignoring non-ordnance large blast weapon (allowing it to move and fire everything), takes a 30pt price increase, and loses the ignores cover ability and the benefits of Heavy to get that AP3 and a bit better AT ability.
The "3+" sv is a very "sacred" thing in the minds of many players, despite such units being notably cheaper and better equipped now than in previous editions (a 6E marine is 14pts with two ranged weapons and grenades and Chapter/Combat tactics, while a 4E marine is 15pts with one ranged weapon and no grenades or Tactics rules). To what extent it effects gameplay may be debatable, but it's definitely there, and most 4+sv infantry aren't proportionally cheaper relative to the much greater capability and availability of the AP4 weaponry out there (hence why you usually don't see many Scion units in games, Dire Avengers tend to be taken in minimum sized squads, etc with only a few units like Fire Warriors seeing routine use in large numbers).
As I own a large chunk of each army I don't see it this way myself but I think I understand what your saying, but since marines are expensive in points and pay for these abilities, should not such counters also pay points to negate this bonus?
They do. As several others in this thread have pointed out, the difference in price for any AP3 weapon and it's AP4 counterpart is significant. All of the Lord of War type units that are being banned are quite expensive too. They would be paying those points to negate that bonus.
Trasvi wrote: Basically, I feel justified telling minority groups of players that my tournaments don't support X rule/model because the aim of my tournaments is to raise money, and if the best way to attract more players unfortunately leaves a small set of players out, so be it.
Yes, and this is exactly the problem: there are a lot of people who have no interest at all in making legitimate balance changes and just want to ban the stuff they don't like, and TOs like you encourage them simply because there are lots of them. 40k is never going to be a serious competitive game until people get over this idea of banning whole categories of rules for questionable reasons and start fixing balance changes the right way.
Would you prefer that TO's say, ":Sure Peregrine, you can bring your baneblade, but its now 700pts instead.". Or, "You can bring your baneblade, but it is S8 AP4". Would you really accept that?
No, because the Baneblade is a mediocre unit that doesn't need nerfing. The only reason banning it is even being considered is that it wasn't in 5th edition.
Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.
Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.
Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.
FWIW it looks like the Trios event at NOVA will - for the singles list component - be completely Unbound.
For the Narrative Nightfighters (4 games, can be done along with the GT or other daytime activities) and Narrative Warlords (7 games, GT level event done during days and nights, super relaxed schedule) events at the NOVA, we'll be using Battle Forged Army construction with no further restrictions (at 2k).
The Narrative allows Forgeworld and Heresy, Trios allows Forgeworld.
For those who swear up and down that they'll attend a tourney if only it offered the format they wanted
The Trios is more casual in nature, while the Narrative is custom tailored to each player type, with balanced, fun missions and pairing / structural components aimed at giving competitive/hardcore-list-focused players as much freedom to participate as casual/narrative without ruining the experience for either.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.
Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.
So run your own.
This is out of the realm of possibility for most people even if they wanted to. Most people don't have the resources to put on a major event or a venue from which to host it, nor the time to organize it.
It would probably be less of an issue if rules and trends from such events didn't trickle down to local and store events, but they do. The decisions large events make often end up having an impact on people living very far from these events who would never attend them. A good example is the BAO, a couple local stores in my area often use rules from events like the BAO or NOVA rules and missions for their leagues and tournaments (or in the past used Adepticon rules), and if X wasn't allowed there, it won't be allowed in the local events.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: Peregrine, you are such a hater. If you either cannot or will not go to tournaments why are you here commenting in a tournament thread? Get out of here you troll.
Because the only reason I don't go to more tournaments is the stupid policies of the people running them.
So run your own.
This is out of the realm of possibility for most people even if they wanted to. Most people don't have the resources to put on a major event or a venue from which to host it, nor the time to organize it.
It would probably be less of an issue if rules and trends from such events didn't trickle down to local and store events, but they do. The decisions large events make often end up having an impact on people living very far from these events who would never attend them. A good example is the BAO, a couple local stores in my area often use rules from events like the BAO or NOVA rules and missions for their leagues and tournaments (or in the past used Adepticon rules), and if X wasn't allowed there, it won't be allowed in the local events.
This is largely not the case, because not every tournament needs to be the BAO or NOVA. If you wanted to run an event you would find a way. Either by running events at your local store, or renting out a small hall for the event, or working with a convention to do so. If someone wants to run their own event they can do it. The issue is most people don't want to run events, they want to play, but they want to play the way they want to play, not the way that the organizer rules.
Running an event is a major financial and labor intensive endeavor. That filters out most people from attempting them. You have to line up a venue, prize support, and the terrain, It is a HUGE undertaking. Most startup events do not want to even consider rocking the boat and therefor play monkey see monkey do,, as Vaktathi described. Reinventing the wheel takes time and not everyone has access to the large crew to test and plan rules changes or the internet celebrity / established clout as an organizer to make large numbers of people accept that. Really, in the USA, it boils down to BAO setting the tone in the west, Nova in the east, and Adepticon everywhere in between. For better or worse, those events are more or less the format that gets aped by everyone else in some form.
Even a one day event requires that you have a store willing to host it nearby and some sort of scoring system that will not drive people away. A lot of these events are often used by participants to prepare for the larger ones and getting rules changes out to the potential attendants is a logistical pain in the butt for one day TOs. Often, these guys are also running the counter at their FLGS, so they barely have time to herd the cats and keep scores, let along try and play armchair rules designer.
Running any event is really thankless work that you do for love of the game.
I run events, so I am aware exactly how much work it is. If your local shop owner is too busy to organize stuff offer to do it for him. IME he won't mind (I've done it.). Or find a convention near you that does gaming, and offer to run events there, no need to put out money for the space, no need to line up a venue.
It is a lot of work, but it can be done, sure plenty of events just copy the major events...because that is what players generally want in many cases (though not always, I have run my own missions most of the time.).
If though the suggestion is that running a FW event or LOW event will drive people away....then why complain that people don't do it?
I'm not saying it is easy organizing events, it is not, and I always lose money on mine. But unless you want to do the same, don't complain when people run events you don't like. Or go find events that you do like.
Essentially if the argument is "You should run events they way I want, even though it seems most others don't want them that way, because I'm to cheap/lazy/want to play not TO."
I have no sympathy for you.
I'm not saying, go out and create the next NOVA. I'm saying talk to your local store owner and see if he is willing to let you run an event. Most are IME. If yours aren't I guess that sucks.
Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).
Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.
Vaktathi wrote: Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).
Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.
I think "go run your own" is probably not super reasonable. That said, in my own experience (from before I had a "name" with NOVA and so could get local stores to do what I wanted due to rep gain and the promise of an attendance/customer draw), most stores would run or support you running an event if it was well-conceived and well-supported by your design. This doesn't require anything other than time and commitment with a passion to run an event you believe in. In fact, that's what got us all into the craziness of running massive, super expensive, and soul-draining cons haha.
Either way, I think there are three kinds of people broadly speaking who comment on these threads from the perspective of wishing tournaments were run more the way "they wanted," and I wish people would be more clear about which they are.
1) Players who want to attend tournaments but strongly feel they need to be at least somewhat closer to the army constructs they personally run. I think this is actually more rare, because I think most people who really want to go to tournaments simply do. Could be wrong.
2) Players who are irritated that their local meta / events are influenced by tournaments, and either find the influence to hurt how they want to play the game, or (just as often) simply don't like an external influence beyond their control affecting how they play their game.
3) Players who play how they want, when they want, and also never plan to attend tournaments, and are simply critiquing anything they can find to critique because it's the internet and everyone has a voice.
In the case of #'s 1 and 2, there is merit to both making it clear how you are (and backing it up with action), and to trying to work your own formats or concepts up that are meaningful, well-thought-out, and consider at least a few more people other than just yourself when idealizing constructs and restrictions (or their absence). Hell, you'll get my personal shout out form one organizer to another if that's worth a damn (might not be). In the case of #3, knock it off ... you're not helping anything.
I'll also reiterate - if you want major organized events with either competitive or casual elements, inclusive of unbound or battleforged without restriction or battleforged with restriction, we've explicitly gone out of our way to provide all of these at NOVA this year. If you're serious about being ready to attend big tournaments/cons "if only" ... well, there you have it. Money where mouth. I have a lot of sympathy for #'s 1 and 2 above ... that's why I started the NOVA, frankly, in the very beginning (long since morphed, my reasons for doing whatever we do). This is also part of why we've created multiple major-event formats at NOVA for this year - so players can point to formal, highly professional packets, missions, structures, force org restrictions or absences, etc., at a major Con OTHER than just the GT format as support for doing something different than that locally ... should it not be their personal cup of tea.
I think this post became rambling, but ... it's the internets, and everyone has a voice, even tired overspoken TOs like me.
It does appear that most major events are having to offer an increasingly large array of events and playtypes to satisfy the userbase.
I think this speaks to the increasingly "fractured" nature of the playerbase, some wanting to go whole hog allowing everything in without any sort of regulation on one end, and others that would prefer to play a more 5th edition style game on the other, and everything in between. These end up being very different things, and it's surprising how much the inclusion or exclusion of something will cause people to feel apprehensive. I personally feel this way with FW stuff, if I can't run my DKoK Assault Brigade, I won't attend the event. Others feel that the inclusion of FW means the event will be a cheesefest and will stay away just for that. You can replace FW with LoW's or Tactical Objectives or Force Orgs or whatever.
Ultimately it's clear that the is a less coherent vision of what "a game of 40k" really means, and it's obviously difficult to satisfy that as a TO.
Vaktathi wrote: Most local stores run their own events, organizing your own event at their place usually isn't an option (not always, but usually).
Putting the effort into working with a con to rent out hall space or whatnot is a big undertaking for someone that just wants to run Unit X or Army List Y in an event, where they then wouldn't be able to play because they'd be running it.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not stellar advice for someone who just wants to run play with their toys.
See the thing for me with that is, ok so you want to play with your toys, well do something about it other than Bitching. Honestly as a TO Bitching to me about something gets the least useful response. Talk to your local shop (or rent out a cheap hall, they exist in most places assuming you have the ability to supply some level of terrain.) for an afternoon. If your shop is anti-someone else running an event (which is silly really as it is free advertisement if things are run well.), that sucks. If not running an event with the set up you would like to see does help you play with your Toys. Maybe not at that events, but it shows people what things will be like, and removes the "SCARY" from things they don't play. Is it no work at all. Nope, it'll be work. But you can have an impact, and if other people like your format locally, guess what other people will run it (happened for some of my missions at some local events), then when those people run things similar to what you are doing. Guess what you get to play with your toys.
As Mike said, its not easy, nor is it free. But IMO it has a better chance of succeeding than coming on the internet, and complianing that other people aren't willing to risk, their time, money, and repuation on running things they way you want them too.
It does appear that most major events are having to offer an increasingly large array of events and playtypes to satisfy the userbase.
I think this speaks to the increasingly "fractured" nature of the playerbase, some wanting to go whole hog allowing everything in without any sort of regulation on one end, and others that would prefer to play a more 5th edition style game on the other, and everything in between. These end up being very different things, and it's surprising how much the inclusion or exclusion of something will cause people to feel apprehensive. I personally feel this way with FW stuff, if I can't run my DKoK Assault Brigade, I won't attend the event. Others feel that the inclusion of FW means the event will be a cheesefest and will stay away just for that. You can replace FW with LoW's or Tactical Objectives or Force Orgs or whatever.
Ultimately it's clear that the is a less coherent vision of what "a game of 40k" really means, and it's obviously difficult to satisfy that as a TO.
100% agree with this. It is hard to impossible to please everybody. As a TO you need to try to please as many people as you can, which often means making decisions you may feel differently about. For me I would generally include FW in my events, but every time I bring it up, I get lots of push back on it. So I leave it out. Because as an organizer I'm not willing to eat the bill if people don't show up any more than I already do.
Okay each TO needs to set their Tourney up their way. The player base can chose to attend or not as desired. I am still for all the folk waiting a couple months before trying to make possibly unneeded changed based on a guess.
(really do need to play it out a dozen times with each army to see what happens).
Facing MC or Psycker spam or even Summon Spam has happened in the past and will happen in the future.
I have found spammy armies to be dead armies when I face them. They do not have the tools to deal with all situations.
Summoning is not a new concept it has come, gone, and returned more than once to 40k. Seen in fantasy far more often .
We've tried a few games with totally open Battleforged lists these last few days - and we did sub in some cheese lists just to try them out.
Basically, with the new way objectives work, having a handful of uber units hurts. Badly. You may be able to smash and thrash through what you can catch, but having a small power army prevents you from accomplishing a lot of things...and makes you very vulnerable to hard counters.
If you keep the 5th-6th leafblower uber-alles mindset, then letting people just create their own Battleforged (or even unbound) lists seems like a bad idea. Combine that with the way missions/objectives work now though, it brings it into a lot more perspective. A well-balanced swiss army knife with a fair amount of bodies on the board will beat a cheese list almost every time.
PolecatEZ wrote: We've tried a few games with totally open Battleforged lists these last few days - and we did sub in some cheese lists just to try them out.
Basically, with the new way objectives work, having a handful of uber units hurts. Badly. You may be able to smash and thrash through what you can catch, but having a small power army prevents you from accomplishing a lot of things...and makes you very vulnerable to hard counters.
If you keep the 5th-6th leafblower uber-alles mindset, then letting people just create their own Battleforged (or even unbound) lists seems like a bad idea. Combine that with the way missions/objectives work now though, it brings it into a lot more perspective. A well-balanced swiss army knife with a fair amount of bodies on the board will beat a cheese list almost every time.
@thread: Sorry for not posting for a while I started my vacation.
I an waiting to settle on this idea until i see how the first few GT results come out with 7th edition list. Really wish I was able to contribute to the learning of the new meta in this edition. Such is life though. By the time I get back it will all change. I just hope orks are still viable then as I am really wanting to run them even more now that a new book dropped. Though $33 for a Ghaz supplement is a bit silly.
@Mike Are you all going to have live feeds for each of your events? Definitely want to watch some games if possible.
The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.
Capping psykers per points (say one Mastery level per 250pts unless you're playing GK since you'd screw them over horribly that way) and summoned units can't summon more units would go a long way towards making the psychic phase more balanced.
Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.
Invisibility on the other hand should be changed, and i don't mean only nerfed i mean completely changed. It's creating too many rules debates.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.
Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.
I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps
Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum
Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.
Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.
I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps
Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum
Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.
It's a better middle ground, and more 2-CAD specific, than you are suggesting.
Double CAD "pure" would require 2 HQ and 4 Troops to access up to 6 elites/fast/heavy. Your suggestion is 1 HQ and 2 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Self-Ally is 2 HQ and 3 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Basically what you're suggesting, but truer to the notion of double CAD and the edition (simply allowing people to freely take extra fast/elite/heavy would be more akin to unbound than multi-detachment).
Spoletta wrote: Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.
I would have to agree. I've played my Grey Knights in 7th, and, on average, I'm only getting about half as many psychic powers off as I did under 6th. I mean, sure, Grey Knights are still near the top of the ladder in psychic powers. but that ladder has had quite a few rungs knocked out of it for everyone in this edition.
Spoletta wrote: Hmm i think that facts are indeed proving that the psychic phase needs no change. Read a bit of battle reports around and you'll see that having the total domination on psy phase brings no over the top bonus compared to how many points you are investing.
I would have to agree. I've played my Grey Knights in 7th, and, on average, I'm only getting about half as many psychic powers off as I did under 6th. I mean, sure, Grey Knights are still near the top of the ladder in psychic powers. but that ladder has had quite a few rungs knocked out of it for everyone in this edition.
Definitely. Psychic phase has proved to be just fine so far, Math had shown the initial knee jerk reaction was unnecessary and time is showing that to be true.
schadenfreude wrote: The inability to self ally or double CAD is hurting armies that are already hurting and helping the armies that already do well in the meta.
People are really afraid of double cad because of the spam. A good baby step towards testing the water for double cad is allow double cad but place an army wide limit of 3hq 8 troops 4 elite/hs/fa. If it seems good the restrictions can always be lifted in increments starting with troops or hq.
Both NOVA and BAO are allowing Self Allying, but not Dual CAD. Limiting it to two Detachments with only one CAD. Formations count as a Detachment.
The 3/8/4/4/4 cap on a double cad would limit spam as well as reducing the 2nd cad to an ally while allowing the least spaming double cad lists.
Exactly what NOVA/BAO did.
I thought they were allowing self allying instead of duel cad with foc caps
Self ally had the advantage of a 1 troop minimum
Duel cad with an 3/8/4/4/4 cap needs 2 troops, but either cad can be warrlord and the 2 cad have some increased flexibility.
It's a better middle ground, and more 2-CAD specific, than you are suggesting.
Double CAD "pure" would require 2 HQ and 4 Troops to access up to 6 elites/fast/heavy. Your suggestion is 1 HQ and 2 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Self-Ally is 2 HQ and 3 Troops to access up to 4 elites/fast/heavy. Basically what you're suggesting, but truer to the notion of double CAD and the edition (simply allowing people to freely take extra fast/elite/heavy would be more akin to unbound than multi-detachment).
No keep all existing standard double cad restrictions so 2hq and 4 troops to have double cad and add an additional restriction that both cads can not exceed a combined 3/8/4/4/4
That would be disgusting.
There's very few things from 
)
off and start a new army. Fun times for them!
)
