Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd rather just not play those games.

blaktoof wrote:
I think the problem people have with D weapons is their hero hammer deathstar units being countered so easily.

No one wants their epic group of heroes to be D-stroyed in one shot. Of course its not automatic like everyone is saying here.

models hit suffer an effect on a 2+

one of those effects results is d3+1 wounds. so there is actually a decent chance a D weapon will not kill any model with 3+ wounds in 1 hit. Its not automatic removal of the models.

16% chance if you are hit of nothing happening,

66% chance of d3+1 wounds

16% chance of worse.

So if your uber deathstar unit did get splatted by a D weapon there is a 38% chance any models with 3+ wounds will live, a ~60% chance any models with 4+ wounds live, and a ~85% chance any models with 5+ wounds live.

I'm glad you broke it down, it's really so easy then. I just need to bring my deathstar of models with 5+ wounds.

Feast of blades is enacting a roster restriction. This supplement seems to have been an incredible catalyst.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Feast of blades is enacting a roster restriction. This supplement seems to have been an incredible catalyst.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/

their alterations list didn't look too bad but Deldar still has a 2++ reroll while daemons would lose theirs. that's hardly going to go unnoticed. aside from that (and my personal opinion that anything with 40k approved should be tournamen legal) i would be all for a council of peers (all noteworthy TOs) coming up with a tournament standard errata/ban list. I wouldn't be surprised however if GW didn't find a way to get involved with this however. (as they stand to lose out on alot of sales from banned/restricted models).

Dropping all battle brothers to allies of convienience and banning the grimoire would take care of 95% of current issues.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Dropping all battle brothers to allies of convienience and banning the grimoire would take care of 95% of current issues.

so, for that last 5%, ban D-weopons and roll some dice? looks like from the poles in the tournament forum and numberous "haters" hating on them that they won't be willing to accept any changes w/out D-weopons being on the list of things nerfed/removed.

I am not a daemons player but I have to say that the grimoire is really what keeps them in the top tier. In the end the grimoire relies on a lot of rolls and the warp storm table plus failing the roll can easily make that unit very vulnerable for a turn, not to mention turn 1 they are mincemeat against alpha striking wave serpents. 300+ point characters with a 4++ or worse spells disaster.

Plus, if GW notices this and it really affects their sales hopefully it will make them clean up their act.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Dropping all battle brothers to allies of convienience and banning the grimoire would take care of 95% of current issues.

You waited for the Escalation to be released in order to remember you Daemon problems?
When Draigowing was at its top did we said in 5th to ban it? I don't get you people? Is it super heavies and D weapons that bother you? Or the whole "other than my armies" codexes that you think broken? I don't see anyone here speaking of necrons?? French bakery?? Mr lighting guy?? 4 riptides and broadsides?? Seercouncil?? I guess that 4 heldrakes or 12 oblits are not a problem either.
Oh and alliance matrix needs a fix but not the kind you mention. eldar + DE + inquisition?? Seriously??

What's with all the Screamerstar hate? It's a total garbage build that is easily tarpitted or slowed down by feeding it garbage. Has it won anything bigger than Duelcon where there were like 30 people? I'll admit I don't track every single tournament out there, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't won anything major. Now we have Feast of Blades outright banning the Grimoire because of one crappy build.

The bikeseer council with the Baron has hit and run, a rerollable 2+, no major weaknesses and is better by leaps and bounds. Yet nobody proposes measures to curb this. This is what happened at Da Boyz. They put comp in to stop a lot of builds, including Screamerstar, but did nothing about Bikeseer, so Barjamovich and Kopach finish 1-2 in battle points running the Bikeseer army.

I don't care if you want to ban Screamerstar. It's overrated, but let's cover all our bases here. It's not Daemons at the top of the hill. Last I checked TOF, Eldar were ruling the roost.

@avedominusnox
Interesting you should rant like that because most of the things you listed would be taken care of with his all allies are allies of convenience "fix".

Not that I particularly think that is necessary. I also am curious why french bakery and 12 oblits made that list? Yet serpent spam did not.

I was just commenting in feast of blades' approach. Calm down. Many combo builds have been broken in the past but it seems overwhelming lately for some reason.

As for me personally? If someone has the actual model and it's wysiwyg I'll allow it in my tournaments. I'm all for the "when everyone's super, nobody is" approach.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I was just commenting in feast of blades' approach. Calm down. Many combo builds have been broken in the past but it seems overwhelming lately for some reason.

As for me personally? If someone has the actual model and it's wysiwyg I'll allow it in my tournaments. I'm all for the "when everyone's super, nobody is" approach.

I am sorry for that. Its clearly overwhelming as you state. I went over to the LGS and I was shocked to see two kids playing, one 13 and 15 years old. Tau vs eldar. The tau kiddo had triptide and 9 broadsides. The eldar was going for 2 wraithknights, 3 flyers and some bikes and a couple of serpents. This is the new meta. The edition bolstered new codexes and vise versa. And now we have D. We all want to use effective ways in our games that will help us win. This is a game and I don't think that anyone who plays it doesn't want to win.

It seems to me that what the inclusion of escalation has done, as added the equivalent of the metagame clock to 40k. I know lots of 40k players are pretty derisive of Magic, but I'm getting into 40k from there.

The way I see it, you've got your three primary archetypes of deck/list: Combo / deathstar, Control / D-Weapons, and Aggro / Deep striking anti-tank spam. The comparisons aren't perfect, but I think that they are close enough to actually consider.

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:

Sargow wrote:
Not sure if it is allowed but how is the sD weapon worded?
cause from what i have read the bastion seems to be a very good counter to it.

Buildings suffer a detonation result vs any d shot, so a bastion turns into stream if it even gets clipped by a d blast.

One thing to note is that you cannot shoot at a bastion if it is not occupied. Thus, against titans with D-guns, it's better just to hide behind it than in it.

Acutally, according to the new rules in stronghold you now can shoot the bastion, and furthermore on a 7 it is removed from the table...

MarkyMark wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:

Sargow wrote:
Not sure if it is allowed but how is the sD weapon worded?
cause from what i have read the bastion seems to be a very good counter to it.

Buildings suffer a detonation result vs any d shot, so a bastion turns into stream if it even gets clipped by a d blast.

One thing to note is that you cannot shoot at a bastion if it is not occupied. Thus, against titans with D-guns, it's better just to hide behind it than in it.

Acutally, according to the new rules in stronghold you now can shoot the bastion, and furthermore on a 7 it is removed from the table...

Oh wow....I did not know that. Haven't had time to check out the new Stronghold supplement yet because I am currently working on a tactica (or rather, a series of tacticas) for Escalation.

tbh, I don't think there is so much toning down needed apart from D-weapons.

Restricting units/ banning items will give rise of other fully broken armies.

I agree however that playing against 2+ rerollable units is ballsy, but the same goes for spam broadsides/riptides.

herpguy wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I think the problem people have with D weapons is their hero hammer deathstar units being countered so easily.

No one wants their epic group of heroes to be D-stroyed in one shot. Of course its not automatic like everyone is saying here.

models hit suffer an effect on a 2+

one of those effects results is d3+1 wounds. so there is actually a decent chance a D weapon will not kill any model with 3+ wounds in 1 hit. Its not automatic removal of the models.

16% chance if you are hit of nothing happening,

66% chance of d3+1 wounds

16% chance of worse.

So if your uber deathstar unit did get splatted by a D weapon there is a 38% chance any models with 3+ wounds will live, a ~60% chance any models with 4+ wounds live, and a ~85% chance any models with 5+ wounds live.

I'm glad you broke it down, it's really so easy then. I just need to bring my deathstar of models with 5+ wounds.

There are possible competitive builds that do not rely on a very expensive unit using allies that puts most of the power of your army and points into one unit.

Skimming through escalation all the D weapons are pretty much blast so they are not targeting flyers, and do not auto hit, they do not auto kill all units they touch, and your Warlord has a decent chance (more than 50%) of surviving a single direct D-stroyer hit.

Most models that can take D weapons are quite costly, and are not firing a large amount of D shots a turn, (1 or 2) given that they can scatter/miss/have little to no effect I honestly do not think D weapons are the end of 40k. I think they are an obvious counter to people that play certain builds that have a single expensive large deathstar. I do not think that is the only way to play 40k competitively, I think those builds are just ways to play 40k easily.

No, D-weapons are not the end of 40K. What they are, however, are the end of Elitist armies in 40K (with the exception of FMC-spam). That's one of the things I dislike most about introducing D-weaponry into normal 40K - they're going to discourage variety in army builds.

 jy2 wrote:
No, D-weapons are not the end of 40K. What they are, however, are the end of Elitist armies in 40K (with the exception of FMC-spam). That's one of the things I dislike most about introducing D-weaponry into normal 40K - they're going to discourage variety in army builds.

Same can already be said for Taudar though. I am not disagreeing just pointing that out. When 80% of the competitive field comes from 3-4 books, I say whats the difference? Well the difference is, you will see less varity by concept ie. less draigowing type builds, but you will also see more variety in armies in general IMO, DE, IG etc etc... Only time will tell though.

The daemons hate is very annoying. That post on 3++ has the grimoire as the only thing that is banned so far, yet the screamerstar is obviously not winning tournaments. Tau and Eldar DOMINATE tournaments, and there is no hate there.

Oh wait, Kirby is a Taudar player...

I tested what each codex could do to each of the lords of war today at the world do battle. The revenant is tough only due to his possible 3++ invulnerable. After that he is weak sauce, tie him down with basic troops that cannot do anything to him and he is useless. The stompa is tough only due to having 12 hp. The one to worry about is actually The Lord of Skulls. All his CCW attacks are D. He has a 5++ daemon. If you plan for those, you will gain a minimum of 4 VP on top of the mission.

Spaz431 wrote:
I tested what each codex could do to each of the lords of war today at the world do battle. The revenant is tough only due to his possible 3++ invulnerable. After that he is weak sauce, tie him down with basic troops that cannot do anything to him and he is useless. The stompa is tough only due to having 12 hp. The one to worry about is actually The Lord of Skulls. All his CCW attacks are D. He has a 5++ daemon. If you plan for those, you will gain a minimum of 4 VP on top of the mission.

It's not even a 3++ invul. It's just another roll to hit. Mass S7 should be useful against it.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
No, D-weapons are not the end of 40K. What they are, however, are the end of Elitist armies in 40K (with the exception of FMC-spam). That's one of the things I dislike most about introducing D-weaponry into normal 40K - they're going to discourage variety in army builds.

Same can already be said for Taudar though. I am not disagreeing just pointing that out. When 80% of the competitive field comes from 3-4 books, I say whats the difference? Well the difference is, you will see less varity by concept ie. less draigowing type builds, but you will also see more variety in armies in general IMO, DE, IG etc etc... Only time will tell though.

D-weaponry are going to hit Taudar hard as well.

But Tau is good enough such that they can re-adjust. In games of Escalation, you are going to see more deepstriking fusion suits. It will also be the return of the Farsight-bomb as the dominant Tau deathstar. That is probably the main Elitist build that can actually thrive in Escalation.

That video was exactly what I expected. At least CSM players can forge a narrative

JY2 and I played another Escalation game last night, even with Void Shields, other D weapons and flyers, the Rev still killed everything on the table! haha

Ironic that it wasn't the 9 Void Shields that won the game for the Revenant. Rather, is was the Hammer & Anvil deployment that did so.

Fair point!

Yep, the rev is over powered alright. It's not a new thing either - even in the old Apoc I remember Eldar Titans being ridiculous.

Then again, that could just be my prejudice towards Eldar in general talking.

IMHO, the best answer to lords of war is to do two things. Firstly, treat strength D as S10 AP1 Armourbane Fleshbane. This means SD is still very strong, but prevents it from getting one-hit-kills as easily and devaluing ignore cover weaponry. Infantry can rely on cover to shield them until SD is taken out but they will still take heavy casualties, and any unit caught out of cover is pretty much dead unless that have an invulnerable save, similarly to something less overwhelming like a Demolisher, just a little better to account for the higher cost. Personally I would also like to see optional D weapons banned so that titans have a reason to actually choose which weapons they want, but for the sake of simplicity this isn't required.
The second change I would implement is using the Horus Heresy lord of war system, minus Primarchs. Firstly, that would limit lords of war to no more than 25% of your force, cutting out the 1750pt Reaver titan builds. Secondly, it would give a few more options - you have the option to take 0-2 SHVs with 6 hull points or less or 0-1 SHV with 7+ hull points, or the option to take 0-2 8 wounds or less gargantuan creatures, or 0-1 9+ wounds gargantuan creature. It might seem ridiculous allowing multiples, but due to the points restriction the only thing you can take multiples of at 2k points is the Malcador, which is literally the most balanced super-heavy in the game and only really relevant for fluffy armies.

You can also just nerf strength D and impose the points limit, but this way you add a cool fluffy possibility and some legitemacy since it's not just arbitrary rules, they are drawn from an official GW publication. The sections on primarchs and imperial navy support even state heresy-era games only. My only worry with this system is that it's potentially a bit unfair to Tyrnaids, I'm not sure they have a GC cheap enough to be played at 2k unfortunately.

My guess on how GW tested Revenant in actual play: They didn't.

More beer and pretzels will help to balance it.