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.

GAZ_NZ wrote:
See this article

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/24/7th-edition-warhammer-40k-review-the-good-the-bad-and-solutions/

Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.

It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.

 Redbeard wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you mean someone who has no clue about the game, or armies, who built a list based on that lack of knowledge will lose to people who do have that knowledge?

sorry but that isnt a "balance" issue any more then a newbie in COD being constantly owned by people who know all the good spots to hide/shoot or whatever, or a lousy chess player losing to a better chess player.

Not at all. I mean someone who saw the game, and, for example, liked the look of orks. And lost, so asked for help, and was told that the solution was to not play orks because they suck. Well, sure, he's going to buy a second army now, right? It's one thing to lose due to a lack of knowledge. It's another thing to seek knowledge and be told that you're out of luck because you made the wrong choice of faction initially. That's where the lack of balance costs new players.

I would argue this example was handled wrong on so many levels. When you are playing someone new you play differently. Your goal isnt to crush them, your goal is to have a fun game and introduce them to the hobby as well as help them get better with the tools they have. If they dont have the tools to destroy your list, then change it.

I just played a 1000 point game against someone new who was feeling down about the game after his last game his opponents cheesed out to the max. I sat down with him and helped talk him through his list, gave him some pointers and then played a 1000 point game. Over the course of the game I pointed out mistakes he was making, helped point out alternatives he could have done as well as fill in knowledge gaps that would help him be better playing. After wards he messaged me thanking me for the help and he was feeling better about the game. Almost everytime I meet someone who is feeling down about it, usually either A.someone was being a dick to them, or B. They just dont know how to play or make use of the tools they have.

The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault. Even if the books were balanced in that environment the same thing would have happened.

If you know someone is not capable of toning down their game play for new players then steer them away from them and steer them towards the people who are more interested in getting people playing than winning. I got a tournament coming up with some serious cash prizes on the line. I still toned down my list because people were just not having fun against it. I am finding that I am still winning my games but now people feel like they have a chance, they are removing models again and feel like they can hurt it.

blaktoof wrote:

GAZ_NZ wrote:
See this article

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/24/7th-edition-warhammer-40k-review-the-good-the-bad-and-solutions/

Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.

It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.

It's worth noting that the author of that article wasn't the one who suggested a cap of 12 WC. Rather, it was one of the readers who commented on his article.

 Leth wrote:

The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault.

Except, "the group" is the internet. The player sought advice outside of the closed environment of his friends, who had tried to help him, but let's be honest, 6th edition is so horribly unbalanced if you're playing an infantry assault army like orks, and 7th hasn't changed that fact. And, by the time most people are adults, they can tell when they're being coddled. Here, let me take the least competent units I own, so you can learn to play the game, isn't a long-term strategy for recruiting new players.

 jy2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

GAZ_NZ wrote:
See this article

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/24/7th-edition-warhammer-40k-review-the-good-the-bad-and-solutions/

Cap warp charges at 12 per turn just like fantasy rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im a daemons player and i think capping warp charges at 12 is the right thing to do.
As a Blood angels player i personally do not think vechicles should be scoring either.

It's worth noting that the author of that article really jumped to a unsound conclusion on stating a cap of 12 WC, the daemons player did not win the game despite the 38 WC a turn into summoning and was rolling well above average, so obviously it can't be omg the sky is falling if it resulted in a non win. We aren't talking about giving a unit a 2++ rerollable save, we are talking about adding a few hundred points of lesser daemons to the table. Most people do not fear lesser daemons. Reason being, its a lot easy to clear 2 units of 10 lesser daemons that just got summoned, than it is to clear a unit of 10 models that just gained a rerollable 2++. The daemons that were summoned were obviously not the deciding factor in the game since it was a draw, and the space marine list was pretty tame. It was 2 squads of legion of the damned, tigurius, 10 scouts with telion, 7 devestators 4 with lascannon, contemptor dread, and a single knight.

It's worth noting that the author of that article wasn't the one who suggested a cap of 12 WC. Rather, it was one of the readers who commented on his article.

You are correct, however the author of the article still suggested "Limit Warp Charge to prevent the inane psychic spam armies. - See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/05/24/7th-edition-warhammer-40k-review-the-good-the-bad-and-solutions/#sthash.l895OP5f.dpuf"

So obviously they are still having a knee jerk reaction to something that did not really seem to factor into the outcome of the game.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Leth wrote:

The person should not have told someone that the orks suck. They should have said something like "Orks are a bit of an old book, but talk to me about what you like and lets see if we can make something work". That is not GWs fault that is the groups fault.

Except, "the group" is the internet. The player sought advice outside of the closed environment of his friends, who had tried to help him, but let's be honest, 6th edition is so horribly unbalanced if you're playing an infantry assault army like orks, and 7th hasn't changed that fact. And, by the time most people are adults, they can tell when they're being coddled. Here, let me take the least competent units I own, so you can learn to play the game, isn't a long-term strategy for recruiting new players.

Yep, and the internet is full of dicks and donkey-caves. In fifth whenever anyone offered advice it was either play a completely different army, or buy 500 dollars worth of new stuff.

There is a difference between being coddled and being supportive. If I tried to teach you chess by beating you at the 7th move every game that is not helping you learn, that is being a dick. However if you go through the game helping them learn, a few times and getting the hang of the nuances that is not coddling that is teaching. After a few games you let them learn for themselves and play for real

Whoever said anything about the least competent units? I just said bring an army where you both can enjoy the game while they are learning. This is your opportunity to bring those units you wouldn't normally play, or bring that older army out of retirement.

Another thing I learned was that for myself at least if I felt it was a significant uphill battle or that I was unlikely to win I set different win conditions for myself. It enabled me to still be invested in the game but not feel bad about losing. Hell we were at a tournament, facing orks and not at the top table. This guy clearly really enjoyed playing his orks as orks so I could have just run away all game and won, but that wouldnt be any fun so I said screw it, lets get in combat. He said at the end of the game that it was the most combat his orcs had seen and he had a lot of fun. We got to get into challenges and just all around have a good time. Was I coddling him? No, I was just aiming to have a fun time, I still won but we both walked away feeling better.

What if every model that knew a malefic power can only use that power once in the game. They still keep all their other powers, they just can't use the malefic ones more than once.

Combine this with pink horrors not knowing summoning, and you're good.

Truthfully, I think all blessings and malefic powers should be one use only.

@Leth) [MOD EDIT - RULE #1. Alpharius]

@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.

I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol

Never_Ever_Talk_Again wrote:
@Leth) Your shitposting way to much on Dakka. Nobody is going to listen to somebody who writes autistic garbage.

@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.

I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol

Sure, these were just ideas and issues that I collected and heard about from other groups. Plus possible solutions to the problems.

Personally, I think the underlying factor is with deny the witch. If you can pull the chance in to deny the witch more successfully I think it brings back a balance to the game. For example if you gave bonuses like they talked about towards Blessings and conjurations such as AW adds +1 or higher level psyker add's +1 to a max of 5+ to deny the witch. The casting player still has a edge over the person who has to deny along with the ability to throw as many dice as they want. The person Denying has a chance to cast those key spells and there is little more room for tactical decisions around the dice mechanic.

Plus if an army doesn't have any psykers but has AW or just one Psyker they can save up and stop that Key power from going off if they choose. unlike now which is a hell mary to stop Blessings or Conjurations which are by far the worst outleighers.

If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.

That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..

 Hulksmash wrote:
If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.

That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..

I am also on the no change side.

I would love to see the results of the next biggish tournament though, I really want to know how the top guys shake these rules out.

I am heading out to play a game or two tomorrow. I can do a report on the game. Would you all want to see what I can do with the new psychic phase? LMK what you all would like to see.

I'd like to see what an army with lots of Warp charges can do against an army without the warp charges to contest if possible.

 Tomb King wrote:
I am heading out to play a game or two tomorrow. I can do a report on the game. Would you all want to see what I can do with the new psychic phase? LMK what you all would like to see.

Honestly I'd like to see you play open ended, pure 40k 7th at 1500 and see how it goes. I don't think you can do much to break 40k at that point range that hasn't been done in any other edition. Would give a good idea what lists would look like and how much a time difference it is if you keep track. Try one game at 1850 and one at 1500 for control.

The big question is tactical objectives or no tactical objectives. My opponent has requested battle forged.

 Hulksmash wrote:
If there was going to be any change to the psychic phase I'd be most willing to consider deny going to a 5+ if you've got a higher psyker, A. Will, or wargear bonus on the table.

That said I'm still pretty heavily on the side of the psychic phase not needing a change..

That is where my head is Hulk. The big issue is really you can't stop or have a way to control blessings or conjurations. If your opponent wants to get them off, well they will.

If you bring that in and god forbid A. Will gets a buff not like anyone ever uses it. Then it pulls that power curve back and you don't have to mess too much with the psychic phase.

I think that leaves the only other elephant in the room... Invisibility...

Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4

Two issues:

People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?

Second, Hulk is right. Take a year to actually play the edition before taking a correcting pencil to it. Overreaction is how things spiraled over the last year or so.

The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.

If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.

I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4

I would agree if it wasn't able to be combo to toughness 5 or higher models or models with a 2+ save. With them moving the set value to the of the damage equation it gets silly.

Bs 4 bolters firing at a target with invis.

Strength 4 shot vs toughness 4 with 2++ reroll save (1/6)(1/2)(1/36)=1/432
With a 2+ 4+ reroll (1/6)(1/2)(1/12)= 144
Without a reroll strength 4 toughness 4 +2 save = (1/6)(1/2)(1/6)= 1/72
Without invisibility BS 3 firing at 2+ save (1/2)(1/2)(1/6)= 1/24


Invis is kind of silly.

Right now if I wanted to abuse the game I would take advantage of the following mechanics.

Invis, psykers, hit and run and 2+ reroll. See how many bodies I can mass and advanced to produce enough damage to kill 100 models in 5 turns.

 Phazael wrote:
Two issues:

People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?

Second, Hulk is right. Take a year to actually play the edition before taking a correcting pencil to it. Overreaction is how things spiraled over the last year or so.

The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.

If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.

I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.

Soft scores don't work. Army painting judging is subjective. Sportsmanship is the biggest joke of an award as I have seen it gone to so many "family and friends" it's pathetic, let alone friends gaming it across a tournament. And comp systems all have their own meta.

I have seen the Fantasy community die. The try to balance the meta, but everywhere I've been, it's always reduced to "that other game we might play from time to time."

Games Workshop is responsible for this mess. Human behavior will continue being human behavior; balance the game and limit the damage "TFG" can do and the community would be a better place.

I'm not envious of TOs right now. I wish them luck in their endeavors. I see them following the strategy that has been doing well to keep 6E going; offer multiple event types with different rules and restrictions and let the players decide what kind of event they'd like to attend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkwynn wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:


Invis, psykers, hit and run and 2+ reroll. See how many bodies I can mass and advanced to produce enough damage to kill 100 models in 5 turns.

Draigo + Coteaz + St. Celestine + Priest (Litanies of Faith) + Priest + 10 Paladins.

Invisibility fishing, Hit & Run, re-roll everything in close combat, and 2+ saves.

Do three sources and you can get them forewarning and sanctuary...

Never_Ever_Talk_Again wrote:
@Leth) [MOD EDIT - RULE #1. Alpharius]

@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.

I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol

Besides playing at 1500 giving access to all armies "dispel scrolls" even just one use, one per army would fix things. It would stop fortune that one turn or invisibility when need it stopped.

Never_Ever_Talk_Again wrote:
@Leth) [MOD EDIT - RULE #1. Alpharius]

@Darkwynn) I don't see a gigantic need to cap warp charges. Why not bring back the unlimited range Psyker Hood?
Make it a general upgrade, for 30 points available to all armies. Adds some depth to the strategies plus isn't crazy OP.

I should mention though Demons are a 3rd tier list ATM, Ive tabled them last 5 playtests. They don't even get close
lololol

Ouch, my brother is autistic and I am hurt by your comments. May I ask what I have said that has offended you so much?

 Phazael wrote:
First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game.

You know why that happened? Because soft scores suck. They're always hopelessly subjective, painting and sportsmanship are little more than "my friend gets 10/10, everyone else gets 0/10" while comp systems are inevitably just a bunch of TOs with more ego than common sense banning everything that beats them or has a fluff theme that they don't approve of. The solution to balance issues is to change the rules to fix the issues, not to go back to the bad old days of soft scores and tournaments where winning the event has very little to do with who wins the actual games.

If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played.

If you add a rule that invulnerable saves can never be re-rolled (ancient technology and bizarre warp magic doesn't like to be modified) and you can never generate more than 10 warp charge per turn you won't see those armies either, and you don't have to deal with the problem of TOs with long ban lists full of every unit they've ever lost a game against, or comp systems that are essentially "if I don't like your fluff you get a 0/10 and can't win my event". Those two solutions aren't necessarily the best ones, but you always deal with the specific rule instead of screwing around with arbitrary comp systems that allow you to bring the overpowered army but impose a penalty for being a bad person.

IF someone wanted to get funny the sacrifice power in the rulebook leaves it vague enough that someone could summon Skulltaker or other named heralds.

 Tomb King wrote:
IF someone wanted to get funny the sacrifice power in the rulebook leaves it vague enough that someone could summon Skulltaker or other named heralds.

No, not it's not.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4

You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4

You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.

Technically, you could use certain weapons like Deathrays, but rest assured, those are extremely rare.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Invisibility is only really bad in combination with Fortune to me. Without it it's like shooting an FMC. I put a lot of hits on FMC's and would put a ton more wounds on them if they were t3-t4

You mean in 6th? When everyone used prescience on everything? Also fliers are hit by other fliers and skyfire. Invis is stupid as there are no counters once up.

Technically, you could use certain weapons like Deathrays, but rest assured, those are extremely rare.

Not to mention an argument at the table that's sure to end with your deathray not working. IDC what YMDC technicality or lack of language there is, I'd be shocked to see that work at a table without a major huff.

Phazael wrote:Two issues:

People pay points for psychers. They should do things in the game. People looking to cap psychers would be like people demanding that artillery be capped back when leaf blower was all the rage. But somehow, its ok to limit psychic powers for some reason....?

People also pay points for Howling Banshees, with no expectation that they'll do anything in the game.... but to address your comment, and why this expectation should be different for shooting/assault versus psykers.

Assume, for a brief moment (and try not to die laughing at this next statement), that GW actually got the costs for all the shooty units right, and that they were balanced. You'd pay your points for your shooty guys, and they'd pay their points for their shooty guys, and the game would be wonderful.

Now, realize that it's impossible for this to be the case with random psyker tables. You may pay your 75 points for a level 3 psyker, and your opponent may also, but where you get powers that force multiply your army, he rolls nothing but witchfires.

If you're cool with tournaments being decided by random dice rolls early in the game, this may be seen as reasonable. I don't like it though. In fact, as I write this, I've got another idea for tournament play.

What if we had non-random psykers. What if each mastery level you got earned you spell points to put towards buying your powers. And we, as a community, came up with costs associated with the various powers. Could be a lot of work, but it would remove another source of watching someone get bounced from an event by rolling dud powers for a game.

It wouldn't be the first time that the community decided to get rid of some of the more random aspects of the game. We already provide set missions, rather than rolling for them. We often provide set numbers of objectives, rather than rolling for those as well.

The 40k community as a whole dug itself into its current predicament in two steps. First, the internet celebrities pushed hard to abolish all soft scores from the scene, enabling douche lists to be taken with zero consequences, where before there was incentive not to zero in on the most extreme combos in the game. Second, the same group of people pushed hard to modify the game heavily, often the day new editions hit.

If you could ding jackwagons who bring 20+ warp charge armies or 2++ rerolling deathstars, then you would probably see a lot less of them being played. It used to be that guys who took broken combos and unfun lists were the antisocial miscreants the community used to make fun of, but now we are at a point where you get openly mocked if you are not taking the most broken list imaginable. People warned this would happen and they were ignored, and now we are at a point where the game at the tournament level has devolved to a couple of army builds and rock paper scissors.

I have seen this cycle in the fantasy community and there is a marked difference in the variety of armies and the atmosphere between soft scored events and the ones where are zero soft scores. If you want the game to be something more than a rock paper taudar circlejerk, then the community is going to have to seriously re-evaluate its stance on soft scores.

I mostly agree with this, with the exception that there should be some sort of control to avoid the opposite jackwagon who simply dings anyone who beats him (or worse, anyone outside his circle of friends). Soft-scores have been abused in the past.