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.

PanzerLeader wrote:

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!


https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6vzgbvc5rn0aiy/Event%20pack%20V2%20%287th%20Ed%20update%29.pdf

One glaring thing jumped out at me....

All Factions may ally with themselves as Battle Brothers.

Nevermind... was misreading the above... you can ally with yourself is what you were saying. I read everyone is battle brothers... lmao.

MVBrandt wrote:
$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

So if you do allow super heavies, does that bode well for terrain?

I'm on the side of "the more terrain, the better" bur if you have to space things out to accommodate very large tanks, that's a bit troubling no?

For those who will be allowing imperial knights, how will their detachments work with the proposed CAD structure, in light of the FAQ?

Same as before, they have their own detachment structure that is laid out in their book.

MVBrandt wrote:
$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Updated thoughts on ruling "2 Detachments" without restriction of only a single CAD ...

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-double-cad-actually-bad.html

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?

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).

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Probably only need 200 points of Wyverns, but anyways.... Drawback to the Wyverns, they die real easy.

 Sigvatr wrote:

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.

 LValx wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

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.

MVBrandt wrote:
$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

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).

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 LValx wrote:


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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LValx wrote:


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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 LValx wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.