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.

Khei99 wrote:
FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound)

Have you even read the new Perils of the Warp effect chart?

It's impossible to have a discussion about supposedly fixing 7ed when there are so many uninformed opinions being thrown about.

I'm for unbound armies being allowed. Although I would like to see them held to a two source (primary codex based on warlord, one allied codex, one formation drawn from either codex's available formations) format just to allow the opponent the courtesy of knowing what army it is that they are fighting. Apply the same rule to battleforged armies.

Not sure if the Five Point system I outlined above (loosely) is necessary, but would go a long ways towards limiting unbound armies abilities to min/max a specific build rather than allowing builds that should have been available all along.

Banning Come the Apocalypse allies is terrible. They are already not going to work well together, but removing them bans a lot of army builds that are completely in keeping with 40k lore. Genestealer Cult IG allied with Tyranids, Chaos Knights to name a few. Keep the armies to a two source build and everything will be fine.

Capping WC dice is ridiculous. There was a big nerf to psychic powers, play a few games and you'll quickly see that.

I do not understand how players can think Fateweaver gives 7 WC's, when it is clearly written that he's a ML 4 psyker.

Having played two games with the tactical objective cards, I can say that getting a bad initial draw is certainly not fun if you come up with objectives that are clearly impossible against your current opponent (kill flyers if your opponent has none, cast a pyschic power if you have no psyker). An auto discard would have been nice in those instances.

My lvl 2 librarian has now killed himself in three of my four 7ed games. Last night he exploded and took a good chunk of a command squad with him.

What about playing another game? There is a lot of systems out there who are better for this type of thing.

This edition is so broken for competitive game play...

Dice cap limit really hurts Tzeentch armies, yes they are strong in 6th Ed but they didnt run away with each tourny or really smash armies like they did with the flamer screamer spam.

When every thing for tzeentch is psyhic based limiting them to just x amount would mean people just wouldnt take them.

I would say a limit to how many dice you can roll at a spell might be a idea, ala fantsy 6 dicing, this gives you a 65% chance to get a WC3 power off, this will affect all wc3 powers the same. So trying to get summoning off you can only roll 6 dice with a 35% chance of failing 26% chance of perils of the warp (or more if its santic or malefic and not GK/Daemon), then your opponent can deny very slim chance granted but still it does limit the probabilites a lot.

Def limit the FOC to one primary FOC and one ally only, I dont see the problem with d weapons now either which is nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
What about playing another game? There is a lot of systems out there who are better for this type of thing.

This edition is so broken for competitive game play...

Thanks for the input, hardly constructive to the thread and I do wonder why you are reading.

People who say that "we can't possibly know how the balance has been affected this quick" make me sad.

When it's this ludicrously obvious, it's not really a knee-jerk reaction any more. Just a reaction.

Malefic is far and away OP. It wouldn't be AS bad if the most versatile and commonly used summon spell WASN'T the primaris.

As for what can be done about it, here is my list of...

Ten options to make summon daemons more tournament friendly!

1. Increasing WC cost of any of the summons to 4, thus requiring 10+ dice to cast with good success rate, and also almost ensuring a perils. (In fact, for non-daemons, they literally could not succeed at the power with perils.)

2. Giving each summoned unit an "upkeep," draining the psychic dice that were used to summon them from the controlling player every psychic phase until they die.

3. Have summoned units be "unstable," and fall apart at a rate of 1 wound at the start of each of its controller's turns. Alternatively take daemonic instability tests at the start of every round.

4. Have summoned units be unable to do anything objective-relevant, such as hold, contest, etc.

5. Have daemons be unable to summon other daemons that follow the opposing chaos god. (IE tzeentch models can't summon nurgle etc.) Additional possibility: During a warp storm attack by one of the chaos gods, they will ALWAYS attack a summoned unit of their opposing god, instead of only on a 6.

6. Have each summoner only able to sustain one summon, and be unable to shoot, assault, go to ground, or make attacks in close combat while concentrating on keeping his summons corporeal. If the summoner dies, his summons vanish.

7. Similar to the previous, have a summon "tethered" to its summoner, being unable to leave an 18" area around him. Also similar to the previous, if the summoner dies, the summons vanish. If any model is unable to stay wholly within 18" of the summoner, it is removed from play.

8. Have summons be unable to summon more.

9. Have a periled, failed, or denied summon spells summon models of the opponent's choice. The opponent then gains control of them. (To represent daemonic in-fighting.) Killing these does not satisfy any tactical or secondary objective related to killing the opponent's units. (IE you don't get first blood or a kill point from them.)

10. Limit the psyker phase in tournament play to x minutes (5 seems like it should work.) Any powers not completely resolved in that time are instead failed.

I would most likely want a tournament to run number 2, as well as 4.

 dracpanzer wrote:

Khei99 wrote:
FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound)

Have you even read the new Perils of the Warp effect chart?

It's impossible to have a discussion about supposedly fixing 7ed when there are so many uninformed opinions being thrown about.

My lvl 2 librarian has now killed himself in three of my four 7ed games. Last night he exploded and took a good chunk of a command squad with him.

Yes I have read the Peril's chart.
Calling me uninformed is a little childish and unproductive.
Yes, Perils are more dangerous than before, but it's still meaningless to Demons player who can abuse the system.
If you dont care about losing your psyker, nothing prevents your from going all in for every important roll. (like summoning another psyker capable of summoning another squad next turn).

The fact that you lost your librarian to perils of the warp in 3 of 4 games just means you didn't grasp the odds behind Perils or perhaps are not lucky at all.
You can play poker and go All In every hand, but you won't win many games.

Find solutions and propose some.

Are you suggesting all of these combined or are you throwing these out as stand alone ideas?. Quite a few I would have strong issues with, most of them need a lot of book keeping.

Psyhic phase being 5 mins, yea during your psyhic phase I'll stand there for 4 minutes 50 seconds deciding whether to dispel or not, at 4.59 I say yes and roll all my dice to deny the power then announce the psyhic phase is over. fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, how about limiting dice per spell to 6 max, limiting who can take Malefic powers (limit to vanilla psykers so basically HQ choices and daemon princes in HS, they are so expensive if they die they lose a lot of points). So no horrors spamming summoning etc.

 jy2 wrote:
Curb the re-rollable 2+ shenanigans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Useless Tactical Objectives - the ones where you have no chance to get at all - can be immediately discarded and replaced.

Example - getting the Tactical Card for killing flyers against an army without any flyers.

It'll prevent situations like this:

You start off with 3 cards: kill enemy flyers, kill enemy fortification and kill enemy psyker. Your opponent has no flyers, no fortifications and no psykers.

He then draw his 3 cards: Secure Objectives 1, 2 and 3 which his troops are already on.

You're instantly down 0-3 without even having done anything in the game.

That doesn't seem bad, but I would also say if a player gets a free discard because his objectives are impossible his opponent should get the option to discard an equal number of cards.

I would also add that both players should always play from the same deck.

Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:


No Double Force Org removes Marine/Rakuan and other, Eldar/Iyanden, Tau/Farsight, and CSM/Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter. You can't ally with same factions anymore. So you're literally taking armies away from people, ones that people have been playing. And double force org isn't nearly as bad as it seems anymore. The real deal breaker on that one was Flamer/Screamer daemons.

I'd say no come the apocalypse allies, not no desperate, but that's due to fluff on my part, not actual game play. Also several AoC went to desperate so I think they need still be on the table. I think the penalties are fine since we all know how important deployment is in a game.

The rules actually solve the 2+ reroll problem for the most part.

Screw it give double FOC a try. There are a few combinations that might be bad like 6 annihilation barges that will be brutal because of the low cost of the units. Other combos like 6 units of chaos spawn or hell drakes tend to cost so many points that they create serious weakness in the list.

Are we ready for triple or quadruple force org? At this point we start seeing silly things like adding Tigiurius and 2 scout squads as one of the FOC, a grenade caddy inquisitor and nothing else exc exc....

A 2 codex cap + dataslate + fortification seems plenty enough.

Come the apoc should be TO discretion and approved ahead of time. Mostly it should have to pass the rule of cool.

2+ reroll is pretty much gone against shooting, but it's alive and well in close combat thanks to priests joining terminators and/or GK. I think the BAO 4+ on the reroll works just fine.

MarkyMark wrote:
Are you suggesting all of these combined or are you throwing these out as stand alone ideas?. Quite a few I would have strong issues with, most of them need a lot of book keeping.

Psyhic phase being 5 mins, yea during your psyhic phase I'll stand there for 4 minutes 50 seconds deciding whether to dispel or not, at 4.59 I say yes and roll all my dice to deny the power then announce the psyhic phase is over. fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, how about limiting dice per spell to 6 max, limiting who can take Malefic powers (limit to vanilla psykers so basically HQ choices and daemon princes in HS, they are so expensive if they die they lose a lot of points). So no horrors spamming summoning etc.

It's a list of ten options, so no, they're not intended to all be used together. Just to be a list that people can look at to see some options they may have not thought of. I think the "take daemonic instability on all summoned units at the start of the turn" one is pretty fluffy and effective.

Timed psychic phase...there's an unspoken "don't be a complete jerk" rule in there, but if you feel like you must speak it, you can declare that the opponent has 10 seconds to deny. I would think anyone mature enough to dress themselves wouldn't need this rule though. Magic tournies have the "stalling" rule in their tournaments, but even when I was a DCI judge, it barely got touched upon, and they didn't even bother to put any specifics as to what counts in the comprehensive rules. It was never a problem.

Limiting the dice thrown to 6 max sounds creative, but I find the bigger issue is that they can just keep casting the power each turn. And despite what people seem to think, perils really isn't that scary. The odds that something worse than a no-save wound happens to you is really low. This is just top of my head math, but if you have a daemon throw 6 dice at a summon every turn for 5 turns, he will get a dragged into the warp result AND fail the leadership for it one out of twenty games, or 100 turns. Multiply that by say...5 psykers doing the same, and you'll lose one of your five psykers on average every 20 turns, or once every 4 games.
The rest of the perils will just be random wounds, and the occasional buff.

I don't think limiting to higher level or higher profile casters will really stop it either. You can still get fatey, 4 heralds, and 3 princes all able and willing in one FOC. At the very least, it would need to be combined with another option.

I can't believe some people are suggesting to allow unbound and super-heavies in standard tournaments. You simply won't win with a TAC army ever unless you get ridiculously lucky with matchmaking, so you might as well play rock paper scissors yourself. If the tournament is big enough someone will run a list that hard-counters yours.

Even absolutely stupid lists are stupidly good against the majority of lists that tried to be decent against everyone. You can get 20+ Annihilation Barges in one army now instead of 3 and they're all scoring, and because of the way Tesla and Gauss work can destroy anything. How has any of you planned to kill things like the Aetaos'rau'keres? The one and only answer was to ground it and then drop 4 Pulsar rounds on it, and both of the options were nerfed.

I think the easiest way to make 7ed playable in tournaments is to play 6th ed, but I look forward to seeing what kind of a leaflet (or book) you guys can come up with to make the game playable.

One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.

Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.

Trasvi wrote:
One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.

Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.

While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.

So you believe something, yes we can theory hammer but if it theory hammer was all we need to do to win tournies, why bother using dice.


Also, games end on turn 4, from what I hear in the US not exactly different from sixth ed.

MarkyMark wrote:
So you believe something, yes we can theory hammer but if it theory hammer was all we need to do to win tournies, why bother using dice.

I'm sorry? I thought I was on an internet discussion forum, specifically in a "tournament discussions" subforum.

niv-mizzet wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
One major issue I have with any sweeping changes to the psychic phase: This Tzeentch army is actually quite fluffy. It's entirely possible that new player or a fluff bunny builds a mono-tzeentch list with 20+ power dice. Even a mono-slaanesh or nurgle build can get 15 dice without much effort. You need to make sure whatever you want to do accounts for that possibility.

Daemons are just the most in-your-face this-looks-powerful army at the moment. Give it one tournament which gets won by 12 Drop Pods or Invisible Draigowing.

While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.

Somehow I don't think a list that will be putting out negligible to almost no damage against their opponent's list for 2 turns is going to be crushing Tournaments like you're Chicken Little'ing here...

Yes we have a video batrap that was horribly fixed to prove a predetermined point.

How about we try putting the so-called "OP Daemon Factory" up against the likes likes of Eldar or IG who will be able to gun down massive chunks of it while it's spending all of it's effort to summon a bunch of weak MSU units.

Daemon Factory isn't overpower, Alpha Strike Armies, Mobile Armies such as Space Marine Bikes, Armies with Barrage Weapons , such as mortars, Wyverns, Thunderfire, Manticores, etc.. Really do cut the armies throat. As it allows them to specifically target the guys that are really going to be bringing in the Daemons the Heralds. It's a huge chunk of the warp power.

So how do people feel about escalation now that d weapons are toned down?

 CKO wrote:
So how do people feel about escalation now that d weapons are toned down?

Much less horrible but still abuseable in small games; a cap on the percentage of your army that can be a superheavy or a "no superheavies below X points" rule would be indicated.

In the general sense once you say "Battle-forged lists only" and cap the number of psychic mastery levels per points on the table (potentially also ban Malefic Daemonology outright, it's too abuseable for Daemons to get to double the size of their army for free and it'd turn the entire game into GK v. Daemons) I think the game has the potential to be one of the most balanced renditions of the core rules in years.

 schadenfreude wrote:
That doesn't seem bad, but I would also say if a player gets a free discard because his objectives are impossible his opponent should get the option to discard an equal number of cards.

Why should the other player get a discard? This isn't a voluntary discard to try to get objectives that are better for your plans, it's fixing the problem of cards/table options that shouldn't exist at all.

Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.

This is a terrible idea, and allows the gimmick of mystery objectives to dominate the game and minimize the importance of what's actually happening on the table. Missions should always be public and posted in advance so that everyone knows what they are.

Come the apoc should be TO discretion and approved ahead of time. Mostly it should have to pass the rule of cool.

Absolutely not. The TO should never be allowed to decide whether or not an army is legal based on how much they like it. This kind of idiotic "I don't like your fluff" comp rule disappeared for a reason, please don't try to bring it back.

 Peregrine wrote:

Another really fun element is if the TO really wanted to go the extra mile he could print out a customized deck for the tournament and stuff the new cards in MTG sleeves, and keep the missions cards secret until the tournament.

This is a terrible idea, and allows the gimmick of mystery objectives to dominate the game and minimize the importance of what's actually happening on the table. Missions should always be public and posted in advance so that everyone knows what they are.

Many other games systems use hidden objectives to create a fun system.

No Escalation, No Allies, No D weapons. 25% of your points must come from troops.

I'd consider taking the route of banning malefic, cursed earth is awesome, PSA's are meh and the conjuration is open for abuse.

Max of 6 dice per power, so only 65% chance of WC3 powers working, might go some way to fix invis spam as well.

Or limit Summoned units to 1 daemon troop, 1 FA, 1 GD on the board at any 1 time or once per game.

As far as I can tell, the Escalation book itself is effectively obsolete and replaced by the core rulebook, the only relevance it really has is its special missions if you want to run those (and a selection of some Lord of War units), otherwise the option to take superheavies and gargantuan creatures is built right into the basic FoC out of the rulebook.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As far as I can tell, the Escalation book itself is effectively obsolete and replaced by the core rulebook, the only relevance it really has is its special missions if you want to run those (and a selection of some Lord of War units), otherwise the option to take superheavies and gargantuan creatures is built right into the basic FoC out of the rulebook.

There are also the Warlord trait options that are available if your opponent is fielding a LoW, assuming those are still considered to be part of the game.

*Limiting the game to the OP's force org and ally keeps the game in 6th edition release. Were going to see the same lists as before. Eldar, tau, demons. Etc. There is noting wrong with detachments or fortifications.

*maelstrom cards should be in. This allows a weaker army set up a chance to still win, tie, or be close in points. You could still win games in 40k with 4 models left on the table in 6th edition. Only because you secured the objectives. I have crushed an opponent on the table but still only get half battle points because of current missions. There isn't anything wrong with D3 obj, they usually reward you for doing above and beyond the objective. It adds flavor to the games, and I think that tournaments should take advantage of this mission type to help balance armies.

As long as TO don't give EXTRA battle points for winning the game, example: primary obj, score 4 more obj points to get max battle points, secondary score 2 more obj points to get half battle points, etc....that's garbage and screws people...it screws people in 6th with current rules.

* Psyker phase, I see no problem with how it is currently. I do not agree with the notation of limiting warp charges.


I have seen people fuss about invisibility and changing it..BS.
*invisibility - it's fine. Everyone almost can take it and it's random if you get it. You can deny it, save your deny dice for it, twin link stuff or master craft.

*hidden objectives - garbage.

People tried to change the game when 6th came out, and swore allies would break the game etc. Just play.

MLKTH wrote:
What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.

I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.

I would not go to this type of tournament. Sounds like your playing a completely different game...

MLKTH wrote:
What I'm planning as a TO is a limit of two detachments (so you can either double-up on your primary, take an ally OR take a formation) and a limit on number of warp charges per list (something like 10). I think this would keep things sane enough. If 2++ rerollables are still a problem, that could additionally still be nerfed LVO-style.

I'd never use maelstrom of war missions in a tournament, because they're too random and I can't really expect everyone to have the deck, but I'd like to try and create scenarios that use some of the new elements.

I agree 100%

niv-mizzet wrote:
While I believe the daemon summon horde is the most powerful list in 40k at the moment, I also realize that it will both lack representation at tournaments due to people not having all the daemon models needed

I've ceased to be amazed at the things people will buy to play in a tournament. Besides, having 200 daemons isn't that much different than having 200 orks. I could field either tomorrow...

, and it will also not be able to actively play in a tournament due to an incredibly lengthy turn. Long psychic phase, along with deep strikes, followed by running each summoned unit to get them out of "pie plate me" formation. Even quick players will most likely struggle to make it to turn 4 before the clock catches up.

Which may play to the daemon player's advantage. Consider, if I, the daemon player, draw a hand that nets me a quick 3 VP, I may be happy to spend an hour summoning units, denying you time to catch up. But if you get the better hand of cards, I can play faster, or forgo summoning, in favor of getting better cards/more points.

Anything that can take a long time is to the advantage of the player controlling that action.

Since many of you all are "trying" to change the rules of the game and how it's played.

1. Overwatch - only a single snap shot may be fired from each model.
2. Assaults - d6 +6
3. You may now assault out of a transport.

There yah go - this would help make CC armies more "balanced" in tournaments when playing against shooty armies.

Seriously...why play the game if your changing rules? My rule change suggestions are just as legit as the anyone one else's in this thread, but it won't happen. Why? Because people played each new rule set and conformed to its rules.

If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.

 Leth wrote:
If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.

One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Leth wrote:
If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.

One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.

Actually many of the people who have that much experience are also saying wait it out and see if it works because they know we don't have enough data to know for sure. Incentivize list building is all about the missions. Until you know what the win objectives are you cant incentivize much of anything.

People can predict what is a statistically better choice but how long before they fine tune it? We still have no idea how everything interacts on the table right now, we also have to remember that many people are just prone to seeing a possibility and making that that the norm, so to respond to such is not a good way to limit what you want to limit.

 Leth wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Leth wrote:
If we were two to three months out I MIGHT think that it would be valid to talk about making changes. However it has not even been a week and people are trying to say something hypothetical is going to be broken in tournaments. Lets see some tournament games with armies designed for 7th edition(IE not static gunlines) and see how this broken combo works.

One does not have to have lit a cat on fire "before" to able to predict the end results. There are people here who have played for more than half their lives, literally decades, and they are likely able to read rules and make fairly accurate predictions of how that will incentivize list building and the overall direction of the game err "meta" as some say.

Actually many of the people who have that much experience are also saying wait it out and see if it works because they know we don't have enough data to know for sure. Incentivize list building is all about the missions. Until you know what the win objectives are you cant incentivize much of anything.

People can predict what is a statistically better choice but how long before they fine tune it? We still have no idea how everything interacts on the table right now, we also have to remember that many people are just prone to seeing a possibility and making that that the norm, so to respond to such is not a good way to limit what you want to limit.

You don't need to measure the length of the cat's hair or record in detail the colour, it burns all the same. The plural of anecdote is not data.


We don't even have a game to examine the impacts of list building in, we have a sandbox. If no one is even playing the same game, good luck getting a baseline.

I respect that mike brandt is gonna take some time before he makes any decisions, that's fine, but that's not the same as denigrating others who can read the writing on the wall, the whole sky is falling accuse anyone of knee jerking is pretty disrespectful to the collective intelligence of 40k players. Much the same, if someone tells me these problems won't be as big a deal in his or her gaming group, I'm likely to believe them. That doesn't mean I know what game they are playing.