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.

Almost no one played ITC in Europe...

Considering that many people and tournaments in particular allowed Chapter Tactics I think they'll allow new secondaries as well, even if both are relatively bad ideas from a future game balance perspective. I think I head some Maelstrom events banned faction objectives but it could go either way, the codex model is inherently unfair. Almost certainly some armies will become massively better or worse from their codex for one or more reasons.

I think the competitive meta will adapt to secondaries fine. Its a skew on the list - but no more than anything else.

My concern is more down the ladder into casual games. Now to a degree you are in this odd setting of "yeah but its a casual game, does it matter" - and the answer is, kinda?

Bringing multiple casters to use the *bad* spells is *bad* anyway - but now it could doubly bad because its handing your opponent 15 points.

I guess its a mentality of *this is a fluffy/themed army. I don't expect it to rofflestomp everything, and if I wanted that I'd bring a meta list. But I don't want it to automatically lose cos it throws out 40 points on secondaries if you look at it funny".

Some armies can't adapt to Abhor. For other armies, adapting means ditching their psykers, which is a stupid kind of adaptation.

It's just a bad secondary. Secondaries shouldn't reward you for foregoing parts of your army entirely, nor should they arbitrarily punish certain armies for their basic makeup. It'd be like if there was another secondary that gave you 3VP for every infantry unit destroyed if your army contains no infantry units. It's bad both for armies that can avoid taking any infantry and armies that can't. Or if you couldn't take assassinate if you had more than 1 character yourself, but if you don't, it's 5VP per character. Bring it down only works if you have no vehicles yourself, but again 5VP per vehicle destroyed!

That's obviously stupid; abhor is the same. Sticking "psyker" on something doesn't suddenly make it good when it would be stupid with any other keyword.