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.

Janthkin, you've got some reasonable points.

Peregrine, I still have to disagree. Most dice thrown in 40k will fall into bell curves, giving reasonably predictable results. But the occasional simple roll with large potential effect (look out sir against an ID attack, morale, scatter or reserve rolls for expensive units) has its place too. Part of player skill is being able to roll with the punches and win even when the dice throw you a curveball. Part of playing with or against daemons is that the pitcher throws more curveballs, if I'm not straining that metaphor too far. Now, that's ALWAYS been part of the Daemon army concept; heck, just having the Preferred Wave roll was a much bigger example of that than the 2,3 or 11 on the Warp Storm chart. I honestly think folks are freaking out disproportionately over the fact that part of daemons' randomness now can screw the opponent too.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But the occasional simple roll with large potential effect (look out sir against an ID attack, morale, scatter or reserve rolls for expensive units) has its place too. Part of player skill is being able to roll with the punches and win even when the dice throw you a curveball.

The difference is that these effects are still reasonably predictable (for example, deep strike scatter distance is a bell curve) and still involve risk/reward decisions (for example, you choose how aggressively you want to target your deep strike knowing that there is a bell curve of distances). This isn't true for the warp storm table. There's little or nothing you can do about it (no unit to kill to shut it off), there are no choices to be made by either player, and the most significant outcomes are too rare to be able to plan for them (for example, refusing to take psykers is a huge disadvantage the rest of the time). Just occasionally something will randomly screw you over.

I honestly think folks are freaking out disproportionately over the fact that part of daemons' randomness now can screw the opponent too.

That is part of it.

In the past the randomness of demons was excessive, but at least there was some degree of risk vs. reward of whether you wanted to take a chance on playing a potentially powerful army that was at the mercy of preferred wave and deep strike rolls. Now that choice is removed, unless you just refuse to play against demons (and never play in tournaments) you have to put up with the random table.

You'll have to put up with the table, and the small possibility of being screwed by it, just as daemon players have had to put up with Warp Quake, GK players have had to put up with Runes of Warding, Necron and Tyranid players have had to put up with Jaws, and folks playing against Daemons for the past six months have had to put up with silly broken Screamers and Flamers.

I can concede that the implementation is not ideal, and certainly see that it's not to everyone's taste, but IMO it's substantially less impactful on our experience as players and on the ability to play a balanced game than a lot of other things presently or recently extant, which we suck up and deal with. Many of which prove not to be as bad as we thought after all. Most of these things soon blend into the scenery, as will (I expect) the Warp Storm table.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You'll have to put up with the table, and the small possibility of being screwed by it, just as daemon players have had to put up with Warp Quake, GK players have had to put up with Runes of Warding, Necron and Tyranid players have had to put up with Jaws, and folks playing against Daemons for the past six months have had to put up with silly broken Screamers and Flamers.

Again, stupid decisions don't justify more stupid decisions. The fact that Matt Ward is an idiot and somehow thought warp quake was a good idea doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the warp storm table is a good idea, it just means that GW made two mistakes.

Of course one difference here is that things like RoW aren't random in the same way. It's a powerful effect, but it's a consistent effect. You know what the risks of using your psykers are and can make intelligent decisions about whether the benefits are worth the costs. You can try to kill the farseer and shut it off, and make decisions about how much effort to invest into killing the farseer and/or whether you should use your psykers aggressively under RoW or save them until RoW is gone. You don't just randomly roll a D20 every turn and remove a psyker model if you roll a 1 with no interaction between the players or decisions to make.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like the warpstorm chart.

As far as gameplay, I can see why people don't like it, I suppose. It is true that it does random, crazy things and requires no input from the players.

On the other hand, I think it is a wonderful way to represent the reality-tearing, mind-blowing, psyker-eating systemwide disaster that is a warp storm, which always accompanies Daemonic armies.

For me, that fits the background quite well, and I do play 40k to win (I don't deliberately try to lose, or make bad tactical decisions, or anything) but I appreciate that the background should ultimately govern how the battle goes, and if the reality-tearing warp-storm feths something up, then that is the background that I love being made manifest on the tabletop. It does mean that every win or loss may not be based on my skill alone, but the same is true in real war.

No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

 McNinja wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like the warpstorm chart.

As far as gameplay, I can see why people don't like it, I suppose. It is true that it does random, crazy things and requires no input from the players.

On the other hand, I think it is a wonderful way to represent the reality-tearing, mind-blowing, psyker-eating systemwide disaster that is a warp storm, which always accompanies Daemonic armies.

For me, that fits the background quite well, and I do play 40k to win (I don't deliberately try to lose, or make bad tactical decisions, or anything) but I appreciate that the background should ultimately govern how the battle goes, and if the reality-tearing warp-storm feths something up, then that is the background that I love being made manifest on the tabletop. It does mean that every win or loss may not be based on my skill alone, but the same is true in real war.

No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

No real wars are won through Cinematic.

 McNinja wrote:
No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

Not true at all.

However, it's not really relevant since real wars aren't supposed to be fun. 40k, on the other hand, is supposed to be a balanced and fun game.

 McNinja wrote:
No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

This is hilariously untrue. For example, the Soviet Union won the Battle of Kursk in part because all many of the attacking German tanks were badly designed and broke down. That's not something a General can count on or predict, or even fix with tactical insight or hard work.

Or, for example, the German Dreadnought fleet's escape from Jutland, which was aided by fog and mist before nightfall.

Or the success of D-Day, where the counterattack Panzer reserve was not released to the control of Rommel until Hitler woke up - around noon. How does hard work and tactical insight address that?

Just a few modern examples.

 McNinja wrote:
No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

Please tell me you're joking...please

I would much rather roll on this table than have to deep-strike my entire army like I did in 5th. Ever had a 300 point unit destroyed during your own deployment phase? In a 1500 point game?

That is what sucks. So your lost your libby in a 1/36 freak occurance. Boo hoo. A necron airforce just came onto the field, that gives you a 1/1 chance of being utterly boned and there's feth all you can do to stop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

No real wars are won through Cinematic.

Your attempt at sarcasm is undermined by your sloppy grammar

 McNinja wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like the warpstorm chart.

As far as gameplay, I can see why people don't like it, I suppose. It is true that it does random, crazy things and requires no input from the players.

On the other hand, I think it is a wonderful way to represent the reality-tearing, mind-blowing, psyker-eating systemwide disaster that is a warp storm, which always accompanies Daemonic armies.

For me, that fits the background quite well, and I do play 40k to win (I don't deliberately try to lose, or make bad tactical decisions, or anything) but I appreciate that the background should ultimately govern how the battle goes, and if the reality-tearing warp-storm feths something up, then that is the background that I love being made manifest on the tabletop. It does mean that every win or loss may not be based on my skill alone, but the same is true in real war.

No... real wars are won through Tactical insight and hard work. Not random happenstance. No war, or battle, and in the history of planet earth has been won due to the anything other than one general being better than the other, or one has more troops than the other. No magic, no random deaths because Zeus felt like it, people won wars because people did work and people were able to use that work to save lives and take lives more efficiently.

General Winter disagrees with your assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Winter

Or any other Victory winning weather condition that has randomly caused armies to fall, fail, and die.

Warp Storm table is the dumbest piece of garbage rule added in 6th ed so far. I hope they FAQ it to make it optional, or something.

Peregrine explained it pretty well on page 1 of this thread.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
You'll have to put up with the table, and the small possibility of being screwed by it, just as daemon players have had to put up with Warp Quake, GK players have had to put up with Runes of Warding, Necron and Tyranid players have had to put up with Jaws, and folks playing against Daemons for the past six months have had to put up with silly broken Screamers and Flamers.

Again, stupid decisions don't justify more stupid decisions. The fact that Matt Ward is an idiot and somehow thought warp quake was a good idea doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the warp storm table is a good idea, it just means that GW made two mistakes.

Agreed that bad decisions don't justify more bad decisions. But just as surely, it's important to maintain perspective when something new, powerful, and difficult to counter comes along. It happens fairly regularly in 40k, and the neverending cycle of "what are we going to freak out about this time? The Helldrake? The Banner of Devastation?" becomes silly and tired.

The hyperbolic opinion of some guys on the internet that Mat Ward is an idiot (when he clearly designs powerful and flexible codices which people like to use, and have fewer never-take units in them than codices written by guys like Cruddace or Kelly) should not be confused with being any more of a fact than if those same posters were to chorus that Chocolate is objectively better than Vanilla.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course one difference here is that things like RoW aren't random in the same way. It's a powerful effect, but it's a consistent effect. You know what the risks of using your psykers are and can make intelligent decisions about whether the benefits are worth the costs. You can try to kill the farseer and shut it off, and make decisions about how much effort to invest into killing the farseer and/or whether you should use your psykers aggressively under RoW or save them until RoW is gone. You don't just randomly roll a D20 every turn and remove a psyker model if you roll a 1 with no interaction between the players or decisions to make.

IMO a 1/36 chance per turn (assuming you bring a single LD10 psyker with no ability to re-roll LD) of losing a psyker's a lot less punishing than a 67% chance of losing a Terivigon if you move within 24" of the Space Wolf player's deployment zone, or 2/3 chance per Tervigon crossed by the line when the Space Wolf player drop pods in their Rune Priest in on turn 1. Or the chances of having a bad game if you brought an elite army against a list of 20+ each WD-statted screamers and flamers.

I'd have preferred a different way of making psykers more vulnerable against daemons (maybe any double is perils, and boxcars/snake eyes turn you into a spawn?), but this one is going to cost you a psyker a tiny percentage of the time, to be honest. Most armies make a pretty cheap investment in that psyker, and I remembered that Eldar can take a 30pt Warlock and give Eldrad a re-roll on that LD.

Agreed with Mann, basically

This is an attempt to bring some of the background of fighting against daemons more into the fore. You CAN, as has been *repeatedly* shown, mitigate the effects of it on your own army, and is at least a 2D6 roll and not the 1D6 preferred roll of yore.

Those pointing to the bell curve also miss that that only really works with discrete events in large numbers (binomial approximation to the normal) so a lot of other game changing rolls are just as unmanageable (to whit: actually manageable, as hsa been shown) as this entire table.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Agreed that bad decisions don't justify more bad decisions. But just as surely, it's important to maintain perspective when something new, powerful, and difficult to counter comes along. It happens fairly regularly in 40k, and the neverending cycle of "what are we going to freak out about this time? The Helldrake? The Banner of Devastation?" becomes silly and tired.

1) Nobody is saying that the warp storm chart is the most overpowered thing ever. The thread is "warp storm is bad for 40k", not "what's the worst thing in 40k". Saying "but it's not as bad as Helldrakes" is just missing the point entirely, and doesn't make it any less annoying.

2) The issue isn't that it is overpowered, it is that it is not fun. It's a poorly designed random element that should never have been included in the game, and just one more case of GW substituting "cinematic" for proper game design. These criticisms have nothing to do with the power level of demons and/or how the warp table contributes to it, they're just as valid even if demons are the worst army in the game.

IMO a 1/36 chance per turn (assuming you bring a single LD10 psyker with no ability to re-roll LD) of losing a psyker's a lot less punishing than a 67% chance of losing a Terivigon if you move within 24" of the Space Wolf player's deployment zone, or 2/3 chance per Tervigon crossed by the line when the Space Wolf player drop pods in their Rune Priest in on turn 1.

1) See previous comments about the poorly designed randomness being the problem, not whether or not it is overpowered.

2) The relative rarity of it makes it worse, not better. Losing a tank to a drop pod full of combi-melta sternguard is predictable, and there's very little you can do to stop it. You see it in your opponent's list, you know they spent points on it, and you aren't going to be at all surprised when it kills a tank. And that keeps it from being annoying, you can see it as a strategic choice by your opponent and not a case of getting screwed by the dice. The warp storm chart, on the other hand, is entirely different. Since it's only a 1/36 chance when it does happen it's extremely frustrating. Your opponent didn't make a good choice, and you didn't make a bad one. The dice just said " you, remove your character".

(maybe any double is perils, and boxcars/snake eyes turn you into a spawn?)

See, this is a good idea. Well, not the spawn part, just the increased perils chance. It's a fluffy representation of "the warp is doing weird things", but it's also predictable enough that it doesn't feel like an out of nowhere " you" when it happens. Instead of rolling on the random table of a bunch of completely different outcomes you just have a nice straightforward 1/6 chance to take a wound, and now you can make intelligent decisions based on that information.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
It's one result. It affects a random psyker, most armes don't even have a psyker, but those that do, tend to have more than just one super important one. Even then, its only a 50% or so chance it works.

Again. You're missing the point entirely.

1) It's not about whether it's overpowered or not, it's about how random it is. There is a huge difference in results on the table, and it has nothing to do with any kind of player choices. Sometimes it has no impact, sometimes it randomly screws over one or both players. Just like various other random tables in 6th edition it takes things out of the hands of the players and gives them to random chance.

2) The relative rarity makes it worse, not better. Instead of a consistent event that you can reasonably predict and make plans for you have a rare "oops, you lose" outcome. Consider the difference between missing a shot with an average BS 2 ork vs. missing a shot with a twin-linked BS 5 model. One is something you expect to happen all the time and you don't really care about, the other makes you smash your dice in frustration.

And you miss the point as well. Some people like the table, some don't. Some find it fun, some find it obnoxious, some find it adds elements to the game, some find it takes things away. At the end of the day, GW decided on doing something that made the codex different from everybody else. You dislike the randomness of the book? Fine-that's your call. But others like it. Don't tell those of us who like the table that it shouldn't exist and it was a mistake-we play Daemons because we like them. Random can be bad, but in this case the 4 most likely results (outside of NOTHING HAPPENING on a 7) are going to be an added attack against opponents and occasional attacks against Daemons. You can plan for those, as they are going to make up about 60% of the things on the chart going off. The other 40% of the rolls (based on dice combinations) will be 20% bad for Daemons, 20% bad for opponents in opposite ways to Daemons. The only thing you should expect from the chart is "my opponent is rolling a D6 for each of his units and I'm rolling a D6 for each unit of ________ god". Those results are the most likely. The other results are less likely, and for every positive, there is a negative. You enjoy your army, we'll enjoy ours. If you don't want to play against the table, then don't play against Daemons. That's your choice, but don't ever tell other players they can't have fun with their own army or that they don't deserve something because it goes against how you want to have fun. It's as simple as that.

And this is coming from somebody who has been very upset with GW for a while-I find this book to have rekindled an interest for me. Others, obviously, feel the same.

tl;dr-You don't like the table, some of us do. Nobody is twisting your arm, but don't try to tell us we can't enjoy it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Giganthrax wrote:
Warp Storm table is the dumbest piece of garbage rule added in 6th ed so far. I hope they FAQ it to make it optional, or something.

Peregrine explained it pretty well on page 1 of this thread.

Hell no. You don't like it, don't play against Daemon players-there's your "optional FAQ". Maybe GW should hire me to help out.

I've been wanting to start a CD army for a while, and this Warp Storm chart seals the deal for me. It fits the army and seems like a fun mechanic. I can't believe so many people have a problem with it. I wonder if these people fall apart when something unexpected and random happen in REAL LIFE, let alone a toy soldier game.

For me the problem the Warp storm table is some of the rolls create effects where your not really "playing" your opponent.

I don't have a problem with a roll that can either buff or nerf your army turn to turn, because it is something you have to play with and make strategic choices on how to handle/exploit that possibility. What is wrong is I show up with my army and in a random dice roll one of my strategic choices disappears. It's not the same as if you attacked my psyker and you rolled hot or I rolled bad, in that situation we played a game. you made a choice I made a choice and we see what happens. The warp storm doesn't reflect decisions by the players it's pure whoops lets change the game because of a random roll.

Pony_law wrote:
For me the problem the Warp storm table is some of the rolls create effects where your not really "playing" your opponent.

I don't have a problem with a roll that can either buff or nerf your army turn to turn, because it is something you have to play with and make strategic choices on how to handle/exploit that possibility. What is wrong is I show up with my army and in a random dice roll one of my strategic choices disappears. It's not the same as if you attacked my psyker and you rolled hot or I rolled bad, in that situation we played a game. you made a choice I made a choice and we see what happens. The warp storm doesn't reflect decisions by the players it's pure whoops lets change the game because of a random roll.

Unless you use instruments, which allow you to reflect decisions purchased to influence rolls.

2) The issue isn't that it is overpowered, it is that it is not fun. It's a poorly designed random element that should never have been included in the game, and just one more case of GW substituting "cinematic" for proper game design. These criticisms have nothing to do with the power level of demons and/or how the warp table contributes to it, they're just as valid even if demons are the worst army in the game.

Seriously, you and the group have been saying cinematic for a while now, does it even have a proper definition you can use yet for the context.

 beigeknight wrote:
I can't believe so many people have a problem with it. I wonder if these people fall apart when something unexpected and random happen in REAL LIFE, let alone a toy soldier game.

This is an excellent example of trying to take a reasonable discussion between opposing viewpoints, and turn it into personal attacks.

Don't do that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Seriously, you and the group have been saying cinematic for a while now, does it even have a proper definition you can use yet for the context.

Haven't you noticed GW's overuse of "cinematic" in the 6th edition rulebook? Cinematic this, cinematic that, let's cinematically forge a narrative. It seems to be GW's excuse for replacing good game design and balance with a bunch of random tables to roll on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Seriously, you and the group have been saying cinematic for a while now, does it even have a proper definition you can use yet for the context.

Haven't you noticed GW's overuse of "cinematic" in the 6th edition rulebook? Cinematic this, cinematic that, let's cinematically forge a narrative. It seems to be GW's excuse for replacing good game design and balance with a bunch of random tables to roll on.

There's always been random tables to roll on, if you played rogue trader you'd probably see be surprise when the old ork book had some 40+ tables.

2nd edition had the same, with various charts like the Sisters of Battle's main mechanic chart, with a ton of various effects like missiles shooting off everywhere rather then at the enemy.

3rd edition saw BA randomly rolling for each and every single one of their models turning Death Company, along with other charts

4th edition had some, but still had the ork's random rollers, along with the old IG psyker powers and general use in some of the niche armies.

5th came with no armies with it, aside from combat drugs for Dark Eldar (might be missing one or two)

6th simply returned to what older 40k's had.

Come up with another word, simply harping on one of GW's poorly chosen words is simple nitpicking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Seriously, you and the group have been saying cinematic for a while now, does it even have a proper definition you can use yet for the context.

Haven't you noticed GW's overuse of "cinematic" in the 6th edition rulebook? Cinematic this, cinematic that, let's cinematically forge a narrative. It seems to be GW's excuse for replacing good game design and balance with a bunch of random tables to roll on.

The only over-use of the word "cinematic" i've seen is by you, almost always with quote marks around it.

On the other hand, maybe the Warp Storm will make people cut down a bit on Psykers? Some have very good powers in their own Codex and most can pick the rulebook powers which make for some very nasty combos. In some cases they'll even overshadow fliers - try a couple Biomancy Tervigons in a small battle for example.

Panic move trying to save the fliers?

Demons have a defense against Psykers to remove those nasty Staff's of No. Ohh dear how shall we ever survive. Seriously this is not that large of an issue. Its in the book. Play the game.

Keep Calm and play on.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I don't see a problem with it. Only 3 of the effects really screw you over, 1 does nothing, and the rest screw your opponent over to varying degrees.Considering this is already a game where the vast majority of things are decided by dice rolls, why are people complaining about *gasp* more dice rolls being added?

Because this kind of stuff leads to winning without any tactics. Or even any effort.
Take, for example, Ultramarines Chief Librarian Tigurius.

Now, imagine he is being fielded as the warlord of your opponent, and is in a unit of terminators. Now imagine that you are playing chaos daemons against Tigurius, and the deciding factor of this game is the "Slay the warlord" objective.
In any normal gameplay, you could expect a pretty epic battle, you throwing all you have at this character
Your opponent moves his units to defend Tigurius, shoots, stays where he is. You move your units to get a tactical advantage, and clear the path to Tigurius.
You get to the shooting phase. You roll 11.

Tigurius instantly dies, and you place a herald where he once stood.

Now, can you answer the following question:
What was the point of putting an army on the table?

EDIT: Admittedly this is unlikely, but it's still annoying. (This isn't me being butthurt, I play chaos myself).

Selym wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I don't see a problem with it. Only 3 of the effects really screw you over, 1 does nothing, and the rest screw your opponent over to varying degrees.Considering this is already a game where the vast majority of things are decided by dice rolls, why are people complaining about *gasp* more dice rolls being added?

Because this kind of stuff leads to winning without any tactics. Or even any effort.
Take, for example, Ultramarines Chief Librarian Tigurius.

Now, imagine he is being fielded as the warlord of your opponent, and is in a unit of terminators. Now imagine that you are playing chaos daemons against Tigurius, and the deciding factor of this game is the "Slay the warlord" objective.
In any normal gameplay, you could expect a pretty epic battle, you throwing all you have at this character
Your opponent moves his units to defend Tigurius, shoots, stays where he is. You move your units to get a tactical advantage, and clear the path to Tigurius.
You get to the shooting phase. You roll 11.

Tigurius instantly dies, and you place a herald where he once stood.

Now, can you answer the following question:
What was the point of putting an army on the table?

And in the old codex, my Lord of Change is forced to deep-strike, he then miss-haps and 20% of my points go down the drain, along with a VP for my opponent. I would say what would be the point of putting an army on the table, but in all liklihood the player hasn't.

The difference between the Warp Storm Chart and the old rules are that the WSC can shaft the demon player or his opponent. The old rules only shafted the Demon player.

I think a lot of the beef here comes from the fact that 40k was never intended to be a competitive game.

It became streamlined and balanced *enough* in 3rd edition that the beginnings of a competitive game could take shape. 5th was by far the most competitive edition. Now they're trying to rein that in and people are getting upset.

If you look at it over the course of the decades-old trajectory of 40k's lifespan, it isn't that strange. If you've only been playing since 5th edition, it is probably a shocker.

 BryllCream wrote:

Selym wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I don't see a problem with it. Only 3 of the effects really screw you over, 1 does nothing, and the rest screw your opponent over to varying degrees.Considering this is already a game where the vast majority of things are decided by dice rolls, why are people complaining about *gasp* more dice rolls being added?

Because this kind of stuff leads to winning without any tactics. Or even any effort.
Take, for example, Ultramarines Chief Librarian Tigurius.

Now, imagine he is being fielded as the warlord of your opponent, and is in a unit of terminators. Now imagine that you are playing chaos daemons against Tigurius, and the deciding factor of this game is the "Slay the warlord" objective.
In any normal gameplay, you could expect a pretty epic battle, you throwing all you have at this character
Your opponent moves his units to defend Tigurius, shoots, stays where he is. You move your units to get a tactical advantage, and clear the path to Tigurius.
You get to the shooting phase. You roll 11.

Tigurius instantly dies, and you place a herald where he once stood.

Now, can you answer the following question:
What was the point of putting an army on the table?

And in the old codex, my Lord of Change is forced to deep-strike, he then miss-haps and 20% of my points go down the drain, along with a VP for my opponent. I would say what would be the point of putting an army on the table, but in all liklihood the player hasn't.

The difference between the Warp Storm Chart and the old rules are that the WSC can shaft the demon player or his opponent. The old rules only shafted the Demon player.

That is a fair point, but I think they could have invented some better results, ones that do not have to nerf tactical play.

Maybe, but I like it when rules go a bit over the top for the sake of fluff.

Hell just look at the old Fateweaver. Yet it was over the top, if not outright over-powered. But it was fluffy as hell, and the fact that he was 333 points just made it even cooler.

Horses for courses I guess. Time will tell how it goes down in regular play.