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.

I don't have beef with the contents of the chart. Random stuff happening is fine.

I question the design choice to just make us roll at the start of the turn, when instead it could've been designed like CSM's boon table, where it is a reaction to an event.

 BryllCream wrote:
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.

Well, yes. The most major merit of this codex imo is that it has the fluffiest gameplay I've ever seen

[quote=

Been reading some more stuff, and the codex is giving me a serious case of the giggles

Player 1: "Daemonic incursion? What daemonic incursion? All I see are a handful of mutated balls of guardsman arms!"

Player 2: *Rolls a 12 on the warp storm table, and then rolls a 15 [2D6 + 3]*
"Well, the warp just shat out a big blob of plague bearers!"

Player 1: "Well I'll be damned! It is a daemonic incursion!"

Selym - you roll an 11, and THEN the psyker fails a Ld test. Not just rolling an 11. Oh, and look, you can mitigate that risk by having a couple of psykers about....

 MDizzle wrote:
The other issue I have is people saying that's not different than DS misphap and as someone that played deamons for 2 years I think I can say DS mishaps are your fault you chose to place the model there and DS it. The warp storm gives no choice to decision making nothing. It just happens and you have to deal with it.

Warp quake is your fault too?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Selym - you roll an 11, and THEN the psyker fails a Ld test. Not just rolling an 11. Oh, and look, you can mitigate that risk by having a couple of psykers about....

I know that, but it still is possible, which can be quite annoying even to daemon players, because we're robbed of a good fight. No tactics involved with that one at all.

Selym wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Selym - you roll an 11, and THEN the psyker fails a Ld test. Not just rolling an 11. Oh, and look, you can mitigate that risk by having a couple of psykers about....

I know that, but it still is possible, which can be quite annoying even to daemon players, because we're robbed of a good fight. No tactics involved with that one at all.

...one pysker. One. In 99% of lists, killing an enemy psyker might be very helpful, but it's hardly auto-win.

If the only thing that people as non-Daemon players have to complain about is the potential to lose 1 psyker in a game (and not even a super high chance) I think the table is fine!

I mean, if they roll double 1s twice in a row, the Daemon Player just disappears from the board, no?

Personaly I like the sound of the table, and the book. IMO this fun and fluff play over competitive balanced games is good. For me 40k is more of a mass RPG than a war simulation or competative game. I like the direction the game is going in, much more like the old days. I happen to think 5th went to much for the competative side and was full of loopholes and broken lists because of it.

@BryllCream nobody is claiming that the Warp storm Chart is auto win.

I think it's bad game design that will makes games go poorly for both the Deamon player and the guy across the table.

 MDizzle wrote:
@BryllCream nobody is claiming that the Warp storm Chart is auto win.

I think it's bad game design that will makes games go poorly for both the Deamon player and the guy across the table.

You are right, nobody is claiming that it is auto-win. A lot of non-daemon players are complaining about result 11 though, even though Daemon players are more likely to hurt themselves with the low results on the table, than the table hurting their opponent with the high results of the table.

I have yet to see Daemon players complaining. Warp happens.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
mitigate that risk

Play Tau.

Laugh

what are the actually chances for alot of these events, because from the one game iv played so far, almost nothing happened. and even then those blast makers scatters off for the most part.
i know it isnt much to go by one game but are the odds really that bad?

 Desubot wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
mitigate that risk

Play Tau.

Laugh

what are the actually chances for alot of these events, because from the one game iv played so far, almost nothing happened. and even then those blast makers scatters off for the most part.
i know it isnt much to go by one game but are the odds really that bad?

No, the odds are not that bad. I think a lot of folks migrated to DakkaDakka to whine after whineseer shut down the whine thread over there.

Random tables that can have huge effects on a battle are bad because they take control away from the player in the worst way possible. Where's the satisfaction in seeing your opponent loose his 300 point daemon on first turn because he rolled badly on some table? Or completely outplaying your daemon opponent and then loosing the battle because on last turn he gets a bunch of daemon troops for free and took an objective? It's a terrible, terrible game mechanic.

Not only is it annoying, it isn't even cinematic. Really, imagine a book or a movie where the big bad greater daemon heroes have to find a way to banish back to the warp suddenly disappears because of an event completely unrelated to the story at hand (warp getting restless). Or where a protagonist randomly dies because some nameless daemon appears out of the warp and possesses him, with no build up to it whatsoever? That's not cinematic. That's just random unsatisfying crap. Not even George Martin does that sort of stuff.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

In a tournament, I don't get to choose who I play against.

I certainly hope GW refrains from hiring people like you. ;]



Also, someone here mentioned Matt Ward and said he makes good codexes people like to play. This is wrong. Just because a book is full of units that are too good for their price doesn't mean it's a good book. It's simply codex creep at work, and codex creep is bad for the game in the long run. If you don't understand that, then I really don't know what to say...

 Giganthrax wrote:
Random tables that can have huge effects on a battle are bad because they take control away from the player in the worst way possible. Where's the satisfaction in seeing your opponent loose his 300 point daemon on first turn because he rolled badly on some table? Or completely outplaying your daemon opponent and then loosing the battle because on last turn he gets a bunch of daemon troops for free and took an objective? It's a terrible, terrible game mechanic.

Not only is it annoying, it isn't even cinematic. Really, imagine a book or a movie where the big bad greater daemon heroes have to find a way to banish back to the warp suddenly disappears because of an event completely unrelated to the story at hand (warp getting restless). Or where a protagonist randomly dies because some nameless daemon appears out of the warp and possesses him, with no build up to it whatsoever? That's not cinematic. That's just random unsatisfying crap. Not even George Martin does that sort of stuff.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

In a tournament, I don't get to choose who I play against.

I certainly hope GW refrains from hiring people like you. ;]



Also, someone here mentioned Matt Ward and said he makes good codexes people like to play. This is wrong. Just because a book is full of units that are too good for their price doesn't mean it's a good book. It's simply codex creep at work, and codex creep is bad for the game in the long run. If you don't understand that, then I really don't know what to say...

I wouldn't use the word "cinematic" or the word "fun." Because the first is a poor excuse and the second is too subjective. I would, however, use the word fluffy - and it's a good thing, because 40k's background is its strongest aspect, and emphasizing that on the table top is great. It's about time 40k's epic fluff started influencing rules.

It makes me sad, when people take "I don't think this is fun" as "This is not fun" They are not the same thing.

I don't find playing guardsmen fun. But I wouldn't say guardsmen are not fun, because I know plenty of people who love them.

I find the warpstorm table fun. Doesn't mean you have to.

I don't find playing grey knight's is fun. Doesn't mean I will tell you not to play them if you like them.

@ Unit1126PLL

So, if fluff is supposed to come before the crunch, then my 10 tactical marines should be more than capable of wiping out an average 2000 pt IG army, right?

Sorry, reflecting fluff on the tabletop is simply impossible. The rules should strive to make for a balanced, fun, smooth game experience, rather than enforce "fluffiness" or "cinematic feel" or whatever you wanna call it.

 Giganthrax wrote:
@ Unit1126PLL

So, if fluff is supposed to come before the crunch, then my 10 tactical marines should be more than capable of wiping out an average 2000 pt IG army, right?

Sorry, reflecting fluff on the tabletop is simply impossible. The rules should strive to make for a balanced, fun, smooth game experience, rather than enforce "fluffiness" or "cinematic feel" or whatever you wanna call it.

But what if the fluff is from the IG view? Those ten won't last against the IG at all without superior numbers!

However the Daemons Warp Storm isn't from anyone's perspective, large daemonic invasions happen and are either from, or caused by a giant warp storm.

Dude you can keep turning it however you can, but by its very nature the tabletop game generally doesn't make fluff sense.

GW should make good, balanced rules that aim to provide an easy and smooth gaming experience. Let the players worry about cinematics, narratives, and fluffiness. We're more than capable of it without random tables forcing us to. ;]

 Giganthrax wrote:
Random tables that can have huge effects on a battle are bad because they take control away from the player in the worst way possible. Where's the satisfaction in seeing your opponent loose his 300 point daemon on first turn because he rolled badly on some table? Or completely outplaying your daemon opponent and then loosing the battle because on last turn he gets a bunch of daemon troops for free and took an objective? It's a terrible, terrible game mechanic.

Not only is it annoying, it isn't even cinematic. Really, imagine a book or a movie where the big bad greater daemon heroes have to find a way to banish back to the warp suddenly disappears because of an event completely unrelated to the story at hand (warp getting restless). Or where a protagonist randomly dies because some nameless daemon appears out of the warp and possesses him, with no build up to it whatsoever? That's not cinematic. That's just random unsatisfying crap. Not even George Martin does that sort of stuff.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

In a tournament, I don't get to choose who I play against.

I certainly hope GW refrains from hiring people like you. ;]



Also, someone here mentioned Matt Ward and said he makes good codexes people like to play. This is wrong. Just because a book is full of units that are too good for their price doesn't mean it's a good book. It's simply codex creep at work, and codex creep is bad for the game in the long run. If you don't understand that, then I really don't know what to say...

You don't have to play tournaments either. Playing in a tournament is an agreement to play whatever list comes up against you. You can also forfeit the match and give the guy the win, thus not playing him. It's still your call. Only tournaments I ever played in put no limitations on rules: if it's in your book, you can use it. The ones that started cancelling that ability, well...I made my choice not to go to them. Wasn't that hard. "You limit my choices when the company that makes the game gave me the choices? Okay, I choose not to give you money."

 Mannahnin wrote:

I disagree. Randomness /= bad game design. Randomness, in the form of the Warp Storm table, is here to represent a particular fluff concept, of fighting Daemons in proximity to a warp rift. Some crazy stuff may happen. Lighting bolts will shoot out and hit people. Psykers may die. Daemons themselves may grow tougher or weaker. These are all reasonable and fluffy effects which players will need to adapt to and play around. Most of them can be adapted to and compensated for to a greater or lesser extent. Certainly as much or more than stuff like Warp Quake, Jaws of the World Wolf, or Runes of Witnessing, all of which have reliably and consistently screwed various armies over the last few years, and all of which folks have compensated for and adapted to deal with.

I'm going to agree with you, and also disagree. Randomness doesn't always equal bad game design, true. However, the degree of randomness, and the extent of it, can seriously impact game design. Remember the old Virus Bomb card, and the Vaxxine Squig (not that those were random, but...)? If a game chart had you set up all of your models, them remove them from the game before play started due to a random chart roll, most people would agree that it was poor game design. That's one extreme, of course.

I like the idea of representing fighting Daemons in proximity to a warp rift. What I don't like is the assumption that, now, every time you fight daemons, you are automatically at the same proximity to a warp rift.

If the Daemonic player had some terrain that they could buy for their army (hey, kind of like the stuff in the 6e rulebook!) which represented different sorts of warp incursions, even if those incursions had randomly generated effects, I would probably like it a lot more (of course, a badly designed chart could still lower my opinion). I would like the option for a warp rift to be 'on the battlefield' or to be 'near the battlefield'.

There's several separate things I don't like about this chart.

The first is part of what I feel like is a general tendency for recent GW rules to de-emphasize modeling and representing things on the battlefield. I don't want to go back to the ultra-specific rules of earlier editions (I still have 84 genestealers modeled with extra armor, adrenal glands, scything talons, and poison sacs). However, I really don't like things like Warlord traits, Gifts of the Gods, mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, and this chart which all exist entirely 'on paper', during the game. I really prefer things that are determined before the game and are listed on your roster (and things which can be modeled by the ambitious gamer). I think the game would be more 'cinematic' if you could model an objective that had a specific effect, rather than really needing a poker chip or a coin, because it might be a Skyfire Nexus, or maybe booby trapped. I really liked the specific, cinematic rules for things like ammo dumps and fuel stores and defense lines. Those things needed to be modeled, but they were also optional. This is mandatory and random, so you can't reflect it on the board.

I also dislike the recent GW tendency moving back towards 'mandatory' extra purchases. I remember one of the things people used to hate about Blood Angels was not knowing how many Death Company models you might need. You had to have some on hand (unless you wanted to just lose models for no benefit), but you couldn't know how many you needed to model up. I was really relieved when GW moved that 'randomness' into the 'unpredictability' of player's choice. You might play a BA force where the guy had a huge Death Company (so obviously, a lot of his marines had succumbed), or you might play a BA with very few (representing a force which had fought it off). Now we have a Codex where you need a model to represent a Daemon that might possess/erupt from a psyker, and you need a unit of daemons that might show up on the board. As a daemon player, you can't choose whether or not to roll on that chart. You can choose to have the models, or to not get the benefits. A 'warp rift' piece of terrain that you could buy, that might produce a daemon or unit of daemons? You could choose to have it (and take on the added costs of the extra models) or avoid it.

Finally, even though people have adapted to Jaws of the World Wolf, I still think it's a bad design for a rule, and poorly implemented. Even if I like the idea of the Rune Priest cracking open the earth to swallow his opponents, I still don't think the power is well-designed for the game. I have that complaint about this Warpstorm chart, too. I like the idea, but not the execution.


As a counter-example, if the Daemon codex had some daemonic terrain that you could buy:

One piece could represent an active warp rift. You could bring daemonic units out of reserves from it, much like a webway portal, but it could be immobile and placed in your deployment zone before terrain.

One piece could represent a corrupted artifact. You could place it anywhere on the board, after terrain, but before deployment, and any non-daemon pysker using a power near it would be possessed by a daemon (and you would deploy a daemon at that point) when they suffered a Perils of the Warp, but they also got +1 warp charge every turn.

One piece could be an emerging warp rift. It would have unpredictable effects each turn, good or bad for the daemon army, even, but might eventually open, and let you use it like an active warp rift. The benefit was that it didn't have to go into your deployment zone like an active warp rift, and you could possibly be able to deploy daemons into your opponent's areas.


All of those would work to represent fighting a daemonic incursion, but they would be represented in the list, and on the battlefield. They would cost points, and would represent a choice on the behalf of the daemon player. I would have been much happier.

I like the idea of representing fighting Daemons in proximity to a warp rift. What I don't like is the assumption that, now, every time you fight daemons, you are automatically at the same proximity to a warp rift.

If your fighting about 500+ worth of daemons that aren't being called out by another, it's very likely there's a rift pulling them in as they aren't being summoned naturally

It's why it doesn't happen if they are as allies, as it's likely they are being called in.

One piece could represent an active warp rift. You could bring daemonic units out of reserves from it, much like a webway portal, but it could be immobile and placed in your deployment zone before terrain.

You can? kinda, the portalglyph

Also, I think that it's funny that GW considers 'cinematic' rules to be ones that you CAN'T SEE.

Taking cover behind a fuel dump=cinematic. You can see the barrels. You can see your opponent shooting at them. Boom!

Roll on a chart in the book and alter the stat-line of a model =/=cinematic. This guy is tougher now, ok? I wrote it down.

I'm ALL FOR cinematic rules. They just need to be visually represented, like, you know, cinema.

Da Butcha wrote:
Also, I think that it's funny that GW considers 'cinematic' rules to be ones that you CAN'T SEE.

Taking cover behind a fuel dump=cinematic. You can see the barrels. You can see your opponent shooting at them. Boom!

Roll on a chart in the book and alter the stat-line of a model =/=cinematic. This guy is tougher now, ok? I wrote it down.

I'm ALL FOR cinematic rules. They just need to be visually represented, like, you know, cinema.

how can you physically show something as abstract as the warp, or a warp storm.

also a quick fluff question. can daemons as a full army invade without a warp storm?

I think you fail to understand what cinematic means. It's not about stuff blowing up, forlorn charges, last stands, birds being shot down from the sky... It's about the game unfolding before your eyes of its own accord, playing itself out, like you're sitting in... a cinema, watching a movie! Now that's cinematic!

 -DE- wrote:
I think you fail to understand what cinematic means. It's not about stuff blowing up, forlorn charges, last stands, birds being shot down from the sky... It's about the game unfolding before your eyes of its own accord, playing itself out, like you're sitting in... a cinema, watching a movie! Now that's cinematic!

So, your not supposed to have any control at all of the game, that you are playing?

Lol wut?

Indeed! Lol wut, GW?

 Giganthrax wrote:
@ Unit1126PLL

So, if fluff is supposed to come before the crunch, then my 10 tactical marines should be more than capable of wiping out an average 2000 pt IG army, right?

Sorry, reflecting fluff on the tabletop is simply impossible. The rules should strive to make for a balanced, fun, smooth game experience, rather than enforce "fluffiness" or "cinematic feel" or whatever you wanna call it.

That's not true at all. 10 tactical marines are, according to Dorn's own assessment, equal to 100 guardsmen. No 2000 point foot list fields that few number, and 10 tactical marines would be hard countered by the presence of some IG armor!

You don't have to play tournaments either. Playing in a tournament is an agreement to play whatever list comes up against you. You can also forfeit the match and give the guy the win, thus not playing him. It's still your call. Only tournaments I ever played in put no limitations on rules: if it's in your book, you can use it. The ones that started cancelling that ability, well...I made my choice not to go to them. Wasn't that hard. "You limit my choices when the company that makes the game gave me the choices? Okay, I choose not to give you money."

Who's talking changing book rules????

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's not true at all. 10 tactical marines are, according to Dorn's own assessment, equal to 100 guardsmen. No 2000 point foot list fields that few number, and 10 tactical marines would be hard countered by the presence of some IG armor!

Dunno about Dorn, but the 5th ed rulebook teaches us that a company of marines can conquer a planet. Also, tactical marines get heavy and special weapons as well as krak grenades so they can deal with armor. Good luck representing that on the tabletop. ;]