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 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know where your objectives are. You know there is a chance a scoring unit could deepstrike down. You can work out, perfectly well, how to mitigate that eventuailty.

If you have enough forces to prevent this scenario from occurring, then the outcome of the game is already certain before they roll. It's the games where it was closer than that where mitigation becomes rather more difficult.

It's not all that hard, especially if you choose to go second, as you normally should. Even if you can't screen off all of them, you can screen off some, and position to shoot at daemons popping up and going for others. The daemon player's also got to hope for a decent scatter roll and/or run move. It's certainly possible for a new unit out of nowhere to win the game, but I don't know if I'll ever see it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I never said that "Random = bad" (I said random =/= Chaos, which is true). Random is fine as long as there are limitations. Risk vs reward would be a good thing. If the Warp Storm table was the result of the player/s doing something, so you had the choice of gaining XYZ effect or perhaps incurring the wrath of the Chaos Gods, then fine.

This is a question of taste. For my money, while I appreciate the metagame argument that people prefer mechanics where they can exercise control and make decisions about what risks to incur, in terms of fluff I honestly think the table better represents the capriciousness of the chaos gods. Most of this game involves calculated decisions, but the gods don't care about our calculations and they defy our attempts to control them. They do not give a flying F about their followers or about their opponents, and the way they choose to exert influence or “reward” even their devoted followers often bears no resemblance to what might be good for those followers. Remember, these are the same guys who are just as happy to turn a servant into a spawn as a daemon prince. IMO having a chart representing that the Chaos gods may help you or harm you entirely at their whim and without you having any control over it is much more in keeping with how those gods are described than having a chart you could choose to activate or not activate if you the player are risk-averse. Instead, GW is telling us we need to ride out the storm and deal with it. The gods help or hurt me at their discretion, not mine (though the book does give the daemon player options which can give him a little bit of control, to reduce the risks).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But this is a core mechanic that no one has any control over, it hampers everyone, it can end games before they start and - worst of all - it actually encourages mono-God play.

IMO these are inaccurate statements. First, the daemon player CAN exercise a bit of control over it, and one of the ways to do that is specifically to avoid going mono-god. Read the rules for instruments. Second, the idea that it can end games before they start is so extremely remote a chance that I don’t think it’s a valid point of argument. Certainly the chances of it doing so are substantially smaller than the chances of Warp Quake doing so, or of a bad scatter & mishap or two doing so, even without Warp Quake. IMO just by changing their mode of deployment, the new book actually presents LESS chance of ending the game or crippling the daemon player as they start. Warp Storm is actually less of an issue in that regard than the old Daemonic Assault rule was.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The psychic power tables are a good example of random because they are risk vs reward. You roll for a power you really like, but you take the chance of getting something you don't want or just the base power. That's excellent implementation. The fact that they did that for all the daemonic wargear choices was 100% unnecessary (and adds nothing but more tedious dice rolling to the game) but at least they chose the same model as the psychic powers, with a base item you can choose if you want or if you don't like what you rolled. If only the Warlord Table had gone the same way (eg. Primaris Warlord - May add +1 to a single Reserve roll per turn).

I thought they did a great job with the rewards, giving each a guaranteed good result if you want to default on it, and the chance of various other useful goodies, some of which are amazing. The fact that you get choice of two different magic weapon profiles is nice too; simple and good Etherblade or the god-specific options. The fact that you generate these before each game is actually useful as well, as you can decide if you need the AP2 or grab something else. Of course, there are also the nice predicable, reliable Loci as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Armchair analysts", "aren't actually good", "don't really understand", "pretend the sky is falling". These are all ways of attacking the person and not the argument. You've even made a "No Real Scotsman" fallacy with the "good competitive players" line. Remember what I said about attacking someone else's argument and not the person making the argument? You just failed at it.

I’m sorry if you took that personally. I don’t think you’re one of the ones screaming hyperbole; I said those guys are part of the problem, and there have certainly been one or two of those in this thread. Some of them like to present themselves like they’re the voice of competitive play and competitive players, which is manifestly not the case. Multiple people have tried to attribute the disagreement over whether the chart is good or bad for the game as a disagreement between players who don't care about competitive play and those who do, which is both inaccurate and silly.

A number of folks have been guilty of overgeneralization, and I apologize if I’m one of them, but I thought I qualified my remarks reasonably. Evidently not. I know a fair few very good players in real life; guys who regularly feature at the top of various national and international events, and they simply do not throw their toys out of the pram the way some of the folks on forums or blogs do. People who play the game competively IRL adapt to this stuff without crying about it. I believe there's a combination of factors at work when people overreact about this stuff online; part of it is just Internet Anonymity Syndrome, and part of it is bloggers consciously stirring up controvery to drive clicks and ad revenue. And some of it's just plain lack of perspective and the recurring "what are we freaking about this time" discussion accompanying most new codices.

MarsNZ wrote:
Player A chose to play demons, fully in the knowledge that the inherent element of randomness in the faction may be a double edged sword. The reward potentially being the enemy psyker gets wrecked early game (a strong anti-psyker ability for the forces of Chaos? Surely this is madness, only the Imperium has mastered the psychic hood after all...)

Not even close to the same thing. Units within armies are balanced (or should be, or would be, in a perfect world) based upon their cost and the relative size of the game. This is an overall special rule that affects both players, without any way to affect it or mitigate it***. You cannot say that the risk for choosing to play daemons is losing the odd game because of nothing you or your opponent did.

Imagine if they put in a rule for Necrons that said "At the end of the game roll 3d6. On a triple your army phases out and you lose." no matter the result of the game itself. That's what this table is like - something utterly unrelated to the choices and actions of anyone involved in the game that can result in a complete reversal of the game's result, and there's nothing you can do about it.


***Except by avoiding the armies that use units affected by the 6 and 8 result on the table, and really just playing all Slaanesh or... I think Nurgle... Nurgle is the 5 result yes? Or Tzeentch? I know Slaanesh is 9, and will be affected by the table less than Khorne (who are 8 I believe) and the 6 result.

MarsNZ wrote:
Decent generals adapt to a changing situation, amateurs throw their toys out on release week.

And mature people attempting to have a discussion/argument don't throw out broad generalisations in lieu of a proper argument.



I don't have time to reply in full, but this caught my eye:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Warp Storm is actually less of an issue in that regard than the old Daemonic Assault rule was.

"The other one was worse" doesn't excuse this one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Imagine if they put in a rule for Necrons that said "At the end of the game roll 3d6. On a triple your army phases out and you lose." no matter the result of the game itself. That's what this table is like - something utterly unrelated to the choices and actions of anyone involved in the game that can result in a complete reversal of the game's result, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'd rather imagine you make an argument that doesn't imply a single 1/11 chance will ruin 40k

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And mature people attempting to have a discussion/argument don't throw out broad generalisations in lieu of a proper argument.

Yeah, target maturity when you're the one implying the sky is falling upon seeing a codex that's not even a week old.

Choice isn't the point. The points for the Warp Storm are included in the army as a whole.

What used to look like 17 KP's on average is now like 13. Some of it isn't because of cost, but some of it is. They reduced stats on many things and the cost didn't go down AS much as you'd have thought it would. 53 points for a Beast of Nurgle isn't TERRIBLE but I dont think you can say it's entirely cheap either when similar units are 30-40 points now in other armies.

I am torn on this. I want to be REASONABLE instead of being UNreasonable about my critique and I see 50% of the time being good, other times being bad... So the only part that one CAN complain about as the opponent is the bad to YOU. But if it's effectively a weapon you can use about 2-3 times per game against the enemy, whats that worth in points? How sucky did they make Pink Horrors to compensate? And so on.

So I dunno. It doesn't seem totally unfair to me. I'll gird myself for when it goes against me, and make sure the game isn't even close. then it wont matter at all.

I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion. I've played two games against demons (2 different lists, one with allies one pure) and warp storm didn't do all that much. He rolled the psyker instagib thingy, but I play orks with no psyker so no harm there. He lost a champion once. Mostly it was rolls that mattered little once it was pointed out whatever thing was nullified.

I did like when his unit ended up giving my nobz on bikes a 4+ FNP which turned around to bite him in the butt when my warbiker nob killed bloodthirster in a challenge. And that demonic instability can wreck units MUCH more often than it can give units back (box cars removes whole units)

What I DON'T like about the new Demons? Takes damn near 30 mins of rolling for gifts on random charts before we can even start deploying forces, plus all the psyker powers, etc.

Our two fights ended in tabling. I tabled the pure list, He tabled me with the allied list. It came down to who had first turn more than anything else.

The battles were a LOT more fun though. I enjoyed playing against this version of demons a lot more than playing against the WAAC lists of Epi or fateweaver or flamer/screamer spam.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The Warpstorm table is no worse a mechanic than Barrage weapons which can indescriminately kill random crap within a massive 24" bubble!

Flat out wrong. You choose to fire a barrage weapon and you choose where to fire it. If there's a chance to hit your own units than that's a risk you take vs the reward of hitting your intended target and causing damage.

The Warp Storm chart is nothing at all like that, as it happens independent of the actions of both players, and can change the course of the game with no counter. It's also imbalanced (bell curve results affecting certain God-specific forces more than other) and it encourages mono-God play.

No! Read what I said again please. My opponent fired their barrage weapon. I had 0 control over it. I made no choice at all except to watch the shot scatter 12" in a 100% random direction which then pooched my Walord and his entire unit that I'd safely stuck into an assault so they couldn't get shot.
How is this ANY different than my Daemons rolling up +1 to their saves for a single turn? Or me being able to randomly put down 5-15 grunts who die like flies to bolters? Or being able to randomly pooch an enemy psyker as part of my army's newfound psychic defenses?!

And if you think the Warpstorm table is ment to focus Daemons players into mono-god armies, then you're only proving that you haven't even read the rules for it since we can control that aspect of it.
Same deal with 1,1 result - Daemon players can easily mitigate the impact of such a roll, especially from pooching our army at the start of the game!

And as a Daemon player, I can somewhat control the Warpstorm table as well. If I'm really worried about it, I can take Fateweaver and be asured of a re-roll if the first rolls sucks. Or else I can roll up the relevent Warlord trait, or even gain "Re-roll failed Instatbility Tests within 12" trait.



I dare say there are plenty of far, far worse things in the game than this new Warpstorm table... (Warp Quake for one which forced me to outright shelve my entire army for almost 2 years would qualify, yes?!)

Before you declare it the worst thing to have ever happened to 40k, why don't you first give it a couple of goes in some actual games and see for yourself?

Because the artillery can be countered by killing the firing unit. You opponent paid for its use. There was a choice you had to kill it, which you did not take. That's how.

It's always been the case that if you play chaos, there will be an element of random, this is nothing new.

In the first book, we had a random d100 chart for effects.

In the book before this one, we split our army in two, and rolled a D6. On a 3-6, we get the side we strategised for. On a 1-2, the god's disagreed and we got the bad half.

Only, rather than simply punishing the player of daemons, it now punishes both, on average it punished the daemon player a little bit more, but not so much that it will swing any game.

And I like that. In this game, you play a commander of an army. Only, the commander of a daemon army, isn't king of the hierarchy, and so the few random element's, simulate the effect of the chaos god's themselves influencing the game. While you have most of the authority, they can tweak it here and there.

Beleive me, once you have actually played against the chart, you willl find itt's less likely to swing the tide of the game than a mysterious objective roll. People saying "Oh, the army play's itself. Rabble rabble rabble"

No. One tiny, infinitesimal part of the army play's itself, and no matter how well you roll, your opponent could never blame his loss on the warpstorm chart, without me just rolling my eyes.

Ps. If you have a psyker that is your ace in the hole, that you just can't risk getting killed...I'm gonna send half my army after it anyway, so never mind the chart.

Very minor point - the original table in Realms of Chaos was D1000 not D100 IIRC

You people make this almost too easy sometimes...

MarsNZ wrote:
I'd rather imagine you make an argument that doesn't imply a single 1/11 chance will ruin 40k

I never said it would ruin 40K. Don't put words in my mouth.

MarsNZ wrote:
Yeah, target maturity when you're the one implying the sky is falling upon seeing a codex that's not even a week old.

I never said the sky was falling. Don't put words in my mouth.

When you've got a cogent argument, and not a barn full'o'straw, get back to me.

Evileyes wrote:It's always been the case that if you play chaos, there will be an element of random, this is nothing new.

Re-read the thread. We're not arguing over randomness. We're arguing over a table that affects the game every turn, is uncounterable, can change the game completely, has no risk vs reward elements, hampers both players, has an unbalanced bell-curve effect that arbitrarily impacts certain types of daemons more than others whilst encouraging mono-God play. At no point in that does it just boil down to something simplistic like "random = bad", something I and many others here have been trying to get across for many pages yet you people simply refuse to listen.

Selym wrote:Because the artillery can be countered by killing the firing unit. You opponent paid for its use. There was a choice you had to kill it, which you did not take. That's how.

Exactly. D'ya think he'll get it this time?

I hate all the randomness of 6th, not even just because it's nonsense to roll a dice before I can even scratch my own ass.

It's the fact that pick up games take forever to play now. Under 5th I could get a game done in 1~2 hours for 1500 points.

Now games get dragged onwards of up to 4 hours because "Well you landed in MYSTERIOUS WATER, better roll!"

"Hmmm, you'll need to roll a warlord trait"

"You'll need to generate your powers too"

"charge range 2d6"

That's the arbitrary stuff, then it gets better with all the frikkin book keeping, I used to have all codexes memorized now I can't even begin to tell anyone upgrades and rules without referring back. And keeping track of who has what.

It's just annoying, and I don't very much like it. It is handled haphazardly and detracts from enjoying the game. If I go to have a good day of wrecking face, I don't want an endless RNG exercise I want to smash face.

I partly agree with the above, generally I like 6th edition but all pre-game rolling is really a drag. We often just ignore all mysterious terrain, and sometimes also Warlord traits. Looking at new Daemon Codex, I can say that Daemons are not the army for me - when I play, I want to build my army at home beforehand, not roll what kind of army it is before & during the game and then keep track of all the modifiers. I find that really annoying.

Of course, I also hated previous Daemon codex, probably worst designed book of all 4th/5th edition so it's not really a loss for me.

Experiment 626 wrote:
If you're so worried about your Psyker giving away the 'Slay the Warlord' point, then when possible, don't make a psyker your Warlord when you play against Daemons!
If you can't avoid it, then take more psykers to make it that much harder for your Warlord to get picked on...
There's also the possiblility that FnP might work against possession. (as it's not a saving throw) The question is does 'remove from play' automatically trigger 'lose all your wounds' which is when FnP would kick in.

As for late game objective grabing? Just another case in point to always make Daemons players go first when you win the roll-off for 1st turn! As long as you still have a turn of your own to react to, it's not an auto-win for the Daemon player to get an additional unit late game.
Besides, the odds of the Daemon player getting;
- a roll of 12 on the Warpstorm table
- rolling an 11 or 12 to get a survivable unit of 14-15 models
- sticking their Deep Strike roll on a 'Hit! in order to auto-contest/claim said objective'

I'm no mathhammerer, but those odds seem to be quite far fetched to claim the table is "OMG! Worst games design evah!!!"
And if your opponent brought extra Plaguebearers to take better advantage of that random result... Erm, can your army take template weapons/ignores cover type weapons? Maybe it's time for non-Daemon players to start packing a couple of those when heading off to events in order to be better prepared?!


The Warpstorm table is no worse a mechanic than Barrage weapons which can indescriminately kill random crap within a massive 24" bubble!
I've lost games because I thought my dudes were safely tucked away in combat until, oops, in comes that barrage which just scattered 12" from its actual target and just blew my Warlord and his entire unit off the table...

The odds of that happening against an IG army w/barrage weapons is pretty much the same as similar happening when up against Daemons. Yet I don't see a massive hate-thread about barrage weapons ruining 40k anywhere...

You either aren't capable of comprehending what I'm talking about, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Sorry, no point in repeating myself. Nothing you wrote there displays any understanding of what I wrote earlier.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Re-read the thread. We're not arguing over randomness. We're arguing over a table that affects the game every turn, is uncounterable, can change the game completely, has no risk vs reward elements, hampers both players, has an unbalanced bell-curve effect that arbitrarily impacts certain types of daemons more than others whilst encouraging mono-God play. At no point in that does it just boil down to something simplistic like "random = bad", something I and many others here have been trying to get across for many pages yet you people simply refuse to listen.

I think its less of an issue of those people refusing to listen and more of an issue of those people simply disagreeing with you. Are we not allowed to have an opinion or do we just have to agree with you?

I like the warp storm table because I think it's fun and fluffy and make the game interesting. You don't like the warp storm table because of all the reasons you mentioned. Maybe we should just leave it at that instead of presenting opinions as facts and talking down to people because they disagree?

 Mannahnin wrote:
A number of folks have been guilty of overgeneralization, and I apologize if I’m one of them, but I thought I qualified my remarks reasonably. Evidently not. I know a fair few very good players in real life; guys who regularly feature at the top of various national and international events, and they simply do not throw their toys out of the pram the way some of the folks on forums or blogs do. People who play the game competively IRL adapt to this stuff without crying about it. I believe there's a combination of factors at work when people overreact about this stuff online; part of it is just Internet Anonymity Syndrome, and part of it is bloggers consciously stirring up controvery to drive clicks and ad revenue. And some of it's just plain lack of perspective and the recurring "what are we freaking about this time" discussion accompanying most new codices.

And that is an outstanding paragraph.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You people make this almost too easy sometimes...

Evileyes wrote:It's always been the case that if you play chaos, there will be an element of random, this is nothing new.

Re-read the thread. We're not arguing over randomness. We're arguing over a table that affects the game every turn, is uncounterable, can change the game completely, has no risk vs reward elements, hampers both players, has an unbalanced bell-curve effect that arbitrarily impacts certain types of daemons more than others whilst encouraging mono-God play. At no point in that does it just boil down to something simplistic like "random = bad", something I and many others here have been trying to get across for many pages yet you people simply refuse to listen.

And this is simply, part in part, of playing chaos. You don't like it, that's fine. I do, and others do. The fact that it's uncounterable, is it's great advantage. It's great disadvantage, is that it hurts yourself as much if not more.

I'm glad, they added something uncounterable. It's an advantage that few if any other armies have, even if it's just for a mostly weak, random effect each turn. It can give the daemon player unexpected advantages to take advantage of. If i'm scared of a unit because of a psyker with a force weapon being a risk to a multiwound model, and it just so happens I get lucky and that model vanishes, you use the random element to form an on-the-spot strategy. Suddenly, that squad is much weakened, giving you the oppertunity to charge.

Inversely, when your own HQ or similar dissapears, your enemy has a chance to strike. A skilled player can use this random element, to his advantage.

But I know. You are going to post "Why am I bothering, no one listen's, rabble rabble." So i'll simplify once more. You don't like it. I do. That doesn't mean it's bad, or good. We simply have different opinions. I think it's good for the game. You think it's bad for the game.

Selym wrote:Because the artillery can be countered by killing the firing unit. You opponent paid for its use. There was a choice you had to kill it, which you did not take. That's how.

Exactly. D'ya think he'll get it this time?

As above. The advantage is uncounterability. The disadvantage, is the unpredictability.

There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.

Dravenguild wrote:


That's the arbitrary stuff, then it gets better with all the frikkin book keeping, I used to have all codexes memorized now I can't even begin to tell anyone upgrades and rules without referring back. And keeping track of who has what.

It's just annoying, and I don't very much like it. It is handled haphazardly and detracts from enjoying the game. If I go to have a good day of wrecking face, I don't want an endless RNG exercise I want to smash face.

Have to agree. We've set upon house-ruling the game quite a bit, with an emphasis on intuitive play and keeping BOOKKEEPING to a minimum. It's hard to immerse yourself if you constantly have to refer to charts or refer to temporary worksheets to tell you what's happening in the game.

There are people disagreeing with the core points, and there are people who are kicking the crap out of strawmen while throwing in some ad hominem attacks.

The main complaint is that the warpstorm table is that it denies player agency, defined as: "A player with agency is one who is able to make meaningful decisions about their actions, with regards to the game world." (shamelessly stolen from http://www.paperspencils.com/2013/02/11/player-agency/)

There are a lot of features in 6th Edition that that decrease or remove player agency. Warlord traits are the worst, and the chaos boon table combined with mandatory challenges is in second place, and the psyker powers and daemonic gifts are bad (though at least they have a default you can choose if the roll doesn't go your way) but the Warpstorm table dials it up a notch.

The question for me is "Who should be in control of the game, the players or the dice?" GW seems to be coming down on the side that the dice should control the game and I think that's a bad thing.

I finally got my Daemon Codex yesterday in the mail.

I'm less concerned about the Warp Storm table than I am about the Warpfire ability that grants FNP to my opponent if they pass their Toughness Test. I'm only interested in running a small Tzeentch list to back up my CSM. This is worrisome to me!

Worrisome!

 Evileyes wrote:
There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.[/color]

ATSKNF is paid for, how can it not be? It's a USR that a model has, it has a benefit that can be measured and a price applied to it. It might not be fairly costed, but it's in the mix. Warpstorm, OTOH, is an armywide rule that comes not from any single model (like the Stormlord's ability) but from simply choosing Daemons as the primary force in the army. There's no way to have that included in the model price since a 500 point force of daemons could easily be primary or secondary. That's probably why they tried to split the table so it would be 50/50 help or harm, that way they could just say 'BALANCED!' and then not have to think about tagging a price cost on it. 'Course they still flubbed that up because the various godstomp powers aren't balanced probability-wise.

daveNYC wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.[/color]

ATSKNF is paid for, how can it not be? It's a USR that a model has, it has a benefit that can be measured and a price applied to it. It might not be fairly costed, but it's in the mix. Warpstorm, OTOH, is an armywide rule that comes not from any single model (like the Stormlord's ability) but from simply choosing Daemons as the primary force in the army. There's no way to have that included in the model price since a 500 point force of daemons could easily be primary or secondary. That's probably why they tried to split the table so it would be 50/50 help or harm, that way they could just say 'BALANCED!' and then not have to think about tagging a price cost on it. 'Course they still flubbed that up because the various godstomp powers aren't balanced probability-wise.

If you have looked at the prices, compared to the base abilities of our HQ's, you would know where Daemons pay for the Warp Storm Table.

Mohoc wrote:

daveNYC wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.[/color]

ATSKNF is paid for, how can it not be? It's a USR that a model has, it has a benefit that can be measured and a price applied to it. It might not be fairly costed, but it's in the mix. Warpstorm, OTOH, is an armywide rule that comes not from any single model (like the Stormlord's ability) but from simply choosing Daemons as the primary force in the army. There's no way to have that included in the model price since a 500 point force of daemons could easily be primary or secondary. That's probably why they tried to split the table so it would be 50/50 help or harm, that way they could just say 'BALANCED!' and then not have to think about tagging a price cost on it. 'Course they still flubbed that up because the various godstomp powers aren't balanced probability-wise.

If you have looked at the prices, compared to the base abilities of our HQ's, you would know where Daemons pay for the Warp Storm Table.

So you're saying the cost is baked into the HQ choices? So a Herald would have the same Warpstorm 'tax' as a Greater Daemon? That you pay double if you take multiple HQs, to say nothing of double primaries at 2k points, and that taking Daemons as allies has you paying that tax for no gain? There's just so many obvious flaws that I'd like to think that GW didn't do something quite so ham fisted. Though it's GW, so you never know.

daveNYC wrote:

Mohoc wrote:

daveNYC wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.[/color]

ATSKNF is paid for, how can it not be? It's a USR that a model has, it has a benefit that can be measured and a price applied to it. It might not be fairly costed, but it's in the mix. Warpstorm, OTOH, is an armywide rule that comes not from any single model (like the Stormlord's ability) but from simply choosing Daemons as the primary force in the army. There's no way to have that included in the model price since a 500 point force of daemons could easily be primary or secondary. That's probably why they tried to split the table so it would be 50/50 help or harm, that way they could just say 'BALANCED!' and then not have to think about tagging a price cost on it. 'Course they still flubbed that up because the various godstomp powers aren't balanced probability-wise.

If you have looked at the prices, compared to the base abilities of our HQ's, you would know where Daemons pay for the Warp Storm Table.

So you're saying the cost is baked into the HQ choices? So a Herald would have the same Warpstorm 'tax' as a Greater Daemon? That you pay double if you take multiple HQs, to say nothing of double primaries at 2k points, and that taking Daemons as allies has you paying that tax for no gain? There's just so many obvious flaws that I'd like to think that GW didn't do something quite so ham fisted. Though it's GW, so you never know.

No, I think they put a small point cost on all the HQ's for Daemons for the Warp Storm Chart. That way the bigger the game becomes, the more "tax" you pay, as the impact of the Warp Storm Chart becomes bigger with larger games.

-Edited for clarity

daveNYC wrote:

 Evileyes wrote:
There are plenty of things in this game, you don't pay for too. ATSKNF, being the big example, allthough that one, doesn't have a real disadvantage.[/color]

ATSKNF is paid for, how can it not be? It's a USR that a model has, it has a benefit that can be measured and a price applied to it. It might not be fairly costed, but it's in the mix. Warpstorm, OTOH, is an armywide rule that comes not from any single model (like the Stormlord's ability) but from simply choosing Daemons as the primary force in the army. There's no way to have that included in the model price since a 500 point force of daemons could easily be primary or secondary. That's probably why they tried to split the table so it would be 50/50 help or harm, that way they could just say 'BALANCED!' and then not have to think about tagging a price cost on it. 'Course they still flubbed that up because the various godstomp powers aren't balanced probability-wise.

It's a USR that every model has. Consider the warpstorm table as a rule that every primary detatchment daemon provides as long as there is one alive. (Yes, you don't get it if you have daemon allies).

The cost is paid for in HQ's, as another said, and in pretty much anything but the troops. Each HQ, elite, fast, and heavy, is ever so slightly pricey for what they bring to the table, but the warpstorm can make up for that.

It's also scaled to gamesize. You still only hit unit's on a d6 with the main hitting rolls, regardless of if you have 3 or 30 unit's on the table.

Plus, despite paying for it in points cost, it still has the drawback of being dangerous to both players, something that ATSKNF and similar, does not do.

Yes, it takes control away from the player. For about 30 second's per shooting phase. Gasp.

So the theory is that GW increased the cost of all non-troop models to account for the Warpstorm table, which means that:

1) They consider the table to be a net benefit for the Daemons. (it could be argued, I guess)

2) They made Daemons extra over-priced as Allies.

Personally I prefer to think that they just suck at properly pricing models, as the idea of trying to distribute the price of an army wide rule over all units is so problematic that it should have never gotten beyond the drunken scrawling on napkins phase.

Potentially 30 seconds if your psyker pops, probably longer if you get instability of the godstomps. That's not the point though. It's that when the table comes out the players change from being active participants in the game to being a passive receivers of whatever the table dolls out. There is a taste of this with CSM and their forced challenges which then have to roll on the boon chart, and this is even worse as at least CSM had the option to not get into CC.

If you like this, then fine, but I don't like the direction they've gone with for gameplay in both the CSM and CD codeci.

daveNYC wrote:
So the theory is that GW increased the cost of all non-troop models to account for the Warpstorm table, which means that:

1) They consider the table to be a net benefit for the Daemons. (it could be argued, I guess)

2) They made Daemons extra over-priced as Allies.

Personally I prefer to think that they just suck at properly pricing models, as the idea of trying to distribute the price of an army wide rule over all units is so problematic that it should have never gotten beyond the drunken scrawling on napkins phase.

Potentially 30 seconds if your psyker pops, probably longer if you get instability of the godstomps. That's not the point though. It's that when the table comes out the players change from being active participants in the game to being a passive receivers of whatever the table dolls out. There is a taste of this with CSM and their forced challenges which then have to roll on the boon chart, and this is even worse as at least CSM had the option to not get into CC.

If you like this, then fine, but I don't like the direction they've gone with for gameplay in both the CSM and CD codeci.

To be honest, when I first read the codex I hated the idea of the Warp Storm Chart. After playing a few games with it, I have no issues with it. I still don't like that DI is being modified by the combat result though. That one still pisses me off.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
...but I took it all in stride because THAT is the way Chaos should work...

Really? You think it's fair that you can play the whole game, as you did, and then just lose because of nothing you or your opponent did because some random result on a table caused you to lose the game? That's the way Chaos is 'meant' to be? Are you frickin' insane?

I must be insane, because that's how I feel that an army made up entirely of CHAOS daemons who's fortunes ebb and flow based on the power and presence of the warp should play. Is it a competitive tournament army, who knows, but I don't play in tournaments and I'm not a WAAC player.

And you entirely skipped over the fact that the broken Necron flyer cost me the game as much as the Warpstorm chart. Where is your outrage over that? Also, the Warpstorm chart helped in several ways, it took 2 hull points off a Ghost Ark, which allowed me to take it down with the Horrors, it also increased my invulnerable save twice, making the army more durable.

As I said, I personally feel this is how the army SHOULD play, maybe its because I'm old school and remember how the Realms of Chaos books were heavily random (and I played Orks in 2nd edition, another heavily random and table driven army). I play to have fun, and it was extremely fun for both me and my opponent. I can't wait until the next game.

 kronk wrote:
I finally got my Daemon Codex yesterday in the mail.

I'm less concerned about the Warp Storm table than I am about the Warpfire ability that grants FNP to my opponent if they pass their Toughness Test. I'm only interested in running a small Tzeentch list to back up my CSM. This is worrisome to me!

Worrisome!

Kronk: if anything actually manages to live through your ability to nail a unit with 7D6/S6 Prescienced shots, it deserves to win a 6+ FnP save for it's trouble!

Just don't try and use the Pinkies to gun down Death Company or Plaguemarines unless you've first applied a healthy does of 7-9 templates from a Flamer squad beforehand.

I must be insane, because that's how I feel that an army made up entirely of CHAOS daemons who's fortunes ebb and flow based on the power and presence of the warp should play. Is it a competitive tournament army, who knows, but I don't play in tournaments and I'm not a WAAC player.

And you entirely skipped over the fact that the broken Necron flyer cost me the game as much as the Warpstorm chart. Where is your outrage over that? Also, the Warpstorm chart helped in several ways, it took 2 hull points off a Ghost Ark, which allowed me to take it down with the Horrors, it also increased my invulnerable save twice, making the army more durable.

As I said, I personally feel this is how the army SHOULD play, maybe its because I'm old school and remember how the Realms of Chaos books were heavily random (and I played Orks in 2nd edition, another heavily random and table driven army). I play to have fun, and it was extremely fun for both me and my opponent. I can't wait until the next game.

You're not insane. I love the new random stuff GW is throwing in. Changes the boring standard games into something fun because I never know what to expect. I love the new Daemon world rules, the CSM rewards chart, and this especially. Yeah It can screw me or it can screw you but each turn is something that I don't expect and now both myself and my opponent have to think of other ways to win. If you're playing this game just to play in tourneys then really you're missing most of the fun with 40k. Yeah tourneys can be fun but just getting a game in with folks down at your FLGS or at a buddy's place should involve an element of randomness that can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (and vice versa, but I like it my way better haha)

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
And you entirely skipped over the fact that the broken Necron flyer cost me the game as much as the Warpstorm chart. Where is your outrage over that?

It isn't here because this topic is not "Is Necron Flayer spam good for the game?" or "Are there more broken things than Warp Storm Chart?".

 Macok wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
And you entirely skipped over the fact that the broken Necron flyer cost me the game as much as the Warpstorm chart. Where is your outrage over that?

It isn't here because this topic is not "Is Necron Flayer spam good for the game?" or "Are there more broken things than Warp Storm Chart?".

That shouldn't discount his point though. If those things aren't bad for the game, then the warpstorm chart isn't either, I think is the point.