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.

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)

As for " a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list. ", what's exacly the problem here?
I'd love to play against that.

Given the current GW design team it is always best to assume the worst out of anything they produce rules wise.

That's a very immature approach "assume the worst because I don't trust them, then bash them basing on my assumptions alone"

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
And it's a mishappen monstrosity because it's essentially taking a dump on the long abused FOC. Back when allies were fist announced I was actually supportive, recalling the old days of allies in the past, I even liked dual FOC at 2k points. But then they started cramming in all these special detachments and add ons (almost all of them Imperial exclusive) and then said you can have as many FOCs as you can pay for.

At this point, what the hell is the point in the FoC?

Why even have different codexes for Imperial armies and not just lump them all together into a single doorstopper book?

Because you quickly run into the problem of needing HQs and troops to fuel every one of said allied forces, then realize you can't cherry pick 3 HS from one army, and 3 FA from another, and so forth.
The FOC chart was always intended as nothing more then giving a base structure to an army, and making it follow the base constrains of "not too many elite/FA/HS compared to troops and HQs" and it still fills that goal, if you ally you either tax yourself HQ and troops, or get some that you can properly work with.
The FOC is NOT meant to limit your army, just to give it a skeleton of the bare minimum required.

And you know as well as I do there is no reason that the IoM WONT work like that, and that's exactly how the work in fluff as well, a ragtag bunch of mixed forces that each has his own command structure and nobody is really sure who is in charge, if anyone, and will likely brake apart or turn on each other the moment all xenos/traitors are destroyed.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)

As for " a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list. ", what's exacly the problem here?
I'd love to play against that.

Given the current GW design team it is always best to assume the worst out of anything they produce rules wise.

That's a very immature approach "assume the worst because I don't trust them, then bash them basing on my assumptions alone"

Those aren't assumptions though. 7th has not seen any playtesting, there are blatant rule loopholes, FAQs to solve problems with older codices have not been released. GW has shown a severe lack of interest in releasing balanced rules in the past and is not interested in contructive player feedback either.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)

A

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596670.page


There it is. Guy made a list for 2000 points, summoned another 2000 points. For a total of 4000 points worth of models in a 2000 point game.

Based on the fact heralds can summon-a fact that is not grounded by anything except the "what armies got what disciplines" list.
And everyone that even READ the daemon codex knows that different demons got different psyker disciplines.

Heck, you quote me, then link to something using the very thing I said probably isnt legal as a proof its unbalanced x_x did you even read?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)

As for " a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list. ", what's exacly the problem here?
I'd love to play against that.

Given the current GW design team it is always best to assume the worst out of anything they produce rules wise.

That's a very immature approach "assume the worst because I don't trust them, then bash them basing on my assumptions alone"

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
And it's a mishappen monstrosity because it's essentially taking a dump on the long abused FOC. Back when allies were fist announced I was actually supportive, recalling the old days of allies in the past, I even liked dual FOC at 2k points. But then they started cramming in all these special detachments and add ons (almost all of them Imperial exclusive) and then said you can have as many FOCs as you can pay for.

At this point, what the hell is the point in the FoC?

Why even have different codexes for Imperial armies and not just lump them all together into a single doorstopper book?

Because you quickly run into the problem of needing HQs and troops to fuel every one of said allied forces, then realize you can't cherry pick 3 HS from one army, and 3 FA from another, and so forth.
The FOC chart was always intended as nothing more then giving a base structure to an army, and making it follow the base constrains of "not too many elite/FA/HS compared to troops and HQs" and it still fills that goal, if you ally you either tax yourself HQ and troops, or get some that you can properly work with.
The FOC is NOT meant to limit your army, just to give it a skeleton of the bare minimum required.

And you know as well as I do there is no reason that the IoM WONT work like that, and that's exactly how the work in fluff as well, a ragtag bunch of mixed forces that each has his own command structure and nobody is really sure who is in charge, if anyone, and will likely brake apart or turn on each other the moment all xenos/traitors are destroyed.

A competent design team does not let things like 2++ rerollable death stars get by them. A competent design team does not rely on a billion and a half charts that slow down the game and call it "balance." A competent design team does not take a look at a unit like a rough rider or a pyrovore that was already widely known to be crap and say "yeah this doesn't need fixing." A competent design team doesn't completely lock out the fanbase out of the playtesting phase or create nebulously written rules that have to be argued over constantly rather than simply being workable as written.

These are all hallmarks of an incompetent design team, and given what passes for game theory among GW, it's quite easy to assume that they are in fact, completely idiotic as far as designing games go.

And what tax? I can pay the bare minimum for dirt cheap HQs and troops as either the GKs or AM to spam all the better units.

And you know what else can do that? And do that much better and more realistically than stacking special rules all willy nilly?

Playing a team game.

7th is far from a "cleaned up version of 6th". The game is not even remotely viable in a competitive setting anymore. It's quite ridiculous.

A lot of people are completely ignoring the fact that you can have as many detachments as you want in a battle forged list. That doesn't make it very restrictive at all.

40K is a game where you take your Tyranids against your buddy's Ultramarines and reenact the Battle for Maccrage. Not one where you should get into an idiotic arms race to see who can be the "best" in a competitive setting (Hint: it will be the one who can scour the internet the most for the most abusive list).

Competitve 6th was getting pretty horrible by virtue of terrible combos and the community splitting itself apart due to some people actually thinking Escalation/Stronghold Assault was good for the game and should be allowed in a competitive setting.

Then they release an entire army that many builds and even 2 whole armies cannot even kill with the new rules.

I've played competitive 40K exclusively for a while but I am done with it now. I've always been against the naysayers but now this is just beyond stupid. Hopefully I will be able to actually find casual games in my area (everybody just wants to play tournaments). I'm going to wait this one out for at least a couple months to see how it pans out or if any fixes get introduced (which I doubt). I have bought next to nothing as far as 40K goes since Esclation/SA came out because I could sense a storm brewing.

My instincts were right.

 Kain wrote:

A competent design team does not let things like 2++ rerollable death stars get by them. A competent design team does not rely on a billion and a half charts that slow down the game and call it "balance." A competent design team does not take a look at a unit like a rough rider or a pyrovore that was already widely known to be crap and say "yeah this doesn't need fixing." A competent design team doesn't completely lock out the fanbase out of the playtesting phase or create nebulously written rules that have to be argued over constantly rather than simply being workable as written.

I doubt they actually know any kind of game design theory; probably just rely on "We've been doing this 30 years, so we're experts". Their idea that lots of randomness makes a game fun though is outright laughable. Sure, nearly all games have some randomness (especially if you roll dice) but the game didn't need Deck of Many Things-esque random charts for everything, and to think that balances things out is proof enough that they are complete idiots who don't have a clue.

You shouldn't have to have a gentleman's agreement before every game to fix broken rules and loopholes just so you don't make the game unfun.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Based on the fact heralds can summon-a fact that is not grounded by anything except the "what armies got what disciplines" list.
And everyone that even READ the daemon codex knows that different demons got different psyker disciplines.

Heck, you quote me, then link to something using the very thing I said probably isnt legal as a proof its unbalanced x_x did you even read?

If heralds aren't getting daemonology then who the heck in the codex is going to get it??

Daemon princes, MAYBE londs of change, etc...

A simple read through the codex reveals the except daemon princes, most of them have a VERY limited selection of psyker disciplines to choose from, and each god has his signature few that he's got (biomancy is usually nurgle, divination is tzench only, telepaty is mostly slaneesh)

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kain wrote:

A competent design team does not let things like 2++ rerollable death stars get by them. A competent design team does not rely on a billion and a half charts that slow down the game and call it "balance." A competent design team does not take a look at a unit like a rough rider or a pyrovore that was already widely known to be crap and say "yeah this doesn't need fixing." A competent design team doesn't completely lock out the fanbase out of the playtesting phase or create nebulously written rules that have to be argued over constantly rather than simply being workable as written.

I doubt they actually know any kind of game design theory; probably just rely on "We've been doing this 30 years, so we're experts". Their idea that lots of randomness makes a game fun though is outright laughable. Sure, nearly all games have some randomness (especially if you roll dice) but the game didn't need Deck of Many Things-esque random charts for everything, and to think that balances things out is proof enough that they are complete idiots who don't have a clue.

You shouldn't have to have a gentleman's agreement before every game to fix broken rules and loopholes just so you don't make the game unfun.

Oh god the fething deck of many things. Even suggesting that be used at my game table earns an instant death glare.

 Kain wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kain wrote:

A competent design team does not let things like 2++ rerollable death stars get by them. A competent design team does not rely on a billion and a half charts that slow down the game and call it "balance." A competent design team does not take a look at a unit like a rough rider or a pyrovore that was already widely known to be crap and say "yeah this doesn't need fixing." A competent design team doesn't completely lock out the fanbase out of the playtesting phase or create nebulously written rules that have to be argued over constantly rather than simply being workable as written.

I doubt they actually know any kind of game design theory; probably just rely on "We've been doing this 30 years, so we're experts". Their idea that lots of randomness makes a game fun though is outright laughable. Sure, nearly all games have some randomness (especially if you roll dice) but the game didn't need Deck of Many Things-esque random charts for everything, and to think that balances things out is proof enough that they are complete idiots who don't have a clue.

You shouldn't have to have a gentleman's agreement before every game to fix broken rules and loopholes just so you don't make the game unfun.

Oh god the fething deck of many things. Even suggesting that be used at my game table earns an instant death glare.

I am fairly certain the DoMT was the inspiration for the Chaos boon table

Because basing the outcome of a game on the draw of cards is fun...

... Works for Malifaux...

OP is probably playing friendly games. In that sense, the game is pretty good. I dont like the 2nd tactical objectives mission in the SLIGHTEST but other than that its pretty good.

Its when you break away from the friendly game scene it gets insane. Nobody is going to bring a daemon factory to a friendly game unless he/she wants to lose friends and future opponents. Nobody is going to bring the Imperial Legion of 5 different codices at once unless they want to lose friends. Same goes for any spamming of 1 unit (except boyz, i could see that for a fluff haha mission since its entirely possible to face nothing but boyz lol)

 Vineheart01 wrote:
OP is probably playing friendly games. In that sense, the game is pretty good. I dont like the 2nd tactical objectives mission in the SLIGHTEST but other than that its pretty good.

Its when you break away from the friendly game scene it gets insane. Nobody is going to bring a daemon factory to a friendly game unless he/she wants to lose friends and future opponents. Nobody is going to bring the Imperial Legion of 5 different codices at once unless they want to lose friends. Same goes for any spamming of 1 unit (except boyz, i could see that for a fluff haha mission since its entirely possible to face nothing but boyz lol)

Yet for all GW's imagination that only friendly games are played, I'd wager there are more pickup games that go on, which the rules are not conducive to.

 TheKbob wrote:
Because basing the outcome of a game on the draw of cards is fun...

... Works for Malifaux...

The core rulebook artifacts in D&D are generally speaking quite unimpressive and lame, but the Deck? That thing can completely derail a campaign far worse than a dozen staff of the magis.

 Kain wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Because basing the outcome of a game on the draw of cards is fun...

... Works for Malifaux...

The core rulebook artifacts in D&D are generally speaking quite unimpressive and lame, but the Deck? That thing can completely derail a campaign far worse than a dozen staff of the magis.

The Deck is a relic of a bygone era. It no longer serves its original function. Back in the day when you needed millions of XP and potentially months or years of real time to gain a level, the Deck provided DMs with a very lethal trap for high level characters. The best part was that the danger was RIGHT there; the players new they were risking their lives in order to get one of the XP cards and speed their progression, but it was such a huge boon it was worth it. Inevitably they draw too many cards and the party dies horribly. (Or they wind up getting Wishes that end up killing the party horribly...with enough card draws a Deck experience always turns bad...) But in the days of 3rd ed and up, the Deck no longer serves that function. Levels are easy to get, and players can just draw one or two cards, which keeps the odds of drawing lethal or character ruining cards to a minimum. (Not dogging on 3rd edition mind you, it's just that the Deck was one of the casualties of the times.)

As far as this edition of 40k goes, I think it's a mixed bag. I got some changes I like (Daemonology), I got some changes I didn't (templates on open topped vehicles, Jink), they left some things in that I feared might go away (throwing grenades) and they didn't give me some things I wanted (shooting into melee). All in all, I'm pretty neutral with what I've seen so far.

If D&D teaches us anything, it's that no matter how good OR bad a new edition of a game is, some people are going to love it and some gamers are going to hate it. I'm trying not to let the 'that's it, I'm quitting 40k' threads or the 'this edition is the best thing since sliced bread' threads influence my opinion. I'd like to get a hold of the new rules, read them carefully, and play a few games before coming to a decision.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon princes, MAYBE londs of change, etc...

A simple read through the codex reveals the except daemon princes, most of them have a VERY limited selection of psyker disciplines to choose from, and each god has his signature few that he's got (biomancy is usually nurgle, divination is tzench only, telepaty is mostly slaneesh)

Since there's no FAQ, and there's no timetable on when there will be one. It is currently legal and will be until the rules change.

Didn't the psyker cards say that Daemons get Daemonology?

How are you unsure if something is legal? All of the rules are printed. Just check.

So, as the psyker card says daemons gets biomancy, slannesh heralds gets biomancy? no. the fact the ARMY as a whole has it, means nothing for each individual psyker in the army.

How am I unsure? still going over things, and there are many things to go over, and it takes time to really GET everything. the book is not in my hands for a long time.

 Idolator wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Daemon princes, MAYBE londs of change, etc...

A simple read through the codex reveals the except daemon princes, most of them have a VERY limited selection of psyker disciplines to choose from, and each god has his signature few that he's got (biomancy is usually nurgle, divination is tzench only, telepaty is mostly slaneesh)

Since there's no FAQ, and there's no timetable on when there will be one. It is currently legal and will be until the rules change.

Didn't the psyker cards say that Daemons get Daemonology?

How are you unsure if something is legal? All of the rules are printed. Just check.

I think the argument here is that he's saying Codex>Rulebook, and specific>general, so when in the Codex Daemons book, specific psychic disciplines are referred to as options for the various GDs, Heralds etc, that as they don't mention Daemonology (because it didn't exist at time of writing) then they don't have permission to take it.

I find this somewhat...tenuous in face of the new BRB and Psychic cards giving permission to everyone but Tyranids.

I'm loving every change in 7th edition. Primarily because I play with people who are not complete Norbert's i'm guessing. I can certainly see the little abusable things, but i'm safe in the knowledge that no-one in the groups of folks I play with want to be TFG who abuses it, and if someone came in and tried we would simply tell them we won't play if someone is that focussed on the win that they forget the fun.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, as the psyker card says daemons gets biomancy, slannesh heralds gets biomancy? no. the fact the ARMY as a whole has it, means nothing for each individual psyker in the army.

How am I unsure? still going over things, and there are many things to go over, and it takes time to really GET everything. the book is not in my hands for a long time.

Do you have the rules book?

Do you know how to read?

That's all you need. Page 28.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, as the psyker card says daemons gets biomancy, slannesh heralds gets biomancy? no. the fact the ARMY as a whole has it, means nothing for each individual psyker in the army.

How am I unsure? still going over things, and there are many things to go over, and it takes time to really GET everything. the book is not in my hands for a long time.

If the BRB says that Daemons get Daemonology (an entirely new power that doesn't exist in any codex) then all the Daemons get it. Simple.

If you are saying that it must be in the codex or written in the BRB which specific units get the power, then Daemonology and Sanctic powers wouldn't be usable by any unit. Neither would Force for that matter.

Edit: You may not want to use the word "we". When it is specifically you that doesn't know.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, as the psyker card says daemons gets biomancy, slannesh heralds gets biomancy? no. the fact the ARMY as a whole has it, means nothing for each individual psyker in the army.

How am I unsure? still going over things, and there are many things to go over, and it takes time to really GET everything. the book is not in my hands for a long time.

Quoth the Rulebook:

"Unless otherwise noted, all Psykers, other than those belonging in the Tyranids Faction (p.118) can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline"

"Psykers wit the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp (p.25) on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."

NEVERMORE!

humhum, yes, upon further reading this definitely requires an FAQ to give the "unless otherwise stated" part to several demons, if only to make it clear (as currently they are worded as having only several highly specific disciplines, and that counts as "otherwise stated" at some level.)

I am enjoying it

 Kain wrote:
- Removed by insaniak -

Have you ever considered the possibility that 'the competitive gaming scene' is not the largest demographic of 40k players? Or even that some changes are introduced without you in mind? Maybe- just maybe- the sense of entitlement which accompanies your sentiment is not the centre of Warhammer 40,000 around which the whole of GW revolves.

For your own fun and well-being, I strongly recommend playing Warmachine exclusively, clearly 40k is not the game for you.

Ok, the main issue I had now is being quoted for something I did NOT say, and if someone else's opinion.. quite insulting.

Oops! Fault in quoting. Let me change that!

God In Action wrote:
Have you ever considered the possibility that 'the competitive gaming scene' is not the largest demographic of 40k players? Or even that some changes are introduced without you in mind? Maybe- just maybe- the sense of entitlement which accompanies your sentiment is not the centre of Warhammer 40,000 around which the whole of GW revolves.

For your own fun and well-being, I strongly recommend playing Warmachine exclusively, clearly 40k is not the game for you.

Me and my friends "forged a narrative" right into making our own set of rules still recognizable as 40k that don't let silliness like putting invisibility and the grimoire on be'lakor or a screamerstar fly.

I love 40k, I think the entire design team is a bunch of incompetent ninnies who should be working in an office cubicle organizing order forms, not writing rules.

I've enjoyed my games so far. Very refreshing and I like the cards very much. No more of me just hiding my Jetbikes and letting my Jetseer do all the heavy lifting.