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.

This edition has one of the most widely outspoken reactions urging change. That doesn't mean it's needed, but those urging no change are as experienced with the new edition as those urging change. Everyone does need to get some experience with it under their belts.

 Peregrine wrote:

I think that removing Daemonology is punitive to some armies more than others, and is akin to not allowing transport vehicles, or not allowing template weapons.

I don't think it's at all the same. Transport vehicles and template weapons are an inherent part of lots of armies. Demonology isn't, no current army depends on being able to use it (since it didn't exist when those armies were made). And so far the only interest in it seems to be based on exploiting the balance mistakes GW made in creating it.

No current army depends on 12 super-scoring drop pods - at least, when those armies were made. Yet that is going to be a thing in tournaments.
You talk like 'exploiting the balance mistakes GW made' isn't what the entire competitive scene is about. The only interest in battle brothers in the competitive scene is combining Baron/Buffmander/Tigurius into broken units to exploit balance mistakes...

And finally... without Daemonology, I think that Daemons will be an incredibly weak army. FMC's took a huge nerf with not being able to change flight mode and charge on the same turn, and again with only doing one smash attack, leaving Daemons with even fewer anti-tank options than they had before. With the changes to psychic powers, daemons now throw out significantly less psychic shooting attacks which was previously a staple of the force - eg Horrors which previously would reliably throw out 3D6 shots per turn will now be lucky to shoot even once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.

Hence ensuring that only one power ever gets cast by an army each turn...
You need 4+ dice to cast a WC1, 6+ dice to cast a WC2, and 8+ dice to cast a WC3 (with some level of reliability). Every psyker in the game (except fateweaver?) needs more dice than they can generate to cast anything, so those D6 dice in the pool will be gone after the first cast.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.

For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.

Psychic powers outside of Malefic and Invisibility haven't actually gotten any better that it would deserve being so limited, instead I'd suggest simply limiting Malefic powers and possibly Invisibility, which are the only big offenders. Limiting summoning powers to one per turn would probably be fine, I'd say, or even remove the power completely from an army after it has been cast once (so after summoning has been cast by a psyker, all psykers on that side lose copies of summoning). Allows some play for summoning, but prevents massive summoner armies.

The only other thing is that low psyker armies really have no incentive to take any psykers now, because if you're going against a high psychic army your guy's just going to be denied and do jack all. Possibly a way to... even up powers (allow low power psychic armies to function, and restrict super-psychic armies a bit more) would be to change how DtW dice are generated. If you make it that the player doesn't generate his own deny dice by counting up his psychic levels, but instead gets the same number of deny dice as the active player gets casting dice, that would mean that low psychic armies could still get spells off and could still do some denial against psychic heavy armies. Psychic heavy armies would still have more protection from various maledictions, of course, so they're still getting some defensive benefit from having lots of psykers.


So, 2 ideas:

1) Summoning powers are limited to once per turn for each side, or even once per game for each side.

2) Players generate the same number of DtW dice as their opponent has casting dice.

I think that people should just relax and play the new rules for a month or so before making claims about what is and isn't fair for a tournament.

Stormcrow, thats a Mad Dog.

@peregrine, my point is that we have as much evidence that summoning armies are unbalanced/auto win as we do for un-bound. They have some obvious bad match ups IMO, and assume that players have enough models available to truly abuse the system (with my daemons I could summone maybe 2 troop units I. Addition to what I'm fielding.

I would simply contend that deregulating how armies are constructed further pushes 40k into the realm of apocalypse.Battle Forged isn't much better than unbound and to pretend that those two things will likely become the norm seems naive to me in the extreme. Battle forged on it's own is just way worse than double force org. I would really prefer limiting detachments and using a single foc.

My idea of a fun and fairly balanced tourney:

1. Battleforged only
2. Limit of 2 (maybe 3) detachments
3. No named characters
4. 10 Psychic dice max
5. At least 4 pieces LOS-blocking terrain
6. Missions from Mission Catalog or The Peoples' Missions

Well, we can dream.....

Trasvi wrote:
No current army depends on 12 super-scoring drop pods - at least, when those armies were made. Yet that is going to be a thing in tournaments.

Unless people are taking nothing but minimum-size tactical squads in pods (which is a really bad list) then it isn't going to be a thing.

You talk like 'exploiting the balance mistakes GW made' isn't what the entire competitive scene is about.

Of course it is. But the point is there's no legitimate army based around demon summoning, especially mass demon summoning. We aren't talking about people being excluded from events because their standard "40k night at the local store" army isn't legal, like we would be if unbound armies are banned. We're talking about armies that exist for the sole purpose of exploiting the broken psychic rules. And you don't get much sympathy from me if you're banned from exploiting a balance mistake.

And no, battle brothers was not just about taking buff ICs. Maybe it was for a tiny minority of hardcore tournament players, but plenty of people were building their armies around being allowed to use allies.

You need 4+ dice to cast a WC1, 6+ dice to cast a WC2, and 8+ dice to cast a WC3 (with some level of reliability).

Since when are we defining "reliable" as "over 90% chance of success? FFS, by demanding 4+ dice to cast a WC1 power you're saying that you need a better chance of success than a LD 10 psyker had of casting it under the old rules or it's just not enough for you. More realistically two dice is probably enough for WC1, maybe going up to three if you really need it.

Breng77 wrote:
@peregrine, my point is that we have as much evidence that summoning armies are unbalanced/auto win as we do for un-bound.

I'm not saying that it's an auto-win, I'm saying that there's pretty clear evidence that it's overpowered and the only real question is whether or not it's overpowered enough to break the game. Meanwhile the opposition to unbound armies seems to consist of little more than "I don't like your army", with no solid argument about power levels. A few people have proposed one-dimensional lists that spam units the internet tells them are overpowered (nothing but Riptides, for example), but I don't see any compelling arguments that this is a case of unbound breaking the game rather than the individual units in question being a problem regardless of whether they're used in unbound lists or in FOC-limited lists.

Also, complaining about unbound is kind of silly when even the "FOC-limited" armies aren't really limited all that much. You might have a point if you were comparing unbound to 5th edition, but when the FOC is already barely relevant in an edition of multiple FOCs, allies that don't take up FOC slots, formations that don't take up FOC slots, etc, then I don't really see how giving the option to remove the FOC entirely (at a high price) is a major problem.

They have some obvious bad match ups IMO

This isn't really that much of a defense. The fact that A has a bad matchup against B doesn't solve the problem of A absolutely crushing X, Y and Z so thoroughly that anyone playing those armies is going to wonder why they bother playing the game at all. For example, everyone insisted on banning D-weapons in 6th because of titan lists, despite the fact that titan lists had obvious bad matchups. But the D-weapon bans were still justified by the fact that they ruined the game for most opponents even if a dedicated anti-titan list could beat them pretty easily.

and assume that players have enough models available to truly abuse the system (with my daemons I could summone maybe 2 troop units I. Addition to what I'm fielding.

This is absolutely wrong. You never assume that "people won't buy the models" is a balancing factor.

Again though what clear evidence is there that it is "broken". Enlighten to need fixing any more than unbound?

Most 6e events had limited FOC (no formations was common, no double FOC was common.)

Your argument that "well banning unbound stops legitimate armies that guys bring to their lgs but getting rid of daemon summoning doesn't " is false.

Either you meant no ones 6e army is excluded if we leave out daemon summoning, so if we ban it right away people won't go out and spend money on it. Which is also true for und bound armies. No one was playing them before so banning them changes nothing.

Or you are saying, well he can just take different powers, instead of summoning, which if his army is build around summoning (maybe just having min troops wanting to summon more, or spam summoning or whatever) it likely does not function without them.

Or you have not argument because some guy could very well play daemon summoning armies at his lgs, and by banning them you are telling him he is not welcome.


Essentially if what you are saying is well the unbound guy lacks the models to play but the other guy at least has a legal army..that amounts to nothing, if he auto loses ever game. Furthermore, that assumes a player who has never played before and buys an unbound army. Otherwise he already has a bound army.

As for ruining the game for many opponent nets I'm pretty sure 10 riptides, or 10 heldrakes, or 20 thud guns, or thunder fires, will do much the same...so that is a moot point.


As for the money thing, it is not that no one will do it, it is that I see it being uncommon.

 Tomb King wrote:
1. No unbound armies

And here I was looking forward to fielding Marine Reserve companies. Is everyone that afraid of facing off against 100 assault marines? There are a lot of "unbound" armies that would be great fun to play against. Banning everything is terrible. The most trouble with "unbound" lists is most likely to come from spamming psykers, flyers, MC/FMC, Lords of War and possibly HQ's. So limit those. I'd say scale it so that you can never get more of these units (added up) in an unbound list than you can get normally. For each 370-400 points in a tourney allow the players to bring whatever units they want (though following the faction list restrictions you have below). This allows you five units from the list in 1850 to 2k. You can certainly take more psykers in a regular Daemon list, more MC/FMC as well. More flyers etc.

This will lead players who seek to max out on these choices to stay within the confines of the FOC, and allow the players who are looking to field the less offensive "unbound" armies to do so. Limiting the amount of certain builds is fine with me, but banning everything is unnecessary.

 Tomb King wrote:
2. No double forge org or multiple factions (1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formtion (optional)

I like this. Think it should be applied to unbound armies as well. Primary has your Warlord in it. You are allowed to take units from 1 allied faction, and 1 formation drawn from those belonging to your primary or allied faction. Solves some of the more offensive combinations.

 Tomb King wrote:
3. No come the apocalypse allies

I disagree. I think the non battle brothers combinations are far less powerful than the battle brothers combinations. Why ban Chaos Marines with a Knight, the only current way to get Chaos Knights? Traitor Guard with Daemons?

 Tomb King wrote:
4. A limit to the number of psykers and/or the amount of warp charges that can be generated.

Only played three games of 7ed so far. My Librarian was able to kill himself in two of them, once powering up Scryer's Gaze, the second time trying to cast foreboding (? the div power that gives rending against the target). I actually think the psychic abilities of your psyker heavy armies got quite a nerf already. I don't see a reason to put a limit on the amount of warp charges you can generate. You do realize that you basically get 1 dice in place of each power (for the most part) you used to be able to cast?

 Tomb King wrote:
More to follow... thoughts and recommendations?

Actually play some games of 7ed before we set out to turn it back into 6ed. Did everyone forget that the tourney scene wasn't exactly loving it just a few weeks ago?

 Stormcrow wrote:
I think that people should just relax and play the new rules for a month or so before making claims about what is and isn't fair for a tournament.

When I see elmer fudd running towards a banana peel, I don't need to wait a month to understand how it's going to play out.

How I would have tournies:

1. set up universal formats.
-Codex tournament: Only your codex options may be used, along with fortifications.
-Alliance tournament: One extra detachment is allowed, whether it be another primary, an ally, dataslate, or other supplemental item.
-Lords tournament: All options available, in addition to Lords of War.

2. Some specific nerfing/errata

-Summoned units have an "upkeep" paid in psychic dice. The cost is equal to the number of dice the player used to cast the summon (IE generally 6-7 per unit.) These dice are automatically subtracted from the owning player's dice pool in both his own and his opponent's psychic phase, after psychic dice are generated, but before any powers are rolled, as long as that unit still exists in the game. If the owning player must pay more dice than he has, he must instead choose a summoned unit to remove as casualties, and must repeat this until his psychic dice pool would become zero or above. These units are counted as being removed as casualties for the purposes of victory points and tactical objectives.

-Summoned units are removed from the table at the end of the game, before results are tallied. If kill points are being used, any unit that was at half strength (or wounds) or below counts as killed. Thus summoned units cannot claim objectives at the end of the game, nor can they claim linebreaker.

-Summoned units may not summon other units.

(MAYBE with all of those in place, a daemon summon-horde might be workable in a tournament.)

-Invulnerable saves may never use stackable bonuses to increase beyond a 3++. A 2++ invulnerable save may never be given a reroll.

3. Cards
-After objectives are placed, but before armies are deployed, if the game is a maelstrom of war mission, both players may choose and declare 3 different tactical objectives. Any further objectives beyond these are rolled and/or drawn as normal.

-A tactical objective that is "literally impossible," such as shooting down an enemy flyer when he possesses no flyers, is immediately re-rolled or discarded and the player may draw a new card to replace it.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.

For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.

that is one elegant solution sir.

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Taking out CtA allies removes the possibility of Chaos Knights, though. Now that it's finally an option I'd hate to see it go so fast.

For fixing Warp Charge, I'd just make it so a Psyker can only use his or her warp charge plus however many from the pool they want. For example, an army has a ML3 Lord of Change and an 11 size squad of Horrors. They roll 4 on the warp charge. The LoC would have access to his 3 warp charge, the horrors would have their 2 warp charge, and each could pull from those extra 4 dice, but neither can use eachother's warp charge.

that is one elegant solution sir.

No it isn't, it is simply neutering psykers by essentially saying, "no psyker can attempt to manifest more than 1 power per turn, unless you only bring a single psyker to begin with."

This game is even more of a mess for organized play. It's not even a game anymore really, it's a shared experience... :(

Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.

This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.

This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.

This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.

This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.

I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.

If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.

A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.

 Tomb King wrote:
Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.

This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.

This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.

This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.

This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.

I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.

If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.

A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.

This really needed to be said.

Ultimately it must be realized that Games Workshop does not produce rulesets intended to function in organized, competitive environments. If people wish to play the game that way, it must first be acknowledged that the rules as currently written do not work and are not intended to work for such events.

Second, having acknowledged that, it must be established that certain changes will have to be made, and some rules and mechanics will have to be altered or removed. Not just for balance, but for practical considerations as well. (e.g. terrain setup)

Third, it must be realized and accepted that some of these changes will make certain army and/or unit builds unwelcome at such events, as their existence would otherwise cause even greater disruption, or must be made to operate in ways different to what they were made originally to do (e.g. putting limiters on rerollable invul saves, etc).

This is not to say that people can't bring their models or armies, be they 100% pulled from a print codex, or things like Be'Lakor dataslates, Forgeworld Hornets, Electronic Only books like Sisters of Battle or the Inquisition, or whatnot, but that there to limits to certain abusive mechanics and fidgety army construction gimmicks that can be employed.



If you want to hamfiist a game not designed for tournaments into tournament play, and want to have something approaching playable within a limited timespan format with pre-set tables and the like, and where you don't have certain armies or builds run roughshod over most everything else, changes will have to be made.

To repeat, Warhammer 40,000 7th edition, like 6th edition, is not a ruleset for competitive tournament play. Neither was 6th, 7th is even less so.
If you want to force it into something it wasn't meant to be and make it into something workable, then ultimately, people will need to accept that there are certain combinations of things they won't be able to bring, or that it may function differently.

No Maelstrom missions. They further increase the amount of randomness in the game and granting random VP is downright slowed.

Our first rules council meeting is this weekend. Some things are pretty much 100% out already:

- Unbound banned.
- Come the Apocalypse allies banned
- Maelstrom banned
- FOC limited to 1
- 1850 - 2000 pts

Psykers in general aren't much of a threat, a lot of them are worse off than before. Some powers need work though.

This is a sad thread. I think mostly the people complaining wish they could still play fourth edition... You know back in the good old days. I won't be attending any events that super shoe horn 40k to make things easier for themselves.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is a sad thread. I think mostly the people complaining wish they could still play fourth edition... You know back in the good old days. I won't be attending any events that super shoe horn 40k to make things easier for themselves.

And I hope you will find none with people doing it to make it easier on themselves. I wont even play in a single 7th edition GT this year and most of next. I am still helping the cause though. I would rather see revisions to fix the issues then let the issues dissolve and already steadily decreasing player base. I ask that any further comments provide constructive positive or negative criticism(i.e. reasoning's for your comments rather than accusations).

What I said is perfectly reasonable. You perceive issues which is fine but not everyone agrees.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What I said is perfectly reasonable. You perceive issues which is fine but not everyone agrees.

Not sure what you're doing in this thread then.

 Tomb King wrote:
Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.

This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.

This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.

This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.

This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.

I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.

If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.

A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.

Not saying this in regards to casual play.

Not saying this in regards to laid back tournaments of randomness.

I'm saying this as a tournament player who plays in more than a few events every year.

And what I'm saying is it's way to early to try and "fix" 7th edition. Worst thing we could do is stifle this game in it's infancy because we jump to knee jerk reactions.

An example: Limiting Power Dice

This actually makes seer council better, not worse. This also actually makes the game less psychic than it was at the closing of 6th. All at the expense of stopping "summoning" which isn't likely to be nearly as ridiculous as it's being made out to be out the door.

Just play the game for a little bit before we start hammering down on the ruleset.

1. Unbound armies are banned.
All forces must be Battleforged and may contain no more than 1 Primary Detachment + 1 additional Detachment/Allied Detachment/Formaiton.

2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.

3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!

4. No Mealstorm of War missions.
All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.
(let's see you summon farm now!)

5. Any units gained through Conjuration psychic powers DO NOT! count as Scoring Units, they may not contest any objectives, nor can they claim the Linebreaker bonus.
(take that summon farm!)

6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)

7. Don't be a dick.



Just a few quick ideas...

No need for arbitrary caps on Warp Charge limits or Psyker limits.
While the Daemon Factory is still playable if someone really wants/loves the idea of it, good luck actually winning when you're handing out easy KP's like candy, and none of your additional 'free' units can score or even contest anything!

As well, no First Blood means going first is no longer essentially a freebie KP that only 1 player can ever claim.

If you really want, you could even limit the added Detachment to the same slot set-up as an Allied Detachment. (ie: only 1HQ instead of 2, 1-2 Troops max & only 0-1 of the other slots)

Experiment 626 wrote:
1. Unbound armies are banned.

Why? Please give some examples of unbound lists that are so overpowered in tournaments that a blanket ban is justified to deal with them.

2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.

This is a terrible idea. Most LoW aren't actually that powerful, and if you feel that a titan nerf is necessary then nerf titans without banning all of the other LoW options. 7th edition should not be an excuse to return to the bad old days of comp-heavy tournaments where the first response to losing a game to something is to ban it.

3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!

Why should such a fundamental part of the psychic system be changed?

All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.

I fail to see any reason for making KP secondary in every mission. Also, mission design should be separate from the core rules.

6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)

This fails to address the problem in an effective way because it actually makes a re-rollable 3++ better than a 2++. You're penalizing people for improving their saves. If you want to limit re-rolls then it needs to be done in a way that applies consistently to all saves (limiting the re-roll to a 4+, not allowing re-rolls at all on invulnerable saves, etc).

Sigvatr wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What I said is perfectly reasonable. You perceive issues which is fine but not everyone agrees.

Not sure what you're doing in this thread then.

Its a discussion on the matter. You need opposing opinions to reach the best median.

Hulksmash wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Given some of the passionate arguments against reeling in the rules some it appears people are not understanding the intent of the thread.

This threads intent is to discuss possible changes to the current rule set to allow it to function in tournament play.

This is NOT a thread for how to play in casual play.

This is NOT a thread for someone who wants to run a laid back tournament of randomness.

This is a thread to try and bring balance and consistency to a tournament environment.

I know 6th was far from perfect. Hell, I hated 6th edition. However, 7th does have potential if we bring the rules in a little bit to fit a tournament environment it wasn't built for.

If you want to play unbound and see eldar farseer jetbikes leading a couple of khans on a glorius charge of death and destruction then by all means have fun. The issue with unbound isnt that people will run the list they have always wanted to run it. The issue with unbound is in its name. There is literally no limit to what can be ran. It seize to be a game about armies and factions. It becomes hero hammer or a giant game of mordheim where anything is game and fun and narrative are both absent for at least one side of the battle. Sure it could work IF everyone played nice... but lets be realist here. The only way I could see unbound working is if list were turned in for approval in advance or there were some sort of comp system put in place.

A battle forged army with unlimited factions wouldnt be much better then unbound. You could legally run an entire army of inquisitors.

Not saying this in regards to casual play.

Not saying this in regards to laid back tournaments of randomness.

I'm saying this as a tournament player who plays in more than a few events every year.

And what I'm saying is it's way to early to try and "fix" 7th edition. Worst thing we could do is stifle this game in it's infancy because we jump to knee jerk reactions.

An example: Limiting Power Dice

This actually makes seer council better, not worse. This also actually makes the game less psychic than it was at the closing of 6th. All at the expense of stopping "summoning" which isn't likely to be nearly as ridiculous as it's being made out to be out the door.

Just play the game for a little bit before we start hammering down on the ruleset.

Limiting power dice was just an original suggestion. It is by no means a final product. Currently taking any ideas to make the psychic phase a little more reasonable. That can include either targeting specific spells, power dice, and/or mastery levels. So far initial games have seen daemonology easily doubling the size of a daemon army within the span of a game.

As for the other changes. Surely you can see the issue with both balance and the very foundations of the game. What is the point in having different races and/or factions if its just one big cesspool of combat with no rhyme or reason why that guy is fighting that guy and why that guy is allied with that guy. The biggest reason the game is so successful is because of the background. The story that most of the players in the hobby follow. At the very least unbound needs to be reeled in.

Experiment 626 wrote:1. Unbound armies are banned.
All forces must be Battleforged and may contain no more than 1 Primary Detachment + 1 additional Detachment/Allied Detachment/Formaiton.

2. 1850pts and under = no Lords of War.

3. Psykers must choose their psychic disciplines during list creation, and state exactly how many power(s) they are taking from each school they can select from.
No tailoring your disciplines to each opponent!

4. No Mealstorm of War missions.
All missions use Kill Points as a Secondary Objective, however there are no added VP's for First Blood.
(let's see you summon farm now!)

5. Any units gained through Conjuration psychic powers DO NOT! count as Scoring Units, they may not contest any objectives, nor can they claim the Linebreaker bonus.
(take that summon farm!)

6. A 2++ save may never be re-rolled, no matter the source of that re-roll. (well, unless the dice is cocked/falls on the floor, etc... but hopefully common gakking sense still exists!)

7. Don't be a dick.



Just a few quick ideas...

No need for arbitrary caps on Warp Charge limits or Psyker limits.
While the Daemon Factory is still playable if someone really wants/loves the idea of it, good luck actually winning when you're handing out easy KP's like candy, and none of your additional 'free' units can score or even contest anything!

As well, no First Blood means going first is no longer essentially a freebie KP that only 1 player can ever claim.

If you really want, you could even limit the added Detachment to the same slot set-up as an Allied Detachment. (ie: only 1HQ instead of 2, 1-2 Troops max & only 0-1 of the other slots)

I like the enthusiasm but might be a little harsh on the daemons themselves who did get worse off at shooting. As for the 2++ re-rollable it can come down to the individual TO's on that decision. This discussion is primarily on the rulebook flaws. Not so much stacking game mechanics flaws.

I would also leave secondary of missions up to the TO's. Most dont even use rulebook missions. Kill points the secondary of every mission would crush some armies.

FoC limitation to what we had in 6th edition tournament format seems appropriate.
Come the apocalypse allies doesn't seem broken since it comes with it's own drawbacks.

Unlimited summoning is the issue.

-limiting the power known to a psyker to it's mastery level.
-another possibility would be to end the psychic phase if a peril of the warp is triggered.
-making a power that triggered a peril of the warp FAIL instead of succeed.
-disallowing a summoned demon to take Malefic discipline would be a step in the right direction.

More extreme solution would include relinquishing to the opponent the control of a summoned demon unit if a Peril had triggered during it's casting...

So ... by making Perils a real issue (more than taking a wound), you might limit the use of psyker spam.
and to be honest if you have an army of psyker on the other side, i find it acceptable to not be able to cast a single one of my power during my turn.

that 's my 2 cents

Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment

No come the apocalypse allies

Why? The disadvantages from "come the apocalypse" are prety hefty. What crazy/broken lists dose this create?

I fail to see how it's any more unbalenced then the new Battle Brothers for example.

I don't mind something being banned, but their needs to be a REASON to ban it. If someone could explain to be the issue that was created here. If anything my feeling right now is that come-the-apoc helps balence allies in tournies.

No Maelstrom cards

I'm ok with this in a tournment, because well fun they run the risk of slowing down game play. Tournment games need to played quickly after all.

While I agree with your point about the battle reports, we still have no context for a tournament style report.

Where are the reports with nova style terrain in a nova timelimit? Where are the reports with tournament style missions?

Until we see that we cant know for sure if it will be an issue for tournaments.

I think limited changes at most for now.

Fix all the D3 victory points to 2 on maelstrom cards. Be able to redraw for cards you literally cant complete.
Two-three charts max. So something like 1 main, 1 ally, and 1 formation/LOW.

The summoning powers and the invisibility power seem to be just undercosted to me. A real elegant solution is just to bump them up in cost. Probably even just +1 WC could do it. Nudge both up in cost until they are strong but not broken.