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.

 Tomb King wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:I am hoping ATC lets us play raw 40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.

Tsilber wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am hoping ATC lets us play raw 40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.

I concur

FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I ask the people please stop pretending that this is the only location where this movement towards balance is happening. Its happening across the country not sure if its happening overseas or not.

Those restrictions sound reasonable and are about what I would expect a TO to do. I think as long as it doesnt mess with the main core rules to much I am not seeing a problem. Excited to see how the GT at the end of this month rules things.

I'm surprised they're against Formations.

I can understand most of what they did by restricting Unbound, but limiting to one Combined Arms Detatchment with single ally really does screw over some armies like Iyanden, Farsight Encoave, Black Legion, Sentinals, etc which are meant to be able to ally with themselves and are given permission to via Battle Forged rules with Dual Combined Arms Detatchments.

Dual FOC isn't nearly as scary as it once was.

I think if they are going to limit force orgs like that they need to allow everyone to self ally.

 Tomb King wrote:
FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

 Tomb King wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:I am hoping ATC lets us play raw 40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.

Tsilber wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am hoping ATC lets us play raw 40k... we will all be able to draw some good conclusions.

I concur

FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

I ask the people please stop pretending that this is the only location where this movement towards balance is happening. Its happening across the country with a lot of the same changes being implented. However, I am not sure if its happening overseas or not.

It's a step in the right direction, it looks much more like 40k than apoc, and that's good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.

Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.

Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.

If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Speaking for myself, I'd rather play 40k than apoc, pretending apoc is 40k is what's killing 40k.

Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of a TO is in modifying the game. My position is that the TO should do the minimum required to fix any game-breaking balance issues, and otherwise leave the game as-is. You seem to be ok with the TO making changes to enforce a specific style of play that you prefer. I just hope that people on your side of this divide don't end up driving the game back to the bad old days of comp-heavy "tournaments" where you were effectively banned from winning if the TO didn't like the fluff of your army.

Adepticon did a tournament with all the crazy apoc stuff, 17 people likely had a good time. If you think TO's on the hook for thousands are going to be less conservative with their main gt events, I would say you're being a bit naïve.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.

Im fairness tomb king, pure "battle forged" is abour 3/4 as bad as unbound. Both of them barely regulate anything. Which is exactly what apoc is, crazy give no quarter pure market 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
FROM ATC PAGE:

Spoiler:

1 - We will have a first draft FAQ to you by Tuesday May 2nd. We have a fully dedicated Judge staff of 6-8 people who are already working on this. The GW FAQs located at http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html will be used.

2 - ORGANIZATION CHANGES

A - No Unbound Armies and no Formations will be allowed.
B - Battle forged Armies MUST be used, with a mandatory, maximum, ONE Combined Arms Detachment that will NOT use Lords of War and a Maximum ONE Allied Detachment that is optional.
C - Tactical Objectives will NOT be used.
D - Legal Fortifications list will be decided and announced later today. The rules from Stronghold Assault will be used for any that we decide to allow.
E - NO terrain data slates.

So, reflexive bans on anything that isn't the 5th edition FOC, regardless of whether or not there is any good reason for the ban. Seems like a reasonable thing to do.

IMHO unbound isnt even 40k. If i wanted to play apocalypse i would. If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.

Im fairness tomb king, pure "battle forged" is abour 3/4 as bad as unbound. Both of them barely regulate anything. Which is exactly what apoc is, crazy give no quarter pure market 40k.

Yea I am with you on that assessment. Just trying to win one battle a time. I cant fathom why people cant see the issues with unbound. I miss the games were one persons army fought another persons army on the table. When do we draw the line.

In 5th edition there was army vs army
In 6th edition there were army(possible double force org at higher point levels) = ally vs army.
In 7th edition there are whatever you feel like playing to include double force orgs, any combo of models in the game, titans, data slates, formations, forgeworld. Its all now legal if you let it play as is. smh.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Adepticon did a tournament with all the crazy apoc stuff, 17 people likely had a good time. If you think TO's on the hook for thousands are going to be less conservative with their main gt events, I would say you're being a bit naïve.

Of course this was also with pre-nerf D-weapons, so I don't think that's a fair representation of a 7th edition game under the standard rules. And I certainly don't think that those balance issues are things that require blanket bans on everything from superheavies to multiple FOCs to fix them. If titans are a problem and drive people away then increase their point cost or ban D-weapons or whatever, don't ban everything vaguely related to Apocalypse just because someone might not show up if you don't play 6th edition.

 Leth wrote:
If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.

Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.

 Tomb King wrote:
IMHO unbound isnt even 40k.

Of course it's 40k, it's right there in the 7th edition rules. It might not be in your own personal game which kind of resembles 40k, but that's not the game everyone else is playing.

If you go with unbound then whats the point in buying an army. Just buy all the random models you want and throw them on the board.

So let me get this straight: your opposition to unbound armies isn't based on a clear game balance issue, it's based on your personal dislike of unbound armies (poor theme, whatever)? Your reason for banning them is nothing more than unhappiness that someone is having fun in a way that you don't enjoy?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Leth wrote:
If I am putting 10k+ on the line for a tournament your damn right I am going to ban things that might make it so people dont want to come. I will play it safe anyday when serious money is on the line rather than take risks.

Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.

And that would make sense if YOU are willing to risk your own money to runa tournament like that feel free. Until then I have no problems with them imposing whatever restrictions they want and people will vote with their money. If I don't like it I wont go.

We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.

Their house, their rules.

Now am I a fan of some of the restrictions? No, but they do not outweigh my desire to keep playing in the events.

 Peregrine wrote:
[

 Tomb King wrote:
IMHO unbound isnt even 40k.

Of course it's 40k, it's right there in the 7th edition rules. It might not be in your own personal game which kind of resembles 40k, but that's not the game everyone else is playing.

A sandbox isn't a game.

 Leth wrote:
We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.

Their house, their rules.

Err, lol? Since when does any of that mean that we shouldn't criticize events that we don't like? In fact, why even have a forum for discussing tournaments if you think that we're obligated to just accept the events that are provided to us and never dare to criticize their sacred wisdom?

 Peregrine wrote:

Except by banning stuff without good reason (and no, "I don't like your army" isn't a good reason) you're excluding the people who use that stuff. Plus, by giving in to the people who will ragequit if someone gets to use an army they don't like you continue to support the idea that people are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's army choices.

Without good reason? I have to ask and it is relevant. What armies do you currently own? Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.

 Tomb King wrote:
Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.

How about just listing those possibilities without having to make this about me and my personal armies. If the game-breaking balance problems are so obvious then you shouldn't have any problems doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
A sandbox isn't a game.

Having few restrictions on what you can take in your army is not even close to making 40k a "sandbox" instead of a game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Leth wrote:
We don't have a right to be in tournaments, it is a choice we can make. Neither are we forced, if you are not satisfied with the rules people are presenting you are free to take on the risks yourself, however to demand that someone else takes the risk because of what you want speaks of a level of entitlement I cant describe.

Their house, their rules.

Err, lol? Since when does any of that mean that we shouldn't criticize events that we don't like? In fact, why even have a forum for discussing tournaments if you think that we're obligated to just accept the events that are provided to us and never dare to criticize their sacred wisdom?

There is a difference between criticizing them because of their choices and feeling entitled to your choices and being upset because they dont do what you want.

If they made something random like "We are banning fire warriors in this event" then I could see that being an odd banning, but when you are dealing with a community like 40k(as we have seen from the internet) is not the most accepting of change, your job is not to make it some competitive event or stick your banner in the ground and make a stand for the complete rules, your job is to make it as enjoyable for a large number of people as possible so you don't lose money on it.

Complaining about someone doing something for irrational reasons is one thing. Complaining about people making good personal decisions and not putting themselves at risk because of what you want is not criticizing its entitlement.

 Leth wrote:
Complaining about people making good personal decisions is not critisizing its entitlement.

IOW, "complaining about things I don't like is fine, complaining about things I think are reasonable decisions is entitlement". How about instead of derailing this into a tangent about whether or not the poor TOs are being criticized too harshly we stick to discussing the merits of various rule options?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Complaining about people making good personal decisions is not critisizing its entitlement.

IOW, "complaining about things I don't like is fine, complaining about things I think are reasonable decisions is entitlement". How about instead of derailing this into a tangent about whether or not the poor TOs are being criticized too harshly we stick to discussing the merits of various rule options?

You were the one saying what someone else should do, not I. Being a TO is largely a thankless job, they get a lot of gak from people, they have to invest a lot of personal time and money. Having a little understanding for their position is and what they are investing for the enjoyment of others. Being grateful is something I prioritize and am thankful for everyday because they take on the tasks most people are not willing to do. They are fellow people, hobbyists, and should be treated with a certain level of dignity(IMO). But from the way you talk about people on here, I HOPE that you have forgotten that instead of knowingly talking about our fellow hobbyists the way you do. I remember that there is another human on the other end of any communications I make, I now have you blocked so I am not going to see anything else you post, not because I disagree but because you are a donkeycave about it.

But I will give you the last point since I am not going to respond, explain to me how taking a huge personal financial risk to play the complete rules is a reasonable decision?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Before I say anything further I will need this information so I can understand how you are not seeing the possibilities that would totally wreck this game.

How about just listing those possibilities without having to make this about me and my personal armies. If the game-breaking balance problems are so obvious then you shouldn't have any problems doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
A sandbox isn't a game.

Having few restrictions on what you can take in your army is not even close to making 40k a "sandbox" instead of a game.

Firstly there is a difference in a few restrictions and no restrictions.

As for the question I only asked because I wanted it to show you what could be done with just the models you currently have i.e. more relevant to you. However, judging by your link in your signature you like super heavies and are probably an avid Apoc player. Not judging you for that and I can partly understand your motives. IF these changes actually came through it might significantly improve your player base. More people playing with the big toys the more people that you can get games with. Only problem is even though it might help get a few more apoc players the long term would see less players as a whole.

My personal reasons for not playing Apocolypse:
$$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun.
Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )

I agree with what most of ATC has done, but I feel they should allow Formations, just 1 that shares/takes up the Ally slot. Tyranids badly need it.

FWIW, I have all the armies except Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Sisters.

 Tomb King wrote:


Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )

I think we need to make sure to differentiate between losing because it is super unbalanced, or losing because you have a bad list, or you are bad at the game. A skilled player can usually overcome a power difference with a decent list IF the missions create an environment where multiple avenues to victory are present.

I have played in missions against these deathstars where they have a huge problem because they cant contest every turn all the objectives I can claim every turn.

Deathstars don't have the wiggle room to adjust to missions because so many points are spoken for.

 Tomb King wrote:
$$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun.
Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )

These things already exist in the restricted game that you're advocating.

$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.
Uber units: re-rollable 2++ death stars (now with invisibility!), tons of MCs/tanks, etc. Honestly, the Stormsword is usually a lot less point-efficient than the best "normal" units.
Games that can be over before they start: Tau or IG gunline against BA or similar assault-focused army.
Too much hero hammer: every death star list. In fact, your restrictions make this worse since a single FOC still allows the expensive HQs but removes things that would kill them.
Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
$$$$ = Winner (The person who is willing to spend the cash on the big bad toys is going to win)
Uber units that can kill an army (Please see a Revenant Titan as an example) The other day they allowed them into a tournament and I was unfortunate enough to take nids up against a stormsword with extra las cannons. It ate my army and was totally fun.
Games can be over before they start (Seen people completely destroy an opponents army before they even got to move a model)
Too much hero hammer
That feeling of helplessness when you know no matter what your army cant win this fight or even harm the enemies crazy uber unit (picture tier I-II vs Tier 5+ in world of tanks )

These things already exist in the restricted game that you're advocating.

$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.
Uber units: re-rollable 2++ death stars (now with invisibility!), tons of MCs/tanks, etc. Honestly, the Stormsword is usually a lot less point-efficient than the best "normal" units.
Games that can be over before they start: Tau or IG gunline against BA or similar assault-focused army.
Too much hero hammer: every death star list. In fact, your restrictions make this worse since a single FOC still allows the expensive HQs but removes things that would kill them.
Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.

And more of those issues improves the sand box?

 Peregrine wrote:

$$$$ = winner: everything about this game. Riptide spam at $80 each, demon summoning armies that require you to buy a whole second army worth of models, etc.

Riptides are one of the most efficient points-per-dollar Tau units you can get. At 220pts with standard loadout, compared to $55 for 110pts of Firewarriors or Kroot. $80 for ~160pts of Crisis Suits, $85 for 150pts of Hammerhead....
Yes, you need to buy models to play the game. But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...

Helplessness: showing up with a "normal" list against re-rollable 2++. I wouldn't even bother deploying my army in that case.

This is the big problem. The tournament winning lists are all 'trick' lists that generally can't be taken on with a naive 'TAC' - 'take one of everything' army list. The problem is that it's getting easier and easier to 'accidentally' build a trick list. Tzeentch Daemon factory (though of unproven tournament worth) can be considered a quite fluffy mono-tzeentch daemon build. AV14 spam is just a fluff-driven armoured company. Etc, etc.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And more of those issues improves the sand box?

Of course not, but that's not the point. The relevant question is whether or not those things are so much worse under the standard 7th edition rules that we have to house rule everything back to 5th edition to fix the problem. So far there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unbound lists/superheavies/etc are really that bad.

Trasvi wrote:
But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...

Well yeah, that's exactly my point: 40k is still "pay to win" regardless of whether or not unbound lists/superheavies/etc are included. Banning them doesn't remove the cost factor, it just changes which models are included in the best list.

 jy2 wrote:

1. Distributed Casting. No unit can use more dice than 2x his Mastery level, plus 1/2 of the D6 pooled dice (unless there is only 1 psyker in that army, which can then use all of the D6 pooled dice).

Here’s the problem that this is trying to fix. Say you have a Lvl 3 Daemon Prince with Invisibility, the Summoning and Iron Arm. On average, it’ll take 2 dice to cast a Warp Charge 1 power with any reliablity (75% chance). Thus, to cast Summoning somewhat reliably, you need 6 dice, 4 dice for Invisibility and 2 dice for Iron Arm. Now he’s only got 6 (Level 3) +D3 dice so he needs to choose carefully which power he wants to cast.

The problem with the underlined is that previously, A PML3 Daemon Prince could easily cast 2-3 powers a turn (depending on whether they were WC1 or WC2). NOW you're talking about A SINGLE POWER! And you even want to make that single power difficult for him to get off by limiting his dice!
Of course Pink Horrors should be able to donate their psychic presence to their Warlord.

Maybe we should have pools of WC that can only be used by the Faction (or, even stricter, detachment) that generated it. No Coteaz Batteries powering a Daemon army (or any other army).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
And more of those issues improves the sand box?

Of course not, but that's not the point. The relevant question is whether or not those things are so much worse under the standard 7th edition rules that we have to house rule everything back to 5th edition to fix the problem. So far there doesn't seem to be much evidence that unbound lists/superheavies/etc are really that bad.

Trasvi wrote:
But if you're worried about people buying an entire second army of daemons with an additional 200 horrors and 10 bloodthirsters... those people are going to buy the biggest power list no matter what. If not daemons, then GK henchmen/razorback spam...

Well yeah, that's exactly my point: 40k is still "pay to win" regardless of whether or not unbound lists/superheavies/etc are included. Banning them doesn't remove the cost factor, it just changes which models are included in the best list.

Do you play in tournaments? I can't help but have the feeling that you are only in here to rabble-rouse. We get it, you think the game ought to be played as is out of the book, great. This thread is clearly about "comping" 40k, why even bother to post in the thread if you aren't going to be constructive at all?