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.

Jy2,

What if TO's gave additional mission VP's (potentially alot) for destroying entire dettachments? Its a way to deter players from taking too many dettachments.

maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars

now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.

instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,

where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,

so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely

yeah... makes sense

 Hulksmash wrote:
Sounds good. Some of us need to build our unique snowflake of an army for Nova and the more time the better

Heheheh, Do you wanta build a snowman....?

 don_mondo wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Sounds good. Some of us need to build our unique snowflake of an army for Nova and the more time the better

Heheheh, Do you wanta build a snowman....?

Go away Mondo!

 Hulksmash wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Sounds good. Some of us need to build our unique snowflake of an army for Nova and the more time the better

Heheheh, Do you wanta build a snowman....?

Go away Mondo!

It doesn't have to be a snowman...

 easysauce wrote:
maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars

now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.

instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,

where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,

so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely

yeah... makes sense

D-weapons hard-countered Deathstars. The D-nerf was a huge buff for them.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:
maybe if TO's stopped comping the stuff meant to beat deathstars (stomp attacks and thunder blitz dont roll to hit, ignoring invis completely, and every codex outside of sisters has acess to these things) then we wouldnt have such an issue with death stars

now that D is nerfed, and that was the only thing about escalation that was too far, there is really no reason to comp these out... that the rules are now in the BRB and we have a codex of super heavies means that each list which is entitled to its one super heavy should have that option.

instead, we have a shooty/deathstar dominanted game,

where CC is low power and pyskers just got nerfed, where anti death star units are now in the BRB and every army save sisters gets to take a super heavy anti death star unit,

so to fix the shooty/death star OP ness, we further nerf psykers, and cut he access each army has to anti death star units out completely

yeah... makes sense

D-weapons hard-countered Deathstars. The D-nerf was a huge buff for them.

yes, the new D weapon rules did nerf the anti death star ness of super heavies a bit, but people were frothing at the mouth about how unfair D weapons were, so no one got to use them, so GW nerfed it a bit.

but since no one was allowed to take D weapons pre nerf, that they got nerfed is not a "buff" to death stars, as now, instead of never facing D weapons/stomps ever, they will actually have to face them.

The STOMP and thunderblitz tables are still the best against INVIS death stars as they will auto hit.

and both Stomp and D weapons work well enough against ++'s (re rollable 2++ still would need a nerf along the 2++/4++ lines) and that 2++ will also be a -1 to your ++ 1/3 of the time, that 1/3 chance to back fire, and the multiple stomps/D blasts fishing for 6's gives you a *decent* chance to wipe that unit, not guaranteed, but hey, they paid a lot of pts to get that 2++ right? and we can just nerf re roll 2++ anyways.

 Hulksmash wrote:

And if the pendulum shifts to parking lots (it won't, they aren't good enough) then it's still more fun than deathstar hammer. At least stuff is blowing up since the drawback to parking lots before was you had to make them explode and you could glance/pen a rhino 500 times and never kill it. Now it only takes 3 successful glance/pens at most.

The most undercosted units like psyback acolyte squads and annihilation barges are already able to reach saturation. Barges took a hit on the Jink rule and on the fact that people in 7th should be bringing more AP2/AP1 ranged weapons for vehicles. 36 TL-St6 AP4 psyback shots hasn't broken the game yet and won't in the future. It's a lot of scoring but it's flimsy scoring.

Honest question to those that are against basically 1 more HQ, 4 more troops, and 2 more of each other slot. What armies are you guys worried about showing up?

Does a FOC benefit from a HQ effects both CAD? I play GK henchmen and IMO it should not ie Cotaez should only be able to effect the CAD that he was purchased in and each space marine CAD needs a bike captain if they want their bikes to be troops.

Right now the doomsday scenario for double CAD appears to be 6 annihilation barges or 12 henchment psybacks as troops. The later of which can be eliminated by not allowing an HQ to effect purchasing in both CAD. The doomsday scenario doesn't seem that scary. Most of the 2k double force org shenanigans we saw at the start of 6th ed had a hard counter introduced since then or just don't work as well anymore.

 RiTides wrote:
I.e., to make this list more extreme, just take 12 units of 3 jetbikes each (51 points apiece). That has used up 600 points of your 1850 point army. Let's say it's another 250 for two farseers with toys to lead them.

Now you have another 1000 points to spend on whatever else you'd like from all the other slots... it just seems like too much to me. Dropping the point level doesn't even help really, because you still have all the slots available for a 1500 point game.

Bikes peak somewhere between 2 to 3 units and then start to suffer diminishing returns. It's dangerous to keep them within 12" if your board edge due to their 3D6 fall back range. Objective secured bikes are not a sure fire objective grab if the eldar player gets 1st turn, 12 bikes would easily give up 1st blood, and 12 bikes would give up a lot of KP. The list is strong, but I would say 4 troop wave serpents and 8 bikes is stronger, and even that isn't the doomsday scenario that requires the banning of double CAD. Also 4 wave serpents and 4 bikes is kosher under current popular tournament house rules of go ahead and ally with yourself, and IMO going from 4 to 8 bikes is unnecessary when you already have 4 scoring wave serpents.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.

Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.

So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.

It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.

I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.

Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.

 RiTides wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.

Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.

So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.

It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.

I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.

Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.

Just throwing this out there. The new jink rules make the 6 barge list that much better. People dont really mind snap firing a twin linked tesla weapon. I fought against 3 barges the other day and found it very hard to take them out when my opponent made some decent 4+ saves. Seeing 6 of them on the board would drive me crazy. Not many armies can take out 6 barges in the course of a game especially when half their damage results are getting ignored.

 Tomb King wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's a cute list but it wouldn't likely stand up over the course of an event. And it'd be fun to play with and against. You're opponent gets to kill things (your 3 man squads) and you get to make zoom noises and fly around the table.

Is it nice to have that many scoring units? Sure. But it'll suffer against mech and flyer builds. And not going second. And reserve rolls.

So the question is are you against that list because it wouldn't be fun to play against or because you feel like it has an inherent advantage in game play? Because the first one I get. I don't agree since I'm a bike nut but I get it. The second one just isn't that solid. A nice blend will be needed.

It might not, but I'm sure others will come up with ones that will.

I am most definitely talking about the first point, that it wouldn't be fun to play against armies that can field 12 amazing objective secured units for 1/3 of the points in their army... leaving the rest to be whatever will gut opponents the best.

Just as before, I pointed out that 2 FOCs allows 4-Flyrant builds for Tyranids, and you said that'd be easy to beat... but it just makes the spam issue worse. We're absolutely going to see 6 annihilation barge armies and the like......... as you say, a nice blend would be best, and to me that's allowing every army to ally with themselves- 4 annihilation barges isn't bad by comparison.

Just throwing this out there. The new jink rules make the 6 barge list that much better. People dont really mind snap firing a twin linked tesla weapon. I fought against 3 barges the other day and found it very hard to take them out when my opponent made some decent 4+ saves. Seeing 6 of them on the board would drive me crazy. Not many armies can take out 6 barges in the course of a game especially when half their damage results are getting ignored.

Stop telling everyone my plans for 7th edition...

I have to admit I am against double force org on pretty much every level.

Can I just summarize what I have taken out of this thread?

Hulksmash is a snow flake! That is all...

To the question posed above, the GK FAQ states that the troop-making special rules only apply to the detachment, not the army.

 greyknight12 wrote:
To the question posed above, the GK FAQ states that the troop-making special rules only apply to the detachment, not the army.

I totally missed that, but am glad my instincts were correct for a change. That limits henchmen to 6 from coteaz + 3 elites from an inquisitorial detachment which can be done without double CAD.

The doomsday scenario for double CAD still seems to be 6 annihilation barges, and that doesn't seem broken OP scary.

Try to remember guys, that this isn't a fight, we're all trying to accomplish the same goals: to create fun events.

In the end, we all want to have a fun tournament/event/league night to go to, so try and keep that in mind. Just because folks may disagree on a point doesn't mean it's time for verbal combat. Some civility will go a long way to facilitating communication.

The BAO is coming up soon, we're going to be July 25th-26th, so as we do, we will poll our attendees to see what they want to do as we do not have the luxury of time. We are open minded, but having played a lot of 7th already (more I would guess a lot of folks here have had the opportunity to play yet) we have a good idea on what's happening.

Everything is going to work out fine and remember, no matter what TOs decide to do for their events, nothing is set in stone, either. If a ruling comes down either to permit or alter/ban something, if it doesn't work so well in application, it can be altered later.

As for multiple Primary Detachments, having played in Double FoC events in 6th, I can say that those events are fun on occasion, but I wouldn't want to do it as the norm. 6 Anni Barges or Ravagers or Wyverns or whatever, can be pretty brutal and fun killing for a lot of folks. While some of you reading this may think that that is no big deal (and to you, it may not be) but in general terms, most gamers do not want to play in that type of environment.

Any decisions we come to will be for what we believe to be the benefit of the largest number of gamers, not an attack on any individual players or their specific armies.

@RedBeard

Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.

@Hulk

You build cool, themed armies, you little snowflake, and that is cool. A lot of people want dual FoC or unbound to make themed lists, which is cool. But, a lot of folks will take what is already powerful in their army and crank it up to an 11.

We're already bleeding players away to other games every month in 40K. Allowing more of the crazy into mainstream play is only going to push more people away. While the hardcore guys will adjust to anything, the regular player with a "normal" 40K list is getting further margenalized in 7th ed where power combos are even more potent than they were.

You know I am a competitive as hell player myself, but I genuinely fear that if we go too far down the rabbit hole with 7th and don't show some restraint, we're going to screw ourselves. Try not to think about building a specific list, but the tournament scene in general. I think that helps put things into perspective a bit.

@thread

Also, again, GW's own tournament format is full of restrictions. I think that shows a lot about their intent.

They use: 1500pts, 1 Primary, 1 ally, 1 formation, 1 LoW

 Reecius wrote:
Try to remember guys, that this isn't a fight, we're all trying to accomplish the same goals: to create fun events.

In the end, we all want to have a fun tournament/event/league night to go to, so try and keep that in mind. Just because folks may disagree on a point doesn't mean it's time for verbal combat. Some civility will go a long way to facilitating communication.

The BAO is coming up soon, we're going to be July 25th-26th, so as we do, we will poll our attendees to see what they want to do as we do not have the luxury of time. We are open minded, but having played a lot of 7th already (more I would guess a lot of folks here have had the opportunity to play yet) we have a good idea on what's happening.

Everything is going to work out fine and remember, no matter what TOs decide to do for their events, nothing is set in stone, either. If a ruling comes down either to permit or alter/ban something, if it doesn't work so well in application, it can be altered later.

As for multiple Primary Detachments, having played in Double FoC events in 6th, I can say that those events are fun on occasion, but I wouldn't want to do it as the norm. 6 Anni Barges or Ravagers or Wyverns or whatever, can be pretty brutal and fun killing for a lot of folks. While some of you reading this may think that that is no big deal (and to you, it may not be) but in general terms, most gamers do not want to play in that type of environment.

Any decisions we come to will be for what we believe to be the benefit of the largest number of gamers, not an attack on any individual players or their specific armies.

@RedBeard

Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.

@Hulk

You build cool, themed armies, you little snowflake, and that is cool. A lot of people want dual FoC or unbound to make themed lists, which is cool. But, a lot of folks will take what is already powerful in their army and crank it up to an 11.

We're already bleeding players away to other games every month in 40K. Allowing more of the crazy into mainstream play is only going to push more people away. While the hardcore guys will adjust to anything, the regular player with a "normal" 40K list is getting further margenalized in 7th ed where power combos are even more potent than they were.

You know I am a competitive as hell player myself, but I genuinely fear that if we go too far down the rabbit hole with 7th and don't show some restraint, we're going to screw ourselves. Try not to think about building a specific list, but the tournament scene in general. I think that helps put things into perspective a bit.

@thread

Also, again, GW's own tournament format is full of restrictions. I think that shows a lot about their intent.

They use: 1500pts, 1 Primary, 1 ally, 1 formation, 1 LoW

There are a lot of good points in that post. I am one of those players Reece is referencing, I have more or less dropped out of tournaments and 40k in general. Through no fault of Reece the LVO really showed me just how much 40k felt like a chore not a game. I played buffmander Tau/SM then buffmander Tau/Necrons (for Imhotep night fight shenanigans) then IG/sm thudd gun/saber/TFC spam with an iron hands bike master all day one. My last game my opponent literally said, if I seize I win, he seized and killed half my army easy by the end of turn 1. I won the first two games, but neither game was fun, the third game was not only a terrible loss but zero fun to play.

It really is important for TOs to keep the player base, not just the top dogs, in mind when figuring this out. GW clearly has no interest in helping us out on this front. I haven't posted seriously in this thread because I no longer consider myself a real tournament player and will bow out now that I have said my peace. Just keep in mind, while you may not agree with the final decisions of FrontlineGaming they are the only TOs who go over and above the call to make sure the game is what their constituents want. That is a lot of work and I for one will always appreciate and respect that.

I guess my issue with that statement though is that we aren't also addressing those lists(other than Tau sm because Gw addressed it). So it is ok for those armies to exist, and be unfun to play against, or get blown away, but we need to stop deathstars, or summoning armies, or just psykers in general. At some point If we want to comp we might as well do it across the board because as you point out their is a lot of stuff that is unfun to play against, but people limit it to things like deathstars when talking comp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Reece, so they limit FOC which most people are in favor of but not psykers, they don't change invisibility etc.

I'm not saying you are definitely wrong about stuff, but I feel strongly that as I said above we target somethings players don't like, but not all of them, and as is evidenced above, even with restrictions at LVO people still found games un-fun.

Summoning is a really interesting issue. While broken for some armies, it's ok with others. Really weird issue.

So far, we agreed on:

a) You are able to ally with yourself or a valid non-CtA ally. No second detachment from your own army (unless allying), not allowed to ally with CtA under any circumstances.

b) Invisibility is changed back to grant Stealth and Shrouded.

c) CCBs cannot join any other units.

Lots of other stuff is being playtested right now. In regards to the 2++ issue, so far, every non-armor save with a re-roll ability gets a 4+ re-roll. So you first get your 2++, but if it fails, it becomes a 4+ re-roll instead of another 2++. Maybe changing it to a 5+, depends on how this works.

PD / DD are likely to be capped in some sort, the most likely solution so far is not allowing generated PD to be shared among Psykers. Another very likely change is that summons cannot summon anything themselves.

Very interesting and productive debate though. Looking forward to the first playtest results =)

Work and custody arrangements with darth X are going to stop me from going to BAO this year so I'm in sad panda mode.

I found something in the tactics section to cheer me up.

GK inquisitors with a null rod can not be affected in any way by psychic powers, so the entire unit which probably also has bs10 versus a psyker gets to totally ignore invisivility.

The same doesn't work for codex inquisition. Different wording their null rod only says they can't be the target of a psychic power.

I would say in the FAQ it uses the targetting other wise the "affects" wording is too vague as everything affects the unit, albeit indirectly.

As to invis to stealth/shrouded I think BS/WS1 is just fine

So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

Still not seeing how CtA creates unfair advantage where other levels of alliance don't.

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

You must be reading a different thread my friend. Things that seem to be in universal agreement from the above:

-No Unbound
-Lord of War (event by event)
-Fortifications need clarification
-Maelstrom Missions in current format are not for tourney play.

The rest is either you pushing your idea of 40k (the no CtA allies) or it's still being discussed by major TO's such as which detachments they want (some are leaning toward just two detachments period for ease of wording and consistancy with 7th edition rules). Also some people are leaning toward invisibility not being as broken as it's being touted. Unless you restrict warp charges in which case it becomes much nastier since it eliminates a contending major counter.

@Reece

While I respect you as a TO and player I just feel like making the decisions on the force org before seeing a 7th edition codex is a bad move. I also feel that changing the essential way the games plays period is a bad call. For Fantasy it took them a year or two before they put limitations on the magic phase (which functions completely differently than 40k anyway). Why are we looking to do it in less than 3 weeks?

What you're suggesting as a limiter keeps the status quo regarding how armies are built and played. And that status quo is, as you put it, bleeding players to other games currently. So why are you trying to maintain it?

Also, I honestly don't consider myself a "competitive" player anymore. I grew up in the both sides of the table are supposed to have fun school of 40k. So I do my best to make sure my opponent is playing the game too. I was one of the people pushing hard for a change on the 2++ issue because I saw it as unfun for people to play against. I could beat it but it wasn't fun for me and it's likely less fun for others that can't. I'm of the opinion that 7th's basic rules eliminate 99% of the issues of 6th. It adds one or two (mostly shooting groups) but overall it fixes almost every major issue I had with 6th, if it's allowed to be played like it's 7th.

Honestly, if you're going to change 7th this much then, god help me I agree with Phazael, I'd prefer you leave it alone and re-institute comp scores. If someone has to worry about not scoring high due to bringing an army it shifts the middle of the field more heavily away from dick lists and the top tables as well.

There, it's said. I equate the knee jerk reactions currently being discussed for "fixing" 7th with COMP!

Love you guys and remember, the internet has no tone. Please go back and re-read in Alvin the Chipmunks voice

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

You must be reading a different thread my friend. Things that seem to be in universal agreement from the above:

-No Unbound
-Lord of War (event by event)
-Fortifications need clarification
-Maelstrom Missions in current format are not for tourney play.

The rest is either you pushing your idea of 40k (the no CtA allies) or it's still being discussed by major TO's such as which detachments they want (some are leaning toward just two detachments period for ease of wording and consistancy with 7th edition rules). Also some people are leaning toward invisibility not being as broken as it's being touted. Unless you restrict warp charges in which case it becomes much nastier since it eliminates a contending major counter.

@Reece

While I respect you as a TO and player I just feel like making the decisions on the force org before seeing a 7th edition codex is a bad move. I also feel that changing the essential way the games plays period is a bad call. For Fantasy it took them a year or two before they put limitations on the magic phase (which functions completely differently than 40k anyway). Why are we looking to do it in less than 3 weeks?

What you're suggesting as a limiter keeps the status quo regarding how armies are built and played. And that status quo is, as you put it, bleeding players to other games currently. So why are you trying to maintain it?

Also, I honestly don't consider myself a "competitive" player anymore. I grew up in the both sides of the table are supposed to have fun school of 40k. So I do my best to make sure my opponent is playing the game too. I was one of the people pushing hard for a change on the 2++ issue because I saw it as unfun for people to play against. I could beat it but it wasn't fun for me and it's likely less fun for others that can't. I'm of the opinion that 7th's basic rules eliminate 99% of the issues of 6th. It adds one or two (mostly shooting groups) but overall it fixes almost every major issue I had with 6th, if it's allowed to be played like it's 7th.

Honestly, if you're going to change 7th this much then, god help me I agree with Phazael, I'd prefer you leave it alone and re-institute comp scores. If someone has to worry about not scoring high due to bringing an army it shifts the middle of the field more heavily away from dick lists and the top tables as well.

There, it's said. I equate the knee jerk reactions currently being discussed for "fixing" 7th with COMP!

Love you guys and remember, the internet has no tone. Please go back and re-read in Alvin the Chipmunks voice

I'm with Hulksmash here. I've been playing since 3rd Edition and I've now reached the point where I miss comp scores. I'm about 10 games into 7th Edition, so admittedly still a small sampling, but it includes a team tournament last weekend. The most unfun list to play there by consensus was the 1000 points of Tau allied to 1000 points of Inquisition, 2 Knights and a VSG network (I think two generators and six shields). I'd gladly go back to Army Comp scores to shift the meta back towards more balanced, TAC army builds as the norm rather than spam armies.

That said, for the local RTTs I run I'm just sticking with some simple rules for now:
-Unbound Armies are allowed with prior approval by the TO (Subjective? Yes. But I want to allow the people with cool, themed armies to play and reward people who bring battle forged armies by not having every troop choice be objective secured. Force players to make cost-benefit decisions ahead of time in army building)

-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)

-I'm deliberately not modifing the psychic phase. Psychic powers are nowhere near as reliable as they were before. Even Invisibility is not that bad as in the local area I'm already seeing a shift back to MSU armies. Plus, the big drawback to Invisibility is you have to commit the unit to a goal through movement and then see if its buffed. It'll usually draw 7-9 dice out of the pool to cast and Perils is much more common. I'm going to let it play out for a few months and see what the consensus will be before toying with it. But even the 18 warp charge Imperial Fist/Gray Knight army I played against was only reliably getting off 3-5 powers a turn.

-I'm going to maintain my current scoring system of battle points, painting and sportsmanship for now. Before moving to comp, what I'm going to do is shift my prize support from Best Overall, Best General, Best Army, and Best Sports to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Overall, Best Army and Best Sports. I'm no longer going to reward people who bring unpainted or partially painted armies by giving them a prize to compete for. 90% of my players put tons of time and effort into building and painting their armies. This will let me better reward the total hobbyists and not just the on the board tacticians.

 Reecius wrote:

@RedBeard

Yeah, as Jim said, most events have been won lately by assault armies. I actually just won a 6th ed tournament with Orks, for what that is worth. 2nd and 3rd were assault Eldar (Seer Councils). I agree though, that assault struggles in general, but we have found that good terrain helps a ton.

I dare you to win an event with World Eaters or Mono-Khorne CSM in general. Hell, any Mono-Khorne, I'll take it!

PanzerLeader wrote:

-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)

Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot

Yeah, only from a rules availability standpoint does limiting FW really come into effect anymore. There are a few units that are crazy but they have either been supplanted by codex choices or the edition change.

 Tomb King wrote:
So far it seems as a whole we have come to the following conclusions:
No unbound armies (i.e. it gets silly when you run an army of IC's from all the codices)
No double forge org or unlimited detachments(1 primary, 1 ally, 1 formation (optional))
No come the apocalypse allies
Lord of war (event by event decision on whether allowed or not)
Fortifications need to be clarified on what is allowed and what is not!
Invisibility (moved to warp charge 3, changes to WS 1 and BS 1 for units attacking them, or Stealth and shrouded granted instead of current effects)
Maelstrom missions not for tournament play

I'm not saying everyone agrees with this (Hi Hulk ) but I do think it's reasonable and that a lot of folks will. I'd certainly be much more likely to attend an event like this... although I think you need to allow armies to ally with themselves if adding these restrictions.

Looking forward to seeing what the BAO and Nova Open end up running.

 Vaktathi wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

-Forgeworld units are allowed on a 0-1 basis per unit (I played Tomb King's Thudd Gun spam at Wargamescon last year. With Nids. We tied, but that game was not fast nor particularly enjoyable as for the whole game I basically removed models, spawned new models and didn't really get to interact with his army. I still want to allow people to play with their cool toys though.)

Keep in mind, the basic IG codex now includes the even more effective (and far less support-dependent) Wyvern, limiting FW for fear of Thudd Guns has become somewhat moot

Which goes back to the basic issue of spam and whether or not army comp is needed. 9 Wyvern is just as bad as 9 Thudd Guns. But forgeworld rules are generally less well known than the codex rules and therefore make it much easier to catch an opponent with his shorts down by spamming something previously unknown.

Well, arguing for comp is fine but imo is a slightly different approach to take. I would not be opposed, but would prefer to try some basic restrictions like those listed above first.