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.

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.

Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.

What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.

 greyknight12 wrote:
On the subject of deathstars, would capping invulnerable saves at a 3++ work? There's enough ignores cover and low ap to make those types of re-rollables not as big a deal.

I personally would be in favor of this. I always though super-solid Invul saves were something that should be very rare indeed, and not long ago at all 2+ invul saves (aside from one piece of DE wargear that broke when it failed) were purely the stuff of internet hyperbole, much less rerollable ones. Though that's just me.

 Tomb King wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.

Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.

What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.

Unbound isn't for tourneyhammer, though if you are running an event that requires list approval, it certainly wouldn't matter what you used.

Lords of War are less a problem than they were, but there are still several problem children (S10AP1 super large blast ignores cover IG tanks, the C'Tran, etc.).

Unlimited Battle Forged Detachments is interesting for some armies, and effectively the same thing as Unbound for others. This probably makes it unreasonably unfair in a tournament setting.

More thoughts in-depth on these and others: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/7th-edition-is-pretty-cool-plus-some.html

MVBrandt wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm not sure any of that is really all that necessary. Deathstars - no matter how killy, durable, or fast - fare extremely poorly in 7th edition compared to 6th. The changes to scoring and mission focus basically nerfed them into the ground from the perspective of being able to win games as reliably.

Early on, people may still run them wholesale across the meta, but that is going to change organically.

What are your all's thoughts on the issue with unbound, lords of war, and/or unlimited detachments in battle forged.

Unbound isn't for tourneyhammer, though if you are running an event that requires list approval, it certainly wouldn't matter what you used.

Lords of War are less a problem than they were, but there are still several problem children (S10AP1 super large blast ignores cover IG tanks, the C'Tran, etc.).

Unlimited Battle Forged Detachments is interesting for some armies, and effectively the same thing as Unbound for others. This probably makes it unreasonably unfair in a tournament setting.

More thoughts in-depth on these and others: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/7th-edition-is-pretty-cool-plus-some.html

Looks solid and you nailed most of the underlying problems that exist in 7th. They pretty much dropped a lot of the structure. An idea for terrain if its an issue and there are no rules for that piece in the 7ed then just use the 6th rules for that piece of terrain if two opponents agree to it.

I also like that you all are keeping lords of war off the table. At least for the time being. I am looking forward to seeing which armies take it this year.

As for the summoning army, sure the LOC is the best bargain to keep summoning. However, for combat power take the guys that can charge the next turn GUO or even KOS. I wouldnt be suprised to see the top army use summoning at least to a small degree in this manner. Maybe not a full own summoning army but an extra greater daemon here or there.

MVBrandt wrote:
More thoughts in-depth on these and others: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/7th-edition-is-pretty-cool-plus-some.html

That is a very well written and informative article, thanks for sharing it!

There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.

Maybe that is where Marbo is as well...

Ghaz shouldnt be because Yarrick isn't and I feel they are both hand and hand. Yarrick literally defies death though... because he doesn't feel like it. So who knows.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.

It would be interesting to see if as they release new books, and re do older ones, if Chapter Masters etc level characters (Dante, Abbadon, Azrael, Calgar etc) get hero'fied and jacked in points/abilities and moved into the LoW spots.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There is a rumor floating that Ghaz will be a LoW choice in the new codex... I think that will force the hand.

I feel like a lot of the rules changes that GW are doing could potentially be to force player's hands in this way. Although that may be ascribing too much intelligence to the designers...
- Players universally disallowed D-Weapons.... until Knights show up as a bona fide codex where all models have D weapons. What's a TO to do?
- Players generally disallowed Stronghold Assault fortifications... until 7th ed removed the forts from the BRB and now players must use the SA forts.
- Players generally didn't like the double-force-org or multiple detachment/allies shenanigans... yet in 7th ed all of that is turned up to 11 in the core rules even when building battle-forged lists, let alone unbound.
- And now, players are discussing restrictions on LOW, and mysteriously Ghaz shows up as an in-codex LOW.
TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.

Trasvi wrote:
TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.

Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.

MVBrandt wrote:
[ http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/7th-edition-is-pretty-cool-plus-some.html

I'm pretty exited about that idea of a "multiple choice" FAQ, that's a very smart idea!

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.

Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.

Depends. A lot of tournaments outright banned FW stuff (which is debatable), others explicitely banned the truly overpowered stuff and allowed the, mostly actually underpowered, rest.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
TO's are now in an awkward place where you can't restrict entire categories/supplements, and restricting the worst offenders is arbitrary and subjective.

Why not? TOs have been doing that for years with Forge World bans. The only difference now is that, after years of saying that "codex" is a magic word that defines what is legal according to GW, they're going to have to start being honest about the fact that they're arbitrarily banning whole sections of the game that they don't approve of.

Depends. A lot of tournaments outright banned FW stuff (which is debatable), others explicitely banned the truly overpowered stuff and allowed the, mostly actually underpowered, rest.

Most seem to be doing a 0-1 thing or "no duplicates" or not allowing FW lists of late it seems. There's a lot of weird restrictions. For instance, the Broadside Bash in San Diego just a couple months ago had the restriction that you could only take 3 FW units, and only 2 could be the same (was also the primary reason I chose not to attend this year).

That's actually quite reasonable IMO .

Reasonable enough to keep me at home :p

Like Peregrine said, it seems like a largely arbitrary decision, it's not like FW units are so much more powerful as to require a restriction, people are just terrified of them for some reason

If anyone gets a chance, would you look over my 7th edition updated rulespack for the Tournament I organise here in the UK, any comments and critiscm would be massively appreciated!


https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6vzgbvc5rn0aiy/Event%20pack%20V2%20%287th%20Ed%20update%29.pdf

Eldercaveman wrote:
If anyone gets a chance, would you look over my 7th edition updated rulespack for the Tournament I organise here in the UK, any comments and critiscm would be massively appreciated!


https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6vzgbvc5rn0aiy/Event%20pack%20V2%20%287th%20Ed%20update%29.pdf

Looks good to me, lets everyone play with their toys, has some level headed changes and expectations.

I like it, however I would remove the 30k part unless most of your attendies are going to be familiar with the rules for it.

I know I would have no idea how it works, especially if someone threw down mortarion I would be like "wwahhhhh"

For fortifications is it just the primary fortification or are add ons included as well such as the escape tunnel and ammo dump.

Also dont understand the removal of objective secured for transports, but okay.

Are you going to include spawned units for the summoned units or not(I.E portalglyph, skyblight, tervigons) or just daemons getting punished for summoning.

I would shift to battle points instead of win/l/d so that it gives you a variety of scores, but that is just my personal preference.

 Leth wrote:
I like it, however I would remove the 30k part unless most of your attendies are going to be familiar with the rules for it.

I know I would have no idea how it works, especially if someone threw down mortarion I would be like "wwahhhhh"

For fortifications is it just the primary fortification or are add ons included as well such as the escape tunnel and ammo dump.

Also dont understand the removal of objective secured for transports, but okay.

Are you going to include spawned units for the summoned units or not(I.E portalglyph, skyblight, tervigons) or just daemons getting punished for summoning.

I would shift to battle points instead of win/l/d so that it gives you a variety of scores, but that is just my personal preference.

The 30k part is a localised thing, and not something I'd expect to see widespread.

A fortification is allowed to take any upgrades available to it (aslong as they are modelled). Thanks for pointing this out and I will edit to suit!

The removal of objective secured on Dedicated transports, is to stop the extra abuse of Wave Serpent, Drop pod and razorback lists for scoring. They still score, but not uber score.

Spawned units are any units that aren't part of your original list. No matter the means of getting them.

Again W/L/D is a localised thing, and seems to work well round here so I'll stick with that.

Thanks again for the comments.

While I didn't bother to read through ALL of the posts my 2 cents is that those complaining about tournaments setting up a standard for rules is such:

Don't play the tournament.

I play for fun; I go to my local game store tournaments for fun and if I win, great. If I don't, no big deal.

If you don't like the way a tournament is setup because the organizers don't like certain rules that, in their mind, are unfair/unbalanced, etc then it's you who has the problem. Make your own tournament with your own rules that allow everything if you have an issue with how others are setting up their tournaments.

OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.

Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.

 LValx wrote:
OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.

Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.

I think like everything else you need to build to face lots of armor to deal with serpents.

 LValx wrote:
OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.

Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.

Or just do what I have done and make no dedicated transport objective secure. It's a silly rule anyway. Why should a Land Raider be better at holding an objective than a unit of Devastators?

$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

Eldercaveman wrote:

 LValx wrote:
OS Wave Serpents are awful to deal with, I think it might be a bigger offender than Invisible units or Fortune'd ones. Between the speed, offense and ability to tank shock, they are really annoying to deal with.

Thankfully the mirror match is brutal and I think it will lead to a lot of folks (hopefully) not spamming Serpents.

Or just do what I have done and make no dedicated transport objective secure. It's a silly rule anyway. Why should a Land Raider be better at holding an objective than a unit of Devastators?

I think this is a good idea. However, I was opposed to capping Warp Charges and nerfing/banning Malefic Daemonology before letting the meta find its level. I think eventually OS will have to be removed from Dedicated Transports, but I'd like to leave it as-is for a bit to see how big of an issue it really is.

MVBrandt wrote:
$.02 on Lords of War: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-not-for-lords-of-war-why-for-lords.html

I agree with just about everything you said.

I would love to see Primarchs running around on the tables !

i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.

NorseSig wrote:
i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.

Pretty much, I was watching a game last night and the guy had psyback spam on top of purifiers and he realized half way through that he didnt really need 24 dice, he could reliably get what he wanted off with about 16. That would open up the ability to take more things like dreadknights and purifiers which are where the serious damage are going to come from( I am seriously considering allying crowe with two 5 man units of purifiers with double psycannon.

NorseSig wrote:
i am a new player and still learning, but I feel we should wait to judge the new rules and the changes for a few months to give them a try. The issues we are concerned about may not be issues. I recently played a psyker army and on the first psyker phase he nuked pretty much his entire army with rolls resulting in perils. Probably not a typical result I know, but It goes to show that a win is not guaranteed due to having 30+ dice. The only exception I would say would be the tactical objective cards. They have no place in a tournament. Locally I have only seen 1 match where the game was won due to skill, planning, and strategy. I myself won a match I had no way of winning simply because I was scoring points through objective cards every turn and my opponent who basically was smashing me wasn't. All I had to do was play keep away until the game ended. Locally I haven't seen the LoW be an issue. Most everyone in my group has plenty of things in their lists to care of the like.

So you played to the mission and won while your opponent ignored his missions and lost? Sounds like skill, strategy and planning to me.