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.

 Formosa wrote:
Did they ban the 2++ rr yet? As we have limited it to Max 3++ and.no re rolls, seems harsh I know but we got sick of the massive amounts of complaints and quite clear imbalance.

To summarise we ruled it like this

No invulnerable save can ever be better than 3+ and invulnerable saves cannot be re rolled for any reason.

This one may be controversial but we also have changed serpent shields

Range: 18"
Str7 ap-
Serpent shields count as weapons for weapon destroyed results and remove both the defensive and offensive components of the serpent shield.

And

Marker lights may never reduce snap shots to hit to less than a 4+, and cover to a 6+

So far this has addressed some of the imbalance of tau and eldar.

So you rewrote de war gear the specifically gives you a 2++, and daemon wargear and rules that specifically allow re-rolling invul saves. Yes let's make shooting more powerful.....groan. Do you also re-point cost the de wargear option, or rule that they don't lose their invul on the first fail? Do I get to roll again for my greater reward if I roll "re-roll invul saves"? Are daemons of tzeentch cheaper, because they now lose most of their rules benefits?


Sorry I would never play in an event with those rules. 2+\4+. Sure but capping invul a and denying things like 5++ re-rollables.. But why can eldar re-roll 2+ armor and cover in you rules?

Sorry I should have been more specific, it was just a summary.

We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely and to be more specific just the rr for those not, and not all invuns as I stated, Max invun is capped at 3++ and no we didn't re price anything, for example a non cover ignoring serpeant shield with a shorter range and that can be destroyed as its a weapon is still very good as the serp has access to a 3+ cover save jink and thus not as powerful, we did not remove the d6+1 shots that was just a mistake I put in my first post.

And while I understand you may not play at such an event it is not aimed at the hardcore tourny players, it's aimed at the more casual gamer that wants to play such events, I of course do not know which category you fall into.

As to the person that asked about deamonology, no we have not removed that yet and are waiting and seeing how it plays out before re addressing it if it becomes and issue.

Sorry for the lack of clarity

 Formosa wrote:


We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely

DE Archons are so OP...

2++ still exists, but no 2+ 're roll for anything, and I know de are not op, but baron with 2++ in a jetseer council is op.
Gw should never have allowed any kind of 2+ save with 're rolls, our gamers have expressed this and so have we, so we nerfed something gw either doesn't care about or is too incompetent to deal with.

The problem isn't that the game is unbalanced.

Many people posting here probably never played any significant number of matches against many of the things that are being banned, or being talked about being banned (LoW, Demonology) and definitely haven't played against them much in 7th since 7th is pretty new.

A lot of it is just knee jerk reactions based on army chair theorycrafting and that one video batrep we saw that one time, or that game over there that some guy was talking about but I never even really saw being played.

Things that people saw over and over again as a problem and many people played against (2++ rerollable saves) are obviously a problem, but some of this stuff is just people complaining without having the support of many games played by many people to back up their complaint. I think the best fix would to say the baron cannotjoin a unit that contains eldar psykers, since he is carrying runes from a farseer he murdered and all but thats just me. Another option would be to change powers/wargear/abilities that allow rerolls to function -like FnP- in that the reroll value is a set number based on the power/wargear/ability and not the units stats/armor/inv

If someone spends 900 points on a LoW unit, and the mission cards are in use, how many objectives is that player going to score a turn? Probably not much. In 1850 points thats half your army, its probably going to secure 0-2 objectives a turn based on killing. I think most armies could pick up 3 Tactical squads in rhinos for about 350 points which would probably outscore a 900 point model since most of the cards are to take objectives and not kill things.

Daemon factory armies, people have already shown as being pretty mediocre, sure they can get a lot of extra models, they can also roll slightly under average and get barely any extra models and will do 0 damage for 1-3 turns as they blow all their WC on summoning, and tzeenetch daemons which are the backbone of the daemon factory aren't doing anything else if they don't have WC left after summoning.

 Formosa wrote:
We got rid of all 2++ rr entirely and to be more specific just the rr for those not, and not all invuns as I stated, Max invun is capped at 3++

It's still the wrong call, on a statistical level.
Let's go with Tzeentch Daemons, since I'm most familiar with them. First, I'll say that taking the Grimoire prevents a Daemon from taking lots of other cool Rewards, like 4+FNP, extra Wounds, regaining Wounds, creating new units of Lesser Daemons, or even COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. Very powerful stuff, that he tactically chooses at list-building.
With the new Psychic Phase, half of the Tzeentch rule is basically useless. Yay, when I roll perils my Ld is 10 instead of 8-9. Big whoop. I'll still take a wound. So the part of the rule I've got left is re-rolls. Nerfing that means you've basically told Tzeentch to off and start a new army. Fun times for them!

***Tzeentch Special Rule let's me re-roll saves of 1. My natural save is a 5++, being a Daemon. This raises my pass rate from 6/18, to 7/18, or from 33.3% to 38.8%.
***If I get Forewarning on a Herald/LoC, I can raise that chance to 58.3%. Guess who has basically the same save, and doesn't need to risk Perils to get it? ANYONE IN RUINS COVER .
***What about if I manage to shoot the Grimoire onto someone? Well, first off, there's a 33% chance that it will penalise me instead of help me. That's a pretty huge risk. But I'll risk it, just like I take risky Deep Strikes on occasion. If I actually manage to get it off, now my save is at 77.78%. That's a pretty good invulnerable. But if we factor in the Grimoire failure rate (2/3 of the time I have a 78% save, 1/3 of the time I have a 17% save), it gets much worse: 55.1%. Guess who has that sort of save: ANYONE IN RUINS COVER . So there's a lot of variation depending on the Str of the weapons that hit you, whether you get cover, etc, etc...but a LoC with the Grimoire shot at him every turn will have, throughout the course of the game, has a slightly worse save than a LoC with Forewarning on him. He can Forewarn himself. He can't Grimoire himself. So the Grimoire is statistically a slightly worse save than Forewarning, in addition to requiring two units to utilise.
***Now...what if we combine both? It's impossible to completely calculate the complexities of this situation. Basically it requires at least two separate HQs, since Grimoire can't be used on the carrier. Then both units need to be in range of each other. (If the recipient of the Grimoire doesn't himself have Forewarning, then that's a 12" range, which is pretty crowded for FMCs) Then it needs Forewarning. (Did you know that a PML2 Psyker has only a 33% chance to roll a specific power, assuming he sticks with a single Discipline? That raises to 53% if PML3. Wow! Such great odds! ) When the Grimoire and Forewarning both succeed, that's a 97.2% save. Basically impenetrable. But again, we need to factor in the Grimoire's inherent nerf rate, which drops that down to 75.9%. Worse than a Terminator.

When you play against a Daemon with the Grimoire and Forewarning in his army, does it feel like a single god-unit actually has a worse save than a Termie? No it does not. It feels very debilitating and discouraging. (But isn't that how Daemons should make you feel? Hopeless, like the world is ending and Chaos will eat your soul? )
So, to negate these feelings, large tourneys have made the 2+/2+ into a 2+/4+. Without considering the Grimoire's nerf, that changes your rate to 91.67%. Still pretty impenetrable.
Dropping that to a flat 3+? No way. Unfair. That's extreme prejudice against Daemon players. ESPECIALLY if you still allow 2+ cover saves! Why ban 2+ invulns but allow 2+ cover (gained through wargear such as Jetbikes Jinking, and special rules like Stealth/Shroud)? You're prejudiced!

I have played hundreds of games of 6th, usually 4/5 a week, ranging from super competitive to friendly, I played the same amount of 5th, 4th and 3rd, 2nd not as much.

7th is just 6th with a few minor changes, between myself and my large group of game mates we probably have 80 years combined experience in playing 40k, so if we all notice an issue AND people who come to our events take a notice to it, we address the issue.

We have no issue with most super heavies, certain things (like the c'tan, phantom etc.) we simply disallow untill gw sorts them out or we have enough consensus between us to fix them our selves.

For example due to alot of us playing 30k a hell of alot and many variations of the list, we have allowed 30k into our tourny, most would not due to incorrect assumption that it is somehow op, we however do not allow primarchs.

There are many ways to play this game and organise events around it, we want people to have fun mainly and a few armies or players trying their best to break the game or abuse it are not our target audience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rr when it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.

Our main concern is our players have fun, when the majority complain and dislike something, we do our best to accommodate them.

The slight nerf to markerlights helped the majority, this directly increased the numbers of non tau armies

The nerf to the serp and 2+ rr led to more variety in eldar armies

The nerf to 2++ rr led to more variation in the deamon armies we saw

None of these things are bad for players

 Formosa wrote:

Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rr when it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.

This is the part I take issue with. Not counting the manoeuvreing, psychic tests, and alpha strikes, the Grimoire has only a 66% chance of success. That's isn't great. Yet you seem to think it is pretty fantastic. And cover saves do not make your save worse 33% of the time. They're just turned on.
I'd understand a ruling that makes invulns 3+ and allows Tzeentch to re-roll 1's, per his Special Rule. (because it's a bit worse than the 2+/4+ "nerf," which doesn't really make a statistical difference). But saying 3++ is the limit, and removing the Tzeentch special rule completely...that's really just a big "F U Tzeentch" that doesn't hurt anyone else. That's a level of prejudice that I am uncomfortable with. (Although, anything you say on the internet makes someone uncomfortable/angry.)

Just to be clear on my understanding on the BAO format of "you can use any of the following sources, but the whole lot has to fit into a standard FoC's worth of slots" idea, this rules out any Formation that gives you more units of a given type than you could normally take, correct?

e.g., Deathleaper's Assassin Brood is 1x Deathleaper and 5 broods of 1 Lictor, which adds to 1 HQ choice and 5 Elites choices, and so is illegal?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Call it prejudiced if you like elric but 2++ rr when it succeeds has no counter, 2+ cover can be countered in multiple ways, such as ignores cover or assault.

This is the part I take issue with. Not counting the manoeuvreing, psychic tests, and alpha strikes, the Grimoire has only a 66% chance of success. That's isn't great. Yet you seem to think it is pretty fantastic. And cover saves do not make your save worse 33% of the time. They're just turned on.
I'd understand a ruling that makes invulns 3+ and allows Tzeentch to re-roll 1's, per his Special Rule. (because it's a bit worse than the 2+/4+ "nerf," which doesn't really make a statistical difference). But saying 3++ is the limit, and removing the Tzeentch special rule completely...that's really just a big "F U Tzeentch" that doesn't hurt anyone else. That's a level of prejudice that I am uncomfortable with. (Although, anything you say on the internet makes someone uncomfortable/angry.)

You misunderstand elric, I don't care one way or the other, but people who are paying hard earned money do, and as stated if we get enough people with issues, then we try to solve it, it's basic customer service and business, if people don't like it theydd don't come and we lose ticket money (and we're small anyway).

Majority wins my good man and if the majority says it's broken and needs fixing and gw can't be arsed, then it's up to us to try.

For me it comes down to how far you fixed it.

If you said grimor caps at a 3++. You would get no large argument from me.

But saying no 2++ ever when DE have wargear that specifically gives them one, and one the lose for failing a save, is a bit much.

I can also go with no re-roll save ever being better than 4+, but saying no re-roll invuls period, invalidates rules for armies, that are not by themselve broken, and would IMO require extra rulings to account for this.

Now I'm not likely ever going to be at one of your events. Just seems to have gone to far in the fixing department, or did you really have people arguing that a 5++ with a re-roll was too powerful?

Xyptc wrote:
Just to be clear on my understanding on the BAO format of "you can use any of the following sources, but the whole lot has to fit into a standard FoC's worth of slots" idea, this rules out any Formation that gives you more units of a given type than you could normally take, correct?

e.g., Deathleaper's Assassin Brood is 1x Deathleaper and 5 broods of 1 Lictor, which adds to 1 HQ choice and 5 Elites choices, and so is illegal?

If I understand correctly, you can take a Formation as your Allied Detachment slot. Only those Dataslates which add something to your CaD (Ie Be'llakor, Cypher as an HQ) Eat up slots in your Primary Detachment.

In regards to the dark eldar 2++, if someone asked if it was ok we would allow it, but not combined with any other army, again harsh I know, but it's effectively added a hell of alot more variety on our top tables, all we were seeing before was serp spam and seerstars, now we have variation.... God forbid.

And remember these are casual players from all age groups, and no offence but we don't care about power gamers hardcore tourny players, again I don't know what category any of you fall into, but if you want the hardcore game experience, were not theppeople for you.

I would rate myself competitive, but I tend not to run top lists. In fact your changes would not really effect my lists much (they might even make them stronger). It is more that on principle I disagree with rules like "NO RR-invuls ever." Why not ban re-rolling in general. No re-roll to hit, to wound, to save etc. That would be far more fair and balanced a way to go about it, than making changes that largely target a single army, and plenty of units that are not OP.

I understand wanting to curb top builds, and that is largely not my issue, my issue is that you have gone pretty far beyond that IMO.

But as I also said, even if I liked your changes I would never attend simply due to geography.

That's fine Breng and it's one of the reasons I like this forum, it gives me a soundboard to use and if I agree with anyone here I can go to my mate's and tell them.

blaktoof wrote:
I think the best fix would to say the baron cannotjoin a unit that contains eldar psykers, since he is carrying runes from a farseer he murdered and all but thats just me.

Better option that makes fewer changes to the game: change the re-roll power to only work on Eldar models in the unit. So you can still put your 2++ character out in front to tank for the unit, but you won't get a re-roll.

This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?

Sarge wrote:
This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?

If I had to guess, it's because they both have the Hellhammer cannon, which throws out a great big pie plate with the Ignores Cover rule (whereas a D weapon has to now roll a 6 to ignore cover).

Sarge wrote:
This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?

Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sarge wrote:
This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?

Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.

Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.

To be fair, a unit of wyverns will delete units in a point and click manner, for far fewer points.

 Redbeard wrote:
To be fair, a unit of wyverns will delete units in a point and click manner, for far fewer points.

To be fair Wyverns don't do squat to vehicles, 2+ saves, etc..And they are not superheavies with 9 HP, AV14.

My solution?

Just play 6th Ed and cherry pick the new rules changes in 7th that actually improve the game (e.g. updated Challenges)...basically a 6.5 Ed.

IIRC D&D players did it when they ignored 4th Ed. and just kept playing 3.5. WotC acknowledged they screwed up, abandoned 4th and went back to supporting 3.5. (Not a D&D player so I might be wrong).

Glocknall wrote:
Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.

First, no, it can't transport a whole army of repair models. The tanks with the STR 10 AP 1 no-cover gun have no transport capacity at all. If you want to repair it you'll have to have your vulnerable models standing around in the open where they can be killed. And with only 36" range on the main gun you're going to have to keep moving, potentially faster than the infantry repair models can move.

Second, who cares if there was only one weapon like that? Before 6th edition there were no flyers in any codex. Before 7th there were few/no psychic powers that let you create new units. Every new codex and edition adds new things, that's just part of the game. Stop clinging to 5th edition and accept this.

Finally, who cares if it deletes entire units? You know what also deletes entire units? Spending 500 points on Riptides/Wyverns/etc. In fact, the conventional units will probably be more efficient. This ban has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the unit, it's all about how scary a giant marine-killing template is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glocknall wrote:
To be fair Wyverns don't do squat to vehicles, 2+ saves, etc..And they are not superheavies with 9 HP, AV14.

A Stormsword isn't going to do anything to vehicles either, at least relative to its 500 point price tag. It's a dedicated infantry killer that can be used against vehicles if there are no infantry targets to shoot at, not a viable anti-tank threat. And you can still probably beat the Stormsword by taking a mix of Wyverns and cheap IG anti-tank units with your 500 points.

Glocknall wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sarge wrote:
This may be discussed else where in this thread, but why is the hellhammer and the stormsword banned?

Because the list is based on reflexive "OH GOD MY MARINES DONT GET A SAVE" dislike rather than legitimate balance concerns. Anything with the ability to ignore MEQ armor and cover saves and more than a 5" blast is banned, even truly awful units like the khorne walker thing.

Peregrine you are oversimplifying. Before Escalation there was exactly one S10/AP1 Ignores Cover weapon in the game. It's a one shot weapon and the player does get to choose when to fire it. The Hellhammer is a first turn, every turn weapon of mass destruction that deletes units in a point and click manner. Not only that it can transport an army of enginseers/techmarines to repair damage done to it. In a tournament setting most armies will not have the tools to deal with it, pure and simple.

No he is not. In five editions as an Eldar and Xenos player, every time something gets hit with the nerf bat or ban hammer, its entirely because of the MEQ mentality of "Only I get a 3+ save and I should always get it all the time!" permeating the entire play base. Marine butthurt drives all community whining and bannings, as well the lion share of major design decisions. Its why Star Cannons still only get two shots and cost more than regular plasma cannons, why the Medusa went away, why hamminators even exist, the source of all the skimmer nerfs over the years, and many other things. But its not too shocking since like 90% of the playerbase plays either marines or spikey marines.

But listening to MEQ players cry about things when they have stuff like the no cover whirlwinds and thunderfire crapping out tons of templates, as well as graviton gun spam rendering the bulk of MCs almost completely irrelevant (especially if you are a Nid player), just makes me more and more jaded. This giant push to try and immediately turn 7th into 6th edition "but keep the xenos nerfs and imperial allies buffs" just reinforces the feeling.

In fact, lets just rename this thread to "Making 7ed back into 6ed for tournaments, because SPASS MAREEENZZZZ!!1!!!!!"

No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.

 Formosa wrote:
No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.

Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.

Not impressed with the idea of solo CAD. That might work for Tau or Eldar, but it sure as gak does not work for Orks.

If someone told me to play via solo CAD I'd tell them to shove their homerules up their arse and play fair.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.

Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.

Exactly. As someone who also has Orks, Eldar, and Imperial Guard armies, I know how vicious the humble Flamer can be. And that's the cheapest special weapon for Space Marines to get.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
No offence phaz but your the one coming over as "buthurt", why exactly do you feel that all the current low to mid tier marine armies are getting preferential treatment, because reading the codex's it doesn't look that way.

Just look at GW's pricing on things like battlecannons. A basic LRBT is a pretty weak unit (especially since it lost the old lumbering behemoth rule), but it's more expensive than other versions simply because of the AP 3 pie plate. AP 3 lasguns on stormtroopers are extremely expensive despite their short range and limited damage even against their ideal targets. And that's from GW, if you look at the TO's justification for which superheavies are banned it's blatantly a case of protecting marines. Anything that breaks the "marines always get a save" rule is banned, even absolutely terrible units like the khorne walker.

As I own a large chunk of each army I don't see it this way myself but I think I understand what your saying, but since marines are expensive in points and pay for these abilities, should not such counters also pay points to negate this bonus?

I'd also suggest that a large blast high str weapon such as the example given would infact be more devastating to things such as the much needed broadsides, pathfinders or wave serpents, these all rely on heavy armour and cover to be effective.

How would you address the issue?