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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You won't be dealt a terrible hand ever (admittedly if you use the simple fix) you may be dealt a challenging hand and if you've got a poorly constructed army ill equipped to deal with that then it might be a "terrible hand". But it is not the fault of the cards you have rolled (remember it is still a dice roll).

Just like for instance say you have an army built around certain Psychic powers (like invisibility) and you don't roll that power. That single roll will have a massive impact on the game. However that is your fault for building an army reliant on that. Also single dice can have massive impacts on games. I've lost a game in a tournament where I had tabled my opponent without taking a casualty simply because the game ended turn 5 (it was against the TO who then declared himself winner where I had tabled every single opponent I had faced, not that I'm bitter )

I lost a game at a tournament 5 things that were in my favour (ranging from 70:30 to 90:10) went against me in turn 5 to make my opponent 1 VP up and the game ended. A single dice roll can have a massive impact. Luck is a factor in the game. It is up to you write a list and play the game to mitigate that and stack the odds in your favour. With out missions that require going for multiple objectives each turn the game boils down to how you've written your list, target selection (which is not exactly tough and every decent player can get right) and dice rolling. Why? Because all you need to do is play to table turns 1-4 and then worry about last minute objective grabs if necessary and realistically First Blood becomes almost the single biggest factor in a game between 2 good players.

Granted I haven't seen BAO missions but I've seen their army selection and that is not Warhammer 40,000 it is Baybowl 4,000 Hammers. They've tried to force 6th Ed onto 7th then put weird fixes in to solve Supplements allying with parent codexes and decided they don't want any Tyranid players at the Tournament. Ok I can see why you'd limit detachments (though I'm not for it, if you're going to do it just limit total number rather than forcing 6th, just say 2 detachments total if you don't want to see Coteaz in every list) I have no idea why you wouldn't allow unbound, they've limited LoWs which I can understand (though I still believe the only truly broken LoW list is double C'tan but that only really works at 1500 and is rock papers scissors).

Have you a link to their rules pack for missions? Because for me having multiple objectives that you are going after each turn with a random element as to which is what makes 7th Ed compelling and what balances basically everything in the game. If you play to table you'll find by turn 3 you'll be in a position where you have to table to win as you'll be that far behind a well constructed list that is designed to fulfill the tactical objectives.

Basically every tournament pack I've seen so far has been designed to try to force the lists that were strong in 6th to still be the top lists. BAO army selection certainly seems to be that. You see the same in Fantasy a lot too where comp has been rife for years. Which is just sad it is mediocre players largely complaining that their old net list is no longer top dog.

Now, see this is the part where you feel like a dick and apologize for commenting and being biased towards something you were ignorant about. BAO Missins. It's almost like the used better designed Missions with altering objectives scored every turn in a viable setup ready for tournament play.

And BAO army construction was an attempt to rectify Faction based CAD design and the completely unclear use of "a Supplement Detachment". In a single cAD setup where allying a supplement to a parent is illegal they came up with an arguable weak RAW solution that allowed people to use supplements, but still limited Spam. Considering RAW doesn't really work at all, it's not a bad decision.

Anecdotal evidence of certain games coming down to a die roll are irrelevant. You Osychic powers example, is generally many die rolls with a very low chance of not getting the power you want. Two Farseers have a 75% chance of getting any specific power! and it's not like they got useless powers in the meantime.

Book Maelstrom is poorly designed and needs heavy modification for tournament play just like BAO did.

You're latching onto the BAO guys; whose missions are based around playing 3 of the Eternal War missions simultaneously. That is a 6th ed mechanic..sort of; but they will still be using everything else about 7th. I do think NOVA will do a better job about "comp," although Mike Brandt usually doesn't have any, there will probably be small restrictions this year on LoW.

The alternate mission packet that has been designed by the community, including Mike and the Frontline guys has many missions that do exactly as you wish, progressive scoring of objectives instead of end-of-game scoring. This limits Deathstars and flips the advantage to MSU armies; just like 7th in general. What they remove is the Maelstrom cards.

I think the essence of the argument we're having is not actually our fault. GW has maintained for several editions now that this is not a game meant to be played competitively, and yet many of us try. So the community MUST alter the rules in order to enforce some level of fair play. The simplest, least intrusive method to do this is to alter missions; and hence, our argument.

Can we end this flame war there then with no hard feelings?

 The Shrike wrote:
You're latching onto the BAO guys; whose missions are based around playing 3 of the Eternal War missions simultaneously. That is a 6th ed mechanic..sort of; but they will still be using everything else about 7th. I do think NOVA will do a better job about "comp," although Mike Brandt usually doesn't have any, there will probably be small restrictions this year on LoW.

The alternate mission packet that has been designed by the community, including Mike and the Frontline guys has many missions that do exactly as you wish, progressive scoring of objectives instead of end-of-game scoring. This limits Deathstars and flips the advantage to MSU armies; just like 7th in general. What they remove is the Maelstrom cards.

I think the essence of the argument we're having is not actually our fault. GW has maintained for several editions now that this is not a game meant to be played competitively, and yet many of us try. So the community MUST alter the rules in order to enforce some level of fair play. The simplest, least intrusive method to do this is to alter missions; and hence, our argument.

Can we end this flame war there then with no hard feelings?

Right now Mike Brandt is looking at no LOW for NOVA and was on the same page for army construction as Reecius. Though, it looks like he leaning towards going for CAD+AD with Self Allying allowed.

Now, see this is the part where you feel like a dick and apologize for commenting and being biased towards something you were ignorant about. BAO Missins. It's almost like the used better designed Missions with altering objectives scored every turn in a viable setup ready for tournament play. 

And BAO army construction was an attempt to rectify Faction based CAD design and the completely unclear use of "a Supplement Detachment". In a single cAD setup where allying a supplement to a parent is illegal they came up with an arguable weak RAW solution that allowed people to use supplements, but still limited Spam. Considering RAW doesn't really work at all, it's not a bad decision. 

Anecdotal evidence of certain games coming down to a die roll are irrelevant. You Osychic powers example, is generally many die rolls with a very low chance of not getting the power you want. Two Farseers have a 75% chance of getting any specific power! and it's not like they got useless powers in the meantime. 

Book Maelstrom is poorly designed and needs heavy modification for tournament play just like BAO did.

So first RaW on supplements is fine and works. It might not be immediately clear but it work due to "supplement X detachment follows these rules" if you say your detachment is a Supplement X detachment then all of the benefits and negatives come with that if not, you don't get any.

Looking at the mission I can now see we have 6th Ed deployment, 6th Ed missions with tacked on end of game turn missions which massively favour whoever goes 2nd with late game missions that hand points over for being the same old boring 6th Ed gunlines. Nothing there really pushes you forward like Maelstrom. Add in that they are forcing a hamfisted 6th Ed Force Org idea and you may as well be playing 6th Ed. So now that I've seen more it is even more how I feared it would be.

The Shrike how many games how you played with full 7th Ed rules? How many has Reecius played? How many have you played with a list designed to do well in that setting? Given that you've complained it's too random for competitive play I'm guessing at least 20 right? Given your conviction on that actually that sample is too low so 30-40 more? Or is it actually none?

Its sad to see something as nice as 7th turn genuinely nice internet going persons into angry pixels.

"The Shrike how many games how you played with full 7th Ed rules? How many has Reecius played? How many have you played with a list designed to do well in that setting? Given that you've complained it's too random for competitive play I'm guessing at least 20 right? Given your conviction on that actually that sample is too low so 30-40 more? Or is it actually none?"

I can almost see the butt hurt.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So first RaW on supplements is fine and works. It might not be immediately clear but it work due to "supplement X detachment follows these rules" if you say your detachment is a Supplement X detachment then all of the benefits and negatives come with that if not, you don't get any.

Looking at the mission I can now see we have 6th Ed deployment, 6th Ed missions with tacked on end of game turn missions which massively favour whoever goes 2nd with late game missions that hand points over for being the same old boring 6th Ed gunlines. Nothing there really pushes you forward like Maelstrom. Add in that they are forcing a hamfisted 6th Ed Force Org idea and you may as well be playing 6th Ed. So now that I've seen more it is even more how I feared it would be.

The Shrike how many games how you played with full 7th Ed rules? How many has Reecius played? How many have you played with a list designed to do well in that setting? Given that you've complained it's too random for competitive play I'm guessing at least 20 right? Given your conviction on that actually that sample is too low so 30-40 more? Or is it actually none?

No, the RAW does not work as we are not told what "a Supplement X Detachment is" and how it can be allowed to override Faction permission or how those permissions interact. Some kind of clarification was necessary, especially the the expected CAD+AD format. Simplifying to Codex or Supplement Detachments and giving permission for Self Allying was the most elegant solution. And lo and behold, guess what was done. NOVA/BAO/LVO List Building Guidelines

6th Ed Deployment? Most is the same as 7th with the exception of the person Deploying first is not given the massive advantage of choosing to go first or second. For competitive play it was virtually necessary. Eternal War missions are not 6th Ed, they are as much 7th. Yes they are end of Game turn which is an advantage for going second, but they are also scored after every game turn which is more distributed than standard Eternal War or 6th Ed. It may not be "manifest Psychic power" easy, but it is definitely more in the spirit of Maelstrom than not.

That was more than a little passive aggressive. You could easily be asked how many games you've played with Maelstrom etc and how many games were won or lost by the cards before a model was moved etc. Its a pointless attack.

We don't need to be told what a "supplement X detachment" we just decide whether or detachment is a "Supplement X" one or not. If it is it triggers all the Supplement rules if not it triggers none. Simples. Their rules are entirely made up and in no way elegant. Just play RaW is not only the easiest solution but most logical. They want to ally main and supplement cool take another CAD...

Fortifications are deployed by 6th not 7th fashion and the choice actually throws up other tactical options. There really is no reason to get rid.

So how many full 7th Ed games using Maelstrom have you played?

 FlingitNow wrote:
We don't need to be told what a "supplement X detachment" we just decide whether or detachment is a "Supplement X" one or not. If it is it triggers all the Supplement rules if not it triggers none. Simples. Their rules are entirely made up and in no way elegant. Just play RaW is not only the easiest solution but most logical. They want to ally main and supplement cool take another CAD...

Fortifications are deployed by 6th not 7th fashion and the choice actually throws up other tactical options. There really is no reason to get rid.

So how many full 7th Ed games using Maelstrom have you played?

Actually we did need to know that, and how a Supplement has control over a CAD without direct permission. Taking another CAD was an issue with the ability to spam units, ie just tacking on a 391pt Eldar CAD of BikeAutarch and 6xELBs is too abuseable.

Yes, fortifications are deployed via 6th Ed rules. And I am in favor of Fortifications being deployed first as they act as more battlefield terrain. With the rules for tournament play of needing to place Fortification and possible move terrain etc that cannot be done during normal deployment. Player one deploys army. Player two deploys their army and places a Fortification which requires the removal or movement of a piece of terrain. Before either side deploys makes much more sense for tournament play.

I'll give you an honest answer. None. Not a single Maelstrom game. I really don't plan on playing many either. I have read the rules, laughed as they were completely inapplicable to a competitive format. Since ~80-90+% of my games are played in tournaments it isn't terrible relevant to me. No one I've talked to likes them, and no TOs locally I've talked to have seriously considered them for tournament use. Now, Maelstrom inspired missions and progressive turn scoring, yes. Maelstrom as written, hell no. Locally we will most likely be following BAO or NOVA Mission formats. Now, I'll play with people for kicks, but not competitively as its completely inappropriate for tournament play. Tournament play should reward skill, not the luck of the draw in a card game. Yes, dice are random, but each roll outside of deployment, first turn, and seize the initiative, generally has fewer overarching implications.

Your opinions are nice, but if you are going to talk competitive 40k, you've pretty much got to looking at what BAO and NOVA are doing. Otherwise, where are you playing competitively....

So your judging the rules having never played them, then I guess this must apply to you?

Zagman wrote: Now, see this is the part where you feel like a dick and apologize for commenting and being biased towards something you were ignorant about. 

The supplement has direct permission to effect a CAD or any other detachment. Really just play them by the RaW if you don't understand the RaW go on YMDC and ask someone to explain it. If you're worried about multiple CADs then you could just limit detachments to two or if people want more than that they have to go Unbound (and therefore can't win the Tournament as unbound isn't competitive in 7th). Which is then still much more like 7th and not needlessly nerfing Tyranids (or anyone that wants to take a solo Codex). Yes 6 Jetbike units are strong, so are lots of things I doubt that would even be the most commonly taken 2nd CAD.

7th is about freedom and options, these changes are not about balance they are about maintaining the status quo. They are about keeping the same old net lists strong. Its reactionary fear of change because the list they downloaded from Dakka at the end of 6th is no longer top tier or suited to this Edition. It is about rewarding tactically inflexible play and sitting back and just gunlining at each other and see who rolls better. It is about keeping decision making as simple as possible so mediocre players can feel like they did everything right and just got unlucky. It is about keeping the game about downloading from the internet and then rolling well.

I play competitively in England so no where in America. Seriously play some competitive

 FlingitNow wrote:
So your judging the rules having never played them, then I guess this must apply to you?

Zagman wrote: Now, see this is the part where you feel like a dick and apologize for commenting and being biased towards something you were ignorant about. 

The supplement has direct permission to effect a CAD or any other detachment. Really just play them by the RaW if you don't understand the RaW go on YMDC and ask someone to explain it. If you're worried about multiple CADs then you could just limit detachments to two or if people want more than that they have to go Unbound (and therefore can't win the Tournament as unbound isn't competitive in 7th). Which is then still much more like 7th and not needlessly nerfing Tyranids (or anyone that wants to take a solo Codex). Yes 6 Jetbike units are strong, so are lots of things I doubt that would even be the most commonly taken 2nd CAD.

7th is about freedom and options, these changes are not about balance they are about maintaining the status quo. They are about keeping the same old net lists strong. Its reactionary fear of change because the list they downloaded from Dakka at the end of 6th is no longer top tier or suited to this Edition. It is about rewarding tactically inflexible play and sitting back and just gunlining at each other and see who rolls better. It is about keeping decision making as simple as possible so mediocre players can feel like they did everything right and just got unlucky. It is about keeping the game about downloading from the internet and then rolling well.

I play competitively in England so no where in America. Seriously play some competitive

No, it most definitely still applies to you. I freely admitted I am not playing Maelstrom and why. I am not ignorant of Maelstrom just as I am not ignorant of the Imperial Knights as no opponent has fielded one against me. If you think Maelstrom is fitting for competitive play, then by all means you are beyond reasoning with I wish you the best playing it. Maelstrom is broken for serious competitive play for many many reasons. Handwaving them away does no good. No one I know thinks Maelstrom is fit for competitive play and no one is playing Maelstrom by the BRB, they are house ruling it to high heaven. In fact you are one of the few who are advocating it. And you yourself have already house ruled it as it flat out doesn't work as written. As I will be playing at NOVA Open GT in Aug and the Renegade Open GT in Nov it is in my best interest to play the missions and the army design rules. The fact I agree they are better for competitive play is just a bonus. The fact that similar philosophy games are going to be the bulk of the games I play is another bonus. Blaming it on the Net Listers is just a patsy argument and you know it. It much more likely and truthful that players don't want to travel to a large GT, plan their lists, buy and paint the models, just to have all their hard work and skill invalidated by a horribly flawed card game. Maelstrom will have its Netlists too, terrible terrible argument. I play competitive in America and as such I would be stupid not to play competitive play like the other Americans. You can do as you like.

No one is going to be playing unmodified Maelstrom in competitive play. Hell, no one is going to be playing unmodified Maelstrom in casual play. It will all be house ruled. And with enough house rules it may be close to playable for competitive environments, but that isn't 7th Ed Maelstrom anymore. You aren't even playing 7th Ed Maelstrom. 7th Ed Maelstrom was designed for players to draw potentially dud cards and be forced to live with it because in a frieldy game, who cares if one player has a massive advantage and essentially wins before dice are even rolled. In a tournament, that is unacceptable. Maelstrom is not 7Ed, it is only half of the book missions, Eternal War is still just as large a part of 7th than Maelstrom.

7th is about freedom of play in a casual environment and is not written for a Competitive environment. GW states that and pushes that end repeatedly. To be fit for competitive play many things need to change or be reigned in. If you are happy with going to a tournament and your opponent putting down a Revanent and keeping two Autarchs with 12 units of Jetbikes in reserve or not depending on the mission type. Go ahead, but that kind of freedom is completely unacceptable for tournaments.

The RAW is not clear, you can walk yourself over to YMDC and contribute to the threads on the subject. I have. "If you are worried about multiple CADs you could just limit detachments to two..." that is just moronic. Two CADs is more than enough to spam just about anything into oblivioun. Its already 6x Annhilation Barges, 6 OS Serpents with 6 EJBs, etc.

I never said that there wouldn't be netlists for 7th Ed what I said is that the changes being made are to protect the current netlists. To maintain the status quo. So go ahead claim "handwaving" when none has been made and argue against points that you've created to argue against. (A bit like the comment I quoted was never applicable to anything I said).

But go ahead keep playing 6th keep playing the same old lists and fear change. Keep playing stale luck based games. Keep laughably claiming a bad hand (which you talk about drawing when in fact you roll) can lose you the game before a dice has been rolled. List building is far more likely to generate that result and we've all lost games to a series of hugely unlikely dice results. It is weird that rolling a dice for mission (you keep calling it a card game where it is no more a card game than the Psychic phase) is ludicrously unfair for competitive play, but for psychic powers isn't, for warlord traits, for first turn (given the value of First Blood in 6th a much bigger roll than a Maelstrom roll) for rolls to hit etc etc etc

I love this quote

Zagman wrote: It much more likely and truthful that players don't want to travel to a large GT, plan their lists, buy and paint the models, just to have all their hard work and skill invalidated by a horribly flawed card game.

Because rolling a dud hand is far more likely than just having someone bring the rock to your scissors. Your "dud hand" is either rolling a bad result 3 times in a row on a d66 or it is flawed list design.

Then all your abusable spammable options are really not that game breaking. Some are strong sure spamming OS particularly is good but getting people to build lists heavily based on troops is a bad thing now? Yes there will be new powerful options why is that a bad thing?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I never said that there wouldn't be netlists for 7th Ed what I said is that the changes being made are to protect the current netlists. To maintain the status quo. So go ahead claim "handwaving" when none has been made and argue against points that you've created to argue against. (A bit like the comment I quoted was never applicable to anything I said).

But go ahead keep playing 6th keep playing the same old lists and fear change. Keep playing stale luck based games. Keep laughably claiming a bad hand (which you talk about drawing when in fact you roll) can lose you the game before a dice has been rolled. List building is far more likely to generate that result and we've all lost games to a series of hugely unlikely dice results. It is weird that rolling a dice for mission (you keep calling it a card game where it is no more a card game than the Psychic phase) is ludicrously unfair for competitive play, but for psychic powers isn't, for warlord traits, for first turn (given the value of First Blood in 6th a much bigger roll than a Maelstrom roll) for rolls to hit etc etc etc

I love this quote

Zagman wrote: It much more likely and truthful that players don't want to travel to a large GT, plan their lists, buy and paint the models, just to have all their hard work and skill invalidated by a horribly flawed card game.

Because rolling a dud hand is far more likely than just having someone bring the rock to your scissors. Your "dud hand" is either rolling a bad result 3 times in a row on a d66 or it is flawed list design.

Then all your abusable spammable options are really not that game breaking. Some are strong sure spamming OS particularly is good but getting people to build lists heavily based on troops is a bad thing now? Yes there will be new powerful options why is that a bad thing?

And if you think those changes protect the current Netlists you are blind, ignorant of the changes in 7th ed, or dumb, one of the three or all the above in some combination. Objective Secured alone, not to mention the all of the other changes to USR, Allies Chart, Psychic Powers, Vehicles, etc all have completely changed the meta and what we are going to see on the tables. 6th Ed Netlists are dead. I don't know anyone that is running the same list they did in 6th. Many had their list invalidated, others are just losing badly. Deathstar 40k is dead, Objective Secured saw to that all by itself. Taudar is no longer a thing. Riptide Spam is going to be negligable. Both Screamerstar and SeerStar have lost a bit, BeastStar is still alive but OS is likely to end it, Wave Serpent Spam is still going strong, and its even stronger in Maelstrom. Xenos with the exception of Eldar took major hits while Imperial forces really got a boost. How are the 6th Ed Netlists being protected again? Unless I'm mistaken the biggest changes in 7th Ed like OS and Allies haven't been touched by the BAO and NOVA rulings.

A bad hand... Are you seriously rolling for Maelstrom? Are you kidding me. The least you can do as a favor to your opponents is pick up Tactical Objective Cards. Hell, even I'm waiting for them to be in stock and will buy them. If you are actually rolling and keeping track of your hand, I feel sorry for you guys for how much extra bookkeeping you are adding. Without them you have a ton of rolls to keep track of, dice in order, must be written in a list for current hand, and all rolls must be kept track of and all new rolls must be compared to the old rolls and throw out duplicates. And with your houserule you are doing that for all those that don't apply as well. Then, you have to look at the number etc and figure out what Tactical Objectives you opponent is playing for. I'm kind of shocked actually.

I still cannot grasp how you think adding a bad card game onto the top of 40k is a good idea and balances opponents. I'm still looking for a valid argument on how it would improve competitive play. So far your argument boils down to "Maelstrom is 7th Ed, if it isn't Maelstrom its 6th Ed meant to keep the status quo." It a ridiculous argument you've failed to support repeatedly. I'd also like to know how playing Maelstrom requires better list building skills and player skill than playing the BAO 7th Ed missions for example. How is it better for competitive play?

People will be building Troop Heavy lists even without Maelstrom, Objective Secured has seen to that. Objective based Missions are still a thing, and good tournament formats are going to reward the use of Scoring, particularly OS scoring, and especially when points are accumulated by progressively. For instance those same BAO missions you've bashed without a valid argument reward the use of multiple Objective Secured units focused on mobility just as Maelstrom does but in a more controlled and applicable format.


Edit: We have certainly derailed this thread long enough. I'm out before a Mod has to lock it. You can play as you wish, as I will play what is favored in the US competitive scene which is led by the BAO and NOVA and be perfectly content in doing so as it aligns with own personal views.

Zagman I love following you around this forum and reading your posts/discussions, its been dull without you for the last few months......your like a fine wine ....mmmmmmmhhhmmm so entertaining.

I'm not saying it will completely keep the netlists the same but the changes are certainly trying to protect them. Heck you practically admit that by mentioning things people could do that they couldn't before as abusable. So yes Serpent Spam remains strong (though took a nerf with changes to pens and jink) Maelstrom isn't actually great for Serpent spam as it forces you to put them in harms way where their shield is useless and their range irrelevant. The Seer Council remains strong infact you could do a very different one now with Farseers around a Solitarch but that would be change and different to the net list good job BAO banned that then. Yes O'Vesastar went the way of the dodo, Gravstar was hurt a bit so they've made changes to protect it. The bomb is largely unchanged, same with beastpack.

Taudar can still be a thing and I'd still expect the FBSC to turn up in various armies. The big boost to Imperium you're talking about is helped further by the BAO changes as other factions can't ally with themselves. But again you're largely arguing against a point not made as I assume you know the actual point was correct.

I have the tactical objective cards and I've played with and without them. So my first question has to be this:

Why is randomising by drawing cards more luck based by randomising by rolling dice? Please explain why one is acceptable for tournament play and the other isn't?

Then you go on about book keeping which I assume means that you've never played with or against Daemons or a Seer Council? Actually rolling and writing everything down is surprisingly straight forward and easier than the book keeping of those 2 armies. I can say this you know from having actually played the game...

Then again you argue against a point not made. I never said Maelstrom leads to better list building. What I said was that you have to write a list to do well at Maelstrom just like you do any other mission type. Which means bad hands will generally be down to a list not capable of completing Maelstrom Objectives than an actual unplayable hand. However it will lead to different types of lists that can do different things as you don't know what objectives you're going to make. It forces decisions on you so rather than just calculating which unit is the biggest threat you have to take your objectives into consideration too. This makes decision making more challenging and more in depth. Obviously that is not something that appeals to you. You clearly want easy decisions so that the winner is decided by list building and dice rolling, or to put it another way by an internet connection and randomisation.

The BAO missions still reward gunlining. Particularly if you go 2nd. I don't need to come at you I just need to shoot you off the objectives. That is what shifting them to game turn does. It basically means whoever goes 2nd can practically guarantee every Maelstrom they need to achieve with little to no movement.

It is typical of the attitude of fearing change, having never actually played something we're going to try to fix it. So how do we fix it? Make it like it used to be of course...

Granted its derailing this thread more, but at least you tried to make a couple of points. Thank you.

Maelstrom is only half of the BRB missions, you keep forgetting Eternal War. A 7th ed Tournament is going to need some combination of both. You talk as if Eternal War was 6th Ed, it is just as significant in 7th as Maelstrom.

Serpents Spand took a nerf with changes to pens and jink? I wouldn't call becoming more durable and being able to Jink 1st turn a nerf. Yes, if they Jink, usually for a 3+, they have to Snap Shot. And they picked up Objective Secured. I'm still not seeing how they are worse..... cause they are not.

Yes, Seer Council is still viable, but with the changes to the Psychic phase they are less reliable. Ghosthelms and Runes still make them amazing, but less so than 6th. Yes a new Seerstar was possible, designed around a Mantleseer or Autarch with the Mantle, but that requires multiple CADS, preferrably 3 so BAO/NOVA have thankfully killed that potential. Don't forget that GW's own tournament has done the exact same thing.

Taudar lack Battle Brothers now, and it was BBs which made them the potent 6th Ed combination they were. Sure, we'll still see the FBSC, but in and of itself its not the end of the world.

Oh, so you just played dumb about the tactical cards. Well played, I remember elementary school... [b][u]I never said randomizing by cards was is more luck based than rolling dice. What I did state and what you've failed to address is adding another layer of overarching randomness to the game. Bolded and Underlined for emphasis and Douchebaggery.

Nice, petty insult. Na, I've never actually played 40k, I just troll forums to get neckbeard's panties in a bunch. Yes, I've played them. Yes, its been at competitive and casual level, yes they have a ton of bookkeeping. And adding significantly more more in time sensitive scenarios is not a good thing.

I'm arguing against a point not made, maybe if you had argued and made a solid point somewhere I wouldn't have to argue against your walls of dribble then?

Yes, you'll have to write lists for Maelstrom, and they'll look something like this 1850 Eldar foro Maelstrom. The decision making and tactical skill required for Maelstrom is no greater than the skill required for say the BAO missions. In fact, by writing lists for Eternal War and Maelstrom hybrids players are required to build more capable lists. Many armies are flat out incapable of writing a Maelstrom List than can play the missions. The gap between Eldar and most of the other competition would grow by a significant margin.

Again more petty insults. You cannot assert a position is true, then use it to argue for said position. "By an internet connection and randomisation." Wow, because Netlisting was solely part of 6th edition..... Dumb.

BAO rewards Gunlining.... so how many BAO missions have you played. By your position at least 20? But, with your conviction surely is must be closer to 30 or 40?

I hate to be drawn back into this, but I can't help it.

Gunlines haven't been competitive since 4th edition...in any format. 5th ed was all about MSU mech; 6th edition was all about mobile Deathstars, 7th edition is mostly back to MSU, allowing room for Invisi-stars like Beastpack, Invis'd Khornedogs or screamers etc.

Do you realize how cynical you have to be to assume that Reece Robbins and Mike Brandt (two of the most genuine guys I know) manipulated their rules packet to protect the status quo? These guys care about the game, they care about quality of play and everyone having a good time. Heck, they're better organizers and rule balancers than GW!

You're also missing this criticial point: Money is on the line. These guys pony up tens of thousands (if not close to 100) for LVO and NOVA. They're not in your local VFW basement with gramps serving old hot dogs and telling the same war story 300 times. NOVA is in the Hyatt Freaking Regency. They need to make sure 7th works competitively, and yes, limits randomness because otherwise, why am I risking money for a flight+hotel room+army tweaks+entertainment if they're just riding on GW's crappy rules where I could draw a bad hand and lose a chance to win my bracket? No, if I lose my bracket (and I usually do ), it is MY fault.

 The Shrike wrote:
I hate to be drawn back into this, but I can't help it.

Gunlines haven't been competitive since 4th edition...in any format. 5th ed was all about MSU mech; 6th edition was all about mobile Deathstars, 7th edition is mostly back to MSU, allowing room for Invisi-stars like Beastpack, Invis'd Khornedogs or screamers etc.

Do you realize how cynical you have to be to assume that Reece Robbins and Mike Brandt (two of the most genuine guys I know) manipulated their rules packet to protect the status quo? These guys care about the game, they care about quality of play and everyone having a good time. Heck, they're better organizers and rule balancers than GW!

You're also missing this criticial point: Money is on the line. These guys pony up tens of thousands (if not close to 100) for LVO and NOVA. They're not in your local VFW basement with gramps serving old hot dogs and telling the same war story 300 times. NOVA is in the Hyatt Freaking Regency. They need to make sure 7th works competitively, and yes, limits randomness because otherwise, why am I risking money for a flight+hotel room+army tweaks+entertainment if they're just riding on GW's crappy rules where I could draw a bad hand and lose a chance to win my bracket? No, if I lose my bracket (and I usually do ), it is MY fault.

Thanks for not engaging him. I found myself stooping to his level and I shouldn't have. I am too old and have been playing for too long for that.

All of your points are spot on. I will add, some forms of Gunlines were viable in 7th, maybe not at the top tables, but at the competitive level as a whole ie Serpent Spam, which in 6th was a pretty good Gunline, and Tau Gunlines. Astra Militarum can pull off one too, but Gunlines aren't going to be winning 7th Ed.

I know Reece mentioned the total risk for the LVO was ~$50k. They are great players with an amazing gasp on the game, not to mention the people in their direct circles, many of which are the best players in the nation if not world. Protecting the Status Quo is asnine, as the status quo was causing players to leave the game. They are more invested than anyone barring GW to make 7th Ed work. To make baseless accusations to the contrary is ludicrous.

If in FlingitNow's neck of the woods they think Maelstrom will work work for Competitive play, that is fine. Here, the US will pretty much unanimously go a different route with the BAO and NOVA setting the trend. And over the course of 7th their missions and events will change with an eye on what is best for those events and the hobby as a whole in mind. We have to trust that, protecting ~$500-1000 investment in anyone's particular army really isn't at the forefront of their decision making. Heck, if they wanted to protect people's armies and investments they'd rule BuffCommanders could still Join MCs and Tau and Eldar are BBs... They took what was 7th, a game designed for casual fun play, and are endeavoring to make the game viable for competitive play where player skill in both list building and table top play seperates players and allows for an enjoyable, yet competitive experience.