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.

@OrdoSean

No worries, didn't take it as complaining at all. Focused change is the best way to do it if you do it at all, I agree.

@Thread

Attached are the results of the poll.

240 people replied. Landslide majority for the change to take effect.

 Reecius wrote:
@OrdoSean

No worries, didn't take it as complaining at all. Focused change is the best way to do it if you do it at all, I agree.

@Thread

Attached are the results of the poll.

240 people replied. Landslide majority for the change to take effect.

I'd be very curious to see how a vote on allowing/not allowing admantine lance would look.

Target wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@OrdoSean

No worries, didn't take it as complaining at all. Focused change is the best way to do it if you do it at all, I agree.

@Thread

Attached are the results of the poll.

240 people replied. Landslide majority for the change to take effect.

I'd be very curious to see how a vote on allowing/not allowing admantine lance would look.

We got time. I think that would be a fair second poll to put out. Anyone who was planning on running AdLance would have plenty of time to replace the third knight or just run them without the formation benefit: particularly given how the new invisibility change really boosted Knights.

Edit: And just to be clear, I'm running Sisters and AM at the LVO. No psykers, no Knights.

Yeah lets get a vote on the Adlance formation going.

I am really disappointed in this. I would more like to vote on the five hive tyrant build we have been play testing it around here and it is much more game breaking than invisibility ever was. I would love to be running wave serpent spam or tyrant spam now. Even Knights love it. Hmm do you want to weaken one of the counters to three of the most powerful lists in the game? Why yes, yes I do. Everyone on the west coast must hate daemons. I haven't even really seen that many invisibility lists running rough shod over everyone at tournaments.

swanson4969 wrote:
I am really disappointed in this. I would more like to vote on the five hive tyrant build we have been play testing it around here and it is much more game breaking than invisibility ever was. I would love to be running wave serpent spam or tyrant spam now. Even Knights love it. Hmm do you want to weaken one of the counters to three of the most powerful lists in the game? Why yes, yes I do. Everyone on the west coast must hate daemons. I haven't even really seen that many invisibility lists running rough shod over everyone at tournaments.

Normally I side with Frontline on almost everything, but this is just dumb. Pretty much everything Swanson says is spot on, and knowing Frontline guys the next poll will be on cover saves for Monstrous and Gargantuan creatures. The game isn't that broken tinkering with it is only going to make things worse, always had and always will.

That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

As a user of invisibility I disagree. I think it should be changed, even though I know that it is the most critical thing to my Slaanesh demons.

 cormadepanda wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

As a user of invisibility I disagree. I think it should be changed, even though I know that it is the most critical thing to my Slaanesh demons.

^This. I believe that invis should be able to be hit by templates/blasts, but other than that, I think it is fine. Invis is the crutch that my pure Slaanesh daemons need to actually be a really viable list, otherwise my entire army is pretty much guardsmen or rough riders without guns who get their 5+ save all the time.

The way it should be changed should be voted on, we know the majority think it should be changed, but that type of change no longer makes it worth 2 warp charge. There are so many options to deal with this supposedly gamebreaking power. Exploring all options, even as a community afterwards, would be good in the long run.

Not surprised by the result. To me it'd be silly to change something that isn't hurting the game and is far less common and abusive than something like Ad-Lance. But I can't say I'm surprised that people voted to give their armies a leg up (even if they aren't admitting it to themselves).

The scaremongering articles about it also don't make for a reasonable decision pool.

Tau say thank you to the poll

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

Doesn't Democracy suck?

I'm not sure that most people will vote their own self interests. [Redacted political comment about American Voting patterns] I play Orks and Tyranids. If a poll was held to count a codex specific detachment as your 0-1 CAD, I would support it gladly even though it is against my own interests. Some things are good for the game, and the wider player base.

Invisibility is still good. So very, very good. Just like a 2+ reroll it is a very small change that doesn't make it that much worse, but does make it much more fun to play against.

If I thought invisibility was good for the game in its current form, I would have voted to keep it.

@Tag8833

It's not a minor change though that Frontline is talking about though is it? It's a 100% increase to hit in CC. And now things that couldn't hit it before at all can. That's a massive, massive shift to how the power itself works. The only aspect of the power unchanged is hitting it on a 6 from direct shooting attacks.

That doesn't even get into the aspect of the power being one of the few ways for certain armies to deal with knights. Or that it makes current strong armies stronger.

But maybe it's a west coast thing and invisible units are running rampant out there

Also, I'd point out that playing orks and nids doesn't lend much weight to being willing to vote for Codex/Supplement Detachments counting as your CAD since self-ally exists. I mean at most you're losing that 5th tyrant that actually isn't good for your list. And the Ork detachments are very, very nice and unless you're fielding 6 kannon or buggy units you're coming out fine with self ally.

Some of my friends said they are dropping out now .

Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?

Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.

This is what you see in the poll. The majority of the players don't like it. They fill up the GT and pay for it. Following the majority is not a bad thing.

Now i understand that it's difficult to nerf just something and not all the "broken" stuff. But IMO this is a sane aprouch. First it was 2+ reroll and now invis. Maybe next time they will take ad.lance.

There's a lot of knights players, but i haven't heard as much whining over ad.lance as over invis. Could be a local thing

(For the record : i play with a invis army if i can. )

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Tag8833

It's not a minor change though that Frontline is talking about though is it? It's a 100% increase to hit in CC. And now things that couldn't hit it before at all can. That's a massive, massive shift to how the power itself works. The only aspect of the power unchanged is hitting it on a 6 from direct shooting attacks.

That doesn't even get into the aspect of the power being one of the few ways for certain armies to deal with knights. Or that it makes current strong armies stronger.

Misunderstanding of Nids and Orks aside, let me tackle your contention that invisibility is a major change.

The vast majority of ranged attacks are shooting attacks that don't use templates. No change has happened here.
The remaining ranged attacks fall into 2 categories. Templates, and automatic hits (Vector Strike, Nova, etc).
There was no change to automatic hits. The only change was to Templates. It is a small fraction of all attacks, and a change to it is thus by definition a small change.

As far as the change in close combat. 40k is a shooting game. Close combat is a minor portion of the damage done in the game. That being said, the reason this change is good, is that Invisibility creates a level of assault immunity found nowhere else in the game. It is a singular source for "Hitting on 6's" A Blind unit attacking a WS9 Demon Prince still hits on 5. Is it a big change for assault? Not really, while twice as many attacks hit, it is still the highest level of assault immunity available in the game. This change is to bring it into line with other defensive assault abilities such as having a high weapon skill or blind. It is still the best defensive power in the game by a mile, and is still highly worth it.

So the change to invisibility looks as follows. A change to a small portion of the shooting phase, and a change to the minority assault phase that retains its status as the best defensive ability available to assault. Is it a small change? I would say yes. You might say no, but It is certainly smaller than the FAQ change to blasts that makes them only able to target one level of terrain, and only 1 level higher than the level occupied by the current unit so that Swooping Flying Monstrous creates can't use a template to target any models on the 2nd level of terrain, unless they happen to be on the same terrain piece themselves.

Regarding Knights. They do the majority of their damage with Stomp. Stomp ignores invisibility. Hammer of Wrath also ignores invis. Invis wasn't a great defense against them, unless it was on a GC or SHV. It is barely worse now.

Um it is a major change. Knights still have D Weapon Attacks which it protects against. I am more afraid of losing my prince or keeper from D weapon attacks the a lucky stomp. Also last I checked Knights are cranking out at least three pie plates a turn...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have been playing against 5 tyrant lists during play testing and guarantee they will be unfun. When to we get to vote against them. Especially got forbid they get the fell no pain power.

@Tag8833

Yeah, lets leave the nid/ork misunderstanding out of it

As for you view of invisibility I think it shows a lack of understanding of the units that are generally benefitting from it. There is one unit in a shooting edition that benefits from invisibility on a regular basis. Centurions. IG platoons can make use of it but how often do we see lists with that in mind?

The vast majority of units using it are multi-wound CC based units. Be it DE Beastpacks, a plethora of CC daemons, or TWC. Some are single wound assault units. What is the death of single wound, lightly armored units designed for assault? Volume and blasts. What is the death of multi-wound units generally? Instant Death Blasts. TWC aren't as affected by either. But things like DE Beastpacks and almost every daemon unit are.

Allowing blasts and templates to hit CC units is increasing the strength and durability of the current builds. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for it's actual CC benefits it would no longer be the best, it would be one of the best. An ability you have to roll for, invest points heavily to bring into play (you need the WC's afterall), and be in the right place to use should be better than blind or high weaponskill. Name another ability that costs (on average) 120pts (75% chance, 30pts per WC) to get off and can be denied by your opponent or taken away via removing one of a multitude of units over the course of the game that aren't the unit benefitting.

Against knights as has been mentioned it's the StD base attacks. It's also that there are a lot of units that can do damage that strike before stomps. Basically you half the number of StD hits your unit takes with invisibility. That's pretty huge.

That said I acknowledge there are many, many ways to ignore invisibility, so why does it need to be changed to allow more things to ignore it?

And I'd argue that since so many of the units that use invisibility are CC based it's a far higher proportional change than you casually wave away.

So while you see something you consider two minor tweaks I see a massive shift. It's not about how a tactical marine benefits. It's about how the units using it currently benefit. And worse it's a boost to armies that arguably make the game less fun overall since they dont' have to worry about invisible CC units in the game anymore.

Go Go Adlance and Serpent Spam!

Tag8833 it seems from your comments you are playing a different game. CC can actually account for a large majority of kills.

tag8833 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

Doesn't Democracy suck?

Democracy is hardly perfect.

"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson

 Blackmoor wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

Doesn't Democracy suck?

Democracy is hardly perfect.

"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill

Tyfus wrote:
Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?

Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.

Most players do not like it because they do not use it. Do you know what else is not fun to play against? Wave Serpents, Imperial Knights, Hive Tyrants, and anything else that is every good and hard to deal with. Those make the game unfun. A psychic power that is hard to cast, and is only on one unit is hardly game breaking and "unfun".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is why I hate polls. You are always subjecting the minority (invisibility users) to the tyranny of the majority.

Most people will vote there own self interests rather that what is fair.

Doesn't Democracy suck?

Democracy is hardly perfect.

"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill

 Blackmoor wrote:

Tyfus wrote:
Why are everybody here assuming that the players vote against invis. to make their own army " stronger" so they could win more ?

Most players i talk to, who are not top ten or aiming for it in GTs, but just attain to have fun, says this: invis makes the game unfun. They don't like it.

Most players do not like it because they do not use it. Do you know what else is not fun to play against? Wave Serpents, Imperial Knights, Hive Tyrants, and anything else that is every good and hard to deal with. Those make the game unfun. A psychic power that is hard to cast, and is only on one unit is hardly game breaking and "unfun".

As stated in my post i use armies with invisibility. Centurionstar and eldar. I can totally understand that other players (exept top players) find it a little unfun/broken/hopeless to play against. Guess we just have to disagree.

It's not neccessary on one unit. Last time i played against invis in a GT it was 3 units with invis in 1850 CSM//demons. Three smal stars. 2 csm sourcers on bike in their each nurgle spawn squad. And then a demon herald in screamer squad. Shure he was lucky on the telepath table... After that he was rather untouchable.

The numbers in the poll don't lie . The wast numbers of paying attendes prefere the GT without invis, even though no other nerfs like adm.lance was suggested.

Less than 2/3's isn't vast.

I'd put odds on the vote to ban ad lance being even more skewed than the invisibility vote, which is a good reason other votes should be included. Also because those models are 100% able to still be run as another detachment (knights).

 Hulksmash wrote:
Less than 2/3's isn't vast.

The details of the diagram is a little difficukt to read, and my english may be broken.

But to me it looks like about 15 i don't care, 155 for nerf, and 50 against nerf (numbers is a little of against total ). 240 people voting.

That's 64 % for nerfing and 20 % against.

If you exclude the "i don't care" it's 76 % for nerfing, and 24 % aginst nerfing. In my english that's a vaste majority. Could be just "major majority". :-) The native speaker chime in.

Tyfus wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Less than 2/3's isn't vast.

The details of the diagram is a little difficukt to read, and my english may be broken.

But to me it looks like about 15 i don't care, 155 for nerf, and 50 against nerf (numbers is a little of against total ). 240 people voting.

That's 64 % for nerfing and 20 % against.

If you exclude the "i don't care" it's 76 % for nerfing, and 24 % aginst nerfing. In my english that's a vaste majority. Could be just "major majority". :-) The native speaker chime in.

It would just be "majority" the others are just un-quantified descriptors that are going to mean something different to everyone.

Exactly

I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.

Id also like to see adamantine lance toned down or removed,

such a silly thing, no downfall, huge amount of free benifits, rerolling ++ saves is a huge thing on knights

FWIW is have played with and against the lance, I feel it gives me a rediculous advantage, and there is literally no point in not taking it if you play knights.

IM glad reece is making these changes and doing FAQ's, it makes the game more fun and more competitive

 Blackmoor wrote:


"Democracy is where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49" -Thomas Jefferson

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill

 Hulksmash wrote:
Exactly

I do feel bad for anyone that bought their ticket, reserved their rooms (in Vegas where you generally pay upfront), and their plane ticket to have their armies legs sliced out from under them. Not saying it did happen to anyone or anything but if it did I feel bad for them. Just not a fan of changing rules months after they stop being an issue.

The GT is more than 2 months away. I think it's totallly unreasonable to expect that all rules, missions, faq and tweeks are locked so far up front. The invis change is IMO small.