Calling Luke Skywalker!

Hey everyone, Reecius here from Frontline Gaming to talk about a topic that is on a lot of people’s mind these days: Deathstars in the game and their impact.

First off, it’s good to be back! I have not been on my normal schedule due to being overloaded with our recent Gaming Mats and the LVO.

At any rate, a lot of people took note of that fact that a deathstar army won (even with our nerf tot he 2+ reroll saves). Seercouncils are extremely powerful and they also took top spots at Da Boyz GT. We also know a lot of the top east coast players are playing this list as well, and the Ovessastar which won NOVA, is spreading, too. Beyond those, we all already know about the Screamerstar and units such as Paladins which when backed up with magical Inquisitorial grenades and psychic buffs, are still as potent as ever.

So what’s the big deal with these deathstar units, anyway?

Well, this latest version of them are not only durable, they are neigh invincible when they get the right combinations of powers. Often this hinges around a variety of 2+ saves that can be rerolled to make a unit essentially impervious, with only a 3% chance of a wound sticking. They also typically have extremely potent offense, as well and can overpower most units with sheer force. And, on top of all of that, these latest versions of the deathstars are also blisteringly fast. They are better at everything than any other unit.

That’s lame. Straight up, no question, stupid. A game at its most fundamental level is an exercise meant to entertain and challenge us. When you have a game in which one participant can’t be hurt, it really isn’t a game at all, anymore. As I have said previously, I could live with a unit going invulnerable for a turn, as with a Feat in Warmachine, where a unit could once per game go Super Sayan, but not all game. Yes, you may not get the powers you needs to go Full Monte, but the fact that it CAN happen is silly, and poor game design.

Now that said, can you still beat these units?

Yes. A savvy player can beat these units and in fact, may enjoy the challenge. Most players though, do not enjoy this type of game. And why should they? Non-interaction in a game is not enjoyable. When you are simply watching the other player do things, unable to act, or only able to act with incredible restrictions all game, what’s the point? Playing these armies seems incredibly dull to me, as well. I would not gain much sense of satisfaction in winning with a unit that my opponent could not hurt. Where’s the challenge?

However, I do understand WHY people take these units. If you have a competitive streak in you, and enjoy the thrill and challenge of high level competitive play, then you want to bring the most powerful tools you can. And, sometimes just as compelling of an urge, if you think the other guy will be bringing these types of units the pressure to bring a nuke of your own can become too much to resist. Thus the arms race goes.

And, I will bet money right now, that Adpeticon proves this to be true as we see legions of imitators coming with some version of the above Deathstars. Count on it. That, and Coteaz in damn near every list that can take him is my prediction.

So what to do?

A lot of folks tote the Dirty D (D Weapons) as the solution to Deathstars. Is that true? Yes in a sense. They do indeed destroy deathstars. They also destroy everything else, just as easily. The real question we need to think about as a community is not whether this short term solution fixes the issue of Deathstars, but the longer term question of whether or not the cure will be worse than the ailment.

If you have a rat problem in your home, it may not be wise to let a Tiger loose to take care of the rats, you know? You may find yourself with a Tiger problem.

We have actually tried a lot of the Super Heavies in competitive games, which you can see on our YouTube Channel. We aren’t just talking theory. Now I will be the first to say that we don’t have a perfect understanding of Super Heavies in normal 40K, but that we definitely have a lot more first hand experience than most.

Most of the Super Heavies are honestly fine, IMO. Powerful, fun to use, and great centerpiece models, but not OP. There are a few of them that straight up suck, and IMO, have no place in the game. The Revenant is chief among them, but not the only offender. I can not see any way that units like that belongs in a game. They make our current Deathstars look like child’s play. The new Knight Titan though, looks pretty balanced to me, but we have yet to try it so I can’t say for certain yet.

So what to do?

Well, we have to do something. Everyone agrees on that point. Some folks want to let in D weapons, some folks are calling for comp, some folks are looking to new mission design, some folks (such as us) have instituted rules alterations or changes to rules to stop the really abusive stuff.

While I am may not be certain what the answer may be, I am certain that we as a community can come together and find a solution. Whether it be any of the above or a combination thereof, so long as we are willing to accept player instituted change, we can have the game we want to play.

What do you all think would be a good solution to the current Deathstar dilemma? Or do you even see it as a dilemma at all?


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

110 Responses to “Calling Luke Skywalker!”

  1. Slaede February 27, 2014 9:23 am #

    You commented on my thread on Dakka suggesting we prohibit battle brothers from joining each other units. That one change instantly solves all the deathstars except Screamerstar. Screamerstar, while not actually very good considering how many ways there are to completely shut it down, can be addressed separately.

    Is this not a reasonable solution?

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 10:05 am #

      It is, but people seem unusually resistant to it, despite the fact that I’ve only ever seen Battle Brothers used to create abusive combos.

      • Reecius February 27, 2014 4:56 pm #

        I honestly don’t want to stop Battle Brothers, personally, it is just certain key unit interactions that cause problems.

        • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:19 pm #

          I’d love to play in some tournaments that don’t allow allies at all & some that treat BB as ao convenience. I think a variety of styles is good.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:17 pm #

      It doesn’t hurt the ovesa star too much.

  2. Jonathan February 27, 2014 9:42 am #

    I don’t play Warmachine/hordes (though I’d like to), but I have seen a few batreps and like the idea of instituting a Feat type of mechanic to 40k. But how would that work? You’re only allowed to cast certain combinations of psychic powers at the same time? You can cast them whenever, but the opponent has a better deny the witch roll? Of all the solutions you suggest, I like the Feat mechanic most. Could you write an article on the possible ways, including pros and cons, of adjusting 40k in this way?

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 10:06 am #

      Too complex and too arbitrary. You’d have to rewrite a ton of rules and then get people to agree to play them.

  3. Logan February 27, 2014 9:47 am #

    I say keep Battle Brothers, thats not the issue. The issue with 6th edition deathstars compare to other Deathstars in older editions is the shear amount of blessings units can get and cast. Screamerstar (12 Charges and Powers) and Seer Council (roughly 16 charges and powers). Throw in the fact that there is only 2 decent way of stopping blessings is the Rune Priest or Shadow in the Warp. I have seen this idea posted in a couple of locations, cant remember where, but I think there should be a max limit to blessings and maledictions on units. Make it that units can only have 1 Blessing AND 1 Malediction or 2 Bless AND 2 Male if 1 to harsh of a nerf.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 4:58 pm #

      I’ve seen that one, too, but it doesn’t account for things like the Grimoire and Buffmander that use a different rule mechanic to buff a unit.

      • Logan February 27, 2014 5:46 pm #

        Well, another suggestion is we can try and make some drastic changes. For example, make Codex: Chaos Daemons can never take Forewarning and must reroll that result or take the primaris. If that’s to harsh, then make it that any model with certain items can’t Look Out, Sir (LO,S) Meaning the model with the Grimoire can’t take LO,S! same as the Wargear that buffmanders normally take. This nerf can also apply to forewarning. I also suggest that make it that MCs can ever be joined by ICs unless its a rule in the codex itself (tyrant with tyrant guard).

        • Logan February 27, 2014 5:47 pm #


  4. Goatboy February 27, 2014 9:59 am #

    Do it simply – Battlebros causes a lot of these issues – so that is the first thing we should look at. Screamer Star is hurt by Nids, Fiends, Grim it – and only gets a 2+ reroll if they get everything right for them – any failure and it poops out.

    The issue with Battle Bros is it screws Inq – we could just say if you take a single Inq it can be an HQ choice for X armies – if you take henchmen they have to be with them etc.

    Inq should have just been a dataslate or something with the info that they can be an armies HQ. But hey – they don’t test Battle Bros…

    • Tron February 27, 2014 10:12 am #

      get rid of battle bros and make D weapons S10 AP1 should help alot. You can make special stipulations for INQ so they can be played.

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 10:12 am #

      Yeah, I guess you should throw in some exception for an allied Inquisitor.

      • Slaede February 27, 2014 10:17 am #

        I don’t think you should get rid of BB altogether. There isn’t anything terribly abusive about tossing around warlord traits and psychic powers on your buddies. Just make everyone like Daemons and CSM where they work well together, but you can’t pile a million awesome special rules into a single unstoppable unit, Screamerstar excepted (though that is hardly unstoppable).

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 4:59 pm #

      Most BB combos are pretty mild, honestly. It’s certain, specific combinations that cause most of the issues. I think limiting those is the key.

      • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:23 pm #

        Taudar, deldar, & now smau would have to disagree with u. (That’s sm/tau)

  5. ChaosReigns February 27, 2014 10:21 am #

    I feel the answer is in rules adjustments, and in some cases, restrictions to balance out the playing field. As it stands, only a few codices are actually competitive, and that’s really a shame as it takes away the variety of the game. What’s the point of a game that has more than a dozen armies to choose from if you can only ever expect to see 5 at a tournament? It is becoming abundantly clear that GW had no consideration of how the game plays on a competitive note with 6th. There are a lot of stupid, stupid rules, a lot of contradiction, and a lot of problems; it really isn’t a well honed edition.

    I agree with how you view super heavies being introduced to 40k; you replace one problem with another. You’ll still end up seeing the same few lists, just with a revenant because that’ll be one of the best choices. I recall you guys talking about adding in a point limitation to lord of war inclusion (something they wisely do in the 30k ruleset from FW), but I feel this will ultimately limit some races choices. 500 points of Imperium super heavy will likely go a lot further than let’s say a Chaos super heavy. Some armies just don’t have the competitive choices, and while super heavies may not be codex restricted, I know a lot of people like to try and stick to themes and fluff and what not.

    So tl;dr, the people that are interested in creating a nice competitive environment with 6th will need to get together and hash out what they feel ruins the nature of the game and what helps. It’ll take time and play testing, but letting things lie as they have fallen is obviously not the right choice. We’ll see what happens.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:01 pm #

      Yeah, arbitrary break points on LoW will cause inequities between armies. I think you really need to do a per unit ban list for the really insane Lords of War like the Revenant.

  6. iNcontroL February 27, 2014 10:28 am #

    My personal favorite approach is that there can never be a 2+/2+ like FLG did at LVO. 2+/4+ is still ungodly powerful but at least you can actually fail a few saves with that and get whittled down.

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 11:48 am #

      There was one article on TOF that said it didn’t actually make a difference and worked out to their benefit as it made people think they had a chance to dent it.

      I think 2+/5+ might be better. Statistically, it is the same as 3+ rerollable. 11% of wounds get through instead of 8%.

      • Chuck February 27, 2014 1:36 pm #

        I haven’t seen that article, but that was actually my thinking about the change before the tournament. At first I agreed it was a nerf, but then I realized that the only real change it would cause is to make some people think that firing at the deathstar is a good idea.

        Even with the nerf to a 2+/4+, the only real counter play to these deathstars is to kill the supporting units and limit the damage that they can do, so wasting shots trying to kill it (because it’s been “nerfed” to be easier to kill) is still the wrong option most of the time.

      • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:03 pm #

        Yeah, I read that article, too, but he said it was a benefit for player mistake reasons, not due to actual mechanics. And we predicted that that would happen, too. Good players still ignore the uber defense units as much as possible. But reducing that defense to a somewhat manageable level helps a ton.

        • Chuck February 27, 2014 5:37 pm #

          Yeah, I think the change really does what it was intended to do as well. While it doesn’t significantly alter the effectiveness of these defensive units, it definitely does cut down on “un-fun” element of units that can take all of your firepower and just laugh it off.

          Now, while it’s probably not the right tactical decision, if you do shoot everything at a 2+ reroll deathstar, you should at least do some damage, as opposed to nothing like you would see before the nerf.

  7. RyanL February 27, 2014 10:28 am #

    There are probably lots of comp “solutions” to deathstars – restrictions on battle brothers, the LVO 2+/4+ reroll, changing the way psychic powers work etc. However, I feel it’s potentially a slippery slope.

    Once these deathstars are “fixed” there will be the next flavour of the month, the unit combination that the comp rules failed to address or perhaps popular opinion is that spam units should be comped away – then you have to start over again, add more rules and deviate further from the BRB.

    Whilst I recognise that some Escalation and Stronghold Assault units are a bit ridiculous (though I think when people say “D-weapons are broken!” they’re only talking about the Revenant), they do present a possible solution.

    I’ve watched your battle reps with the Revenant and I wonder if the opposing lists are really representative of the lists you’d bring to a tournament containing super-heavies. I’d love to hear and see your predictions of what would happen to competitive lists with everything allowed.

    Would the top players dare to bring a Revenant when the fear it’s producing might result in a flood of anti-Revenant lists (flyer heavy lists seem probable)?

    Could you get enough anti-air into a Revenant list to deal with a flyer heavy army, once you’ve dropped 900 points on one model?

    If you built the “perfect” army – Void Shield Spam, Revenant, Tau allies for anti-air – what if half the competitors had drop pods filled with meltas and killed your Rev in the first turn (+1 to seize vs a Lord of War)? That’s first blood, 3VP for stripping off the HP and half your points gone – would a really competitive player take that risk?

    These are honest questions, I don’t have tournament or much Escalation experience – my Lord of Skulls is fun but doesn’t feel worth the points!

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 10:41 am #

      The major problem with the unkillable deathstars is that they simply aren’t any fun to play against. Hell, they aren’t that much fun to play. It’s like playing an FPS on god mode. Sure, something will replace the deathstars, but they’ll be killable.

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 11:06 am #

      Slippery slope, as you’re using it, is a logical fallacy. Just because we’ve identified one specific item that everyone absolutely hates and we’re willing to change the rules for that one thing doesn’t mean that suddenly we’re writing a homebrew BRB and we’re going to change every rule we don’t like and nerf every army we think is OP. It’s taken a huge amount of community effort and approval just to get the democratic o.k. for nerfing th 2/2+ to a 2/4+.

      And, yes, competitive players will absolutely take the risk, for two reasons. One, a lot of armies can bubble-wrap. Take 60+ Kroot for absurdly cheap and suddenly none of those Drop Pods can get anywhere near the super-heavy. Meanwhile, the Tau Interceptor the Drop Pods for First Blood and to neuter the alpha-strike. Superheavy lives, and blows the Drop Pod army off the table.

      • RyanL February 27, 2014 11:23 am #

        I knew if I wrote some examples someone would start a paper battle with me. ^^ I hear what you’re saying, and that counters drop pods, but what other counters are there for the Revenant? The intention is to be constructive, rather than shoot everything down based on the isolated example.

        As for the slippery slope, Escalation and Stronghold Assault have already been “comped” but it’s been taken as so “obvious” that no one really questions it. Then it was the 2+/2+ save. Next might be battle brothers or perhaps just the list of deathstars. Once you’ve started making changes then it becomes easier to make the next one and harder to stop.

        Then, of course, comes the problem of being consistent across tournaments, you don’t want to devalue a victory at a handful of events. I can hear it now “Oh, you won LVO? Good luck at my tournament, your army won’t stand a chance without your crutch rules!”

        • Gordy February 27, 2014 11:39 am #

          Escalation and Stronghold were ignored because most people realize that apocalypse is horrible unbalanced and the expansions did nothing to avoid introducing that into normal 40k, and because no one actually plays expansions anyways. Cities of Death and Planetstrike and the like hardly ever got played, why expect any different from Stronghold and Escalation? And now that those books aren’t fresh off the printers, people are mostly ok with Lords of War and such, with the sole exception of Str D which is game-breaking. I don’t see where you’re going with that.

          About the only thing that any large tournament has comp’d is deathstars, and they’ve mainly only done it in extremely limited, subtle ways. LVO only dropped the 2/2 to a 2/4. Even that minor change was met with quite a bit of resistance in some quarters. People have now started to talk about Battle Brothers as an issue because Battle Brothers is, in fact, the source of most balance issues in 40k, including the Seer Council.

          The slippery slope is a logical fallacy when you don’t present a mechanism by which you continue to slide down the slope. Again, just because a certain number of tournaments has made very minor tweaks does not mean they’re suddenly going to produce their own rules. How many times has Reece openly stated how massively reluctant he is to introduce any arbitrary changes to the core rules? Other TOs have stated similar attitudes as well. And tournaments have already modified the rules much more broadly by creating their own missions, introducing their own FAQs, etc. If it improves the quality of the game, it’s not a bad thing.

          • RyanL February 27, 2014 12:03 pm

            I’m not sure I understand what you mean by logical fallacy but I don’t want to get into a protracted philosophical debate! 😛 I’ve seen this “slippery slope” in a similar situation, so I’m just stating my concerns. I can’t say I have a flawless logical argument, just my gut feelings.

        • Gordy February 27, 2014 12:55 pm #

          The slippery slope is a logic device that may or may not be a fallacy (that is, an argument that sounds good on the surface, but is fundamentally flawed). I’ve heard a lot of “this is terrible, slippery slope, rabblerabblerabble” lately. It can be a valid concern, and there are certainly some people I don’t trust “balancing” 40k, but Reece and Frankie are very open and very restrained, and most of the other major TOs seem to be as well, so I don’t think it’s something to be concerned about in this case. If they propose something crazy, then by all means speak up, but I’m not too worried.

        • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:31 pm #

          You’ve heard the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Well it’s broke & GW isn’t gonna fix it, so let’s just sit on our hands with our head in the sand & hope if we do nothing it will fix itself eh?

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:06 pm #

      You can fit a Rev and 3 Crimson Hunters in a list, I’ve done it! Lol, then mix in Jet Bikes, Void Shields and a Farseer and dominate. It creates a very unfun game.

      But, as you pointed out, most of the LoW are pretty mild. I think it is just a few specific units that are so lame.

  8. Baal Viper February 27, 2014 10:43 am #

    Anyone that can do basic probability can see that some deathstars are far and away more powerful then equivilant points worth of other armies that come from codexes NOT BLESSED by the Codex Loop Hole/Design Flaw gods.

    I really believe that the Tau Buffmander was never intended to be everyones “I get to ignore all the rules card.” he was created to help a Tau unit shoot really well, not turn a Centurion unit into a walking death machine. I also really hope GW did not plan for units to have a 2++ reroll save. They missed these issues in play testing and they slipped through into the codex. To be fair to them, Screemerstar was possible for a long time but not discovered for months after the codex came out, so we as a gaming comminty missed it also for a long time. I do not fault GW for missing the 2++ reroll, but I do fault them for not stepping in and stopping it. However, since GW is not willing to do this, the burden now falls to the community at large to self-regulate this. We need more peopel like Reecius willing to try new rules to balance the game a little.

    That being said, why do we as a community tollerate people who knowingly abuse these clear game design loop holes? It’s not cleaver, any one with an internet connection can figure out how to run these armies. They are a clear oversite in game design, so why are we not willing to say “No, you can’t play with that becasue it is no fun to play against, I don’t get to do anything but remove models” Or better yet, why are those people playing the armies unwilling to examine the situation and say, “I refuse to play this list any more becasue it is clearly a game design mistake.”
    If players just stopped playing with these absurd units the problem would go away. Yes tau, daemons, and eldar would still be really powerful becasue their codexes are much better than everyone elses, but atleast they can be killed on average dice with enough firepower. If we as a tournament community descided to not bring abusive lists and instead bring well rounded list everyone, not just the people bringing certain armies, could legitimatly go to tournaments and think they have a chance to win. As it is, I hear so many people say, ” I know I am not going to win, but…” to me this means they have accepted that unless they chase the meta they have no chance of winning. A truly “competative” game must by definition be balanced, 40k in its current state is not, and most of the people playing tournaments are unwilling to take action to change it, pointing the finger to GW we by their own admission DO NOT CARE.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:49 pm #

      Yeah, it certainly does seem that GW isn’t too concerned about tournament play.

      It is time to do something about it, I agree and we will keep working out ways to make that happen.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:42 pm #

      I agree whole heartedly. There is just no excuse for the crap that GW puts into text these days. I still remember how ridiculously screwed up the DA codex was/is. But that’s what happens when almost zero play testing is done. They have no stardardized play testing policy to find out what happens when codexes ally, etc. really every release should be tested in every possible allied combination against every codex to systematically find problems. I have it on good authority that play testing is discourage & restricted at the corporate level. It would take all of 30mins to realize how easy it is for the seerstar to get the 2++ reroll & wth does any unit need to be capable of moving 48″ per turn.

  9. Garro14 February 27, 2014 10:45 am #

    Hi Reecius,

    Have you tried the following rule alteration?

    “No save better that 3+ may ever be re-rolled”

    • Jayson Collier February 27, 2014 1:54 pm #

      I like it!

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 2:22 pm #

      The reason why they didn’t do that is because then a 2+ save is suddenly worse than a 3+, which would be silly. That’s why they picked the 2/4+, because that’s the most you can nerf it and still make it slightly better than a rerollable 3+.

      • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:50 pm #

        Exactly, a 3+ reroll is 1/9 chance of failure, the next thing that works is 1/12

  10. Chaosgerbil February 27, 2014 10:47 am #

    From an old-school fluff standpoint, the allies matrix borders on arbitrary.

    Dark elder and Eldar are sworn enemies, yet they can fight next to each other with no issue? Yet, my traitor imperial guard are desperate allies with DE, and my genestealer hybrid models can never take genestealers as allies. Necrons who want to exterminate life? Oh they can pal around with xenophobic alien hunting Space Marines just fine.

    Most people don’t take allies to tell a story but just because they want more effectiveness. As a player that cares about theme and army appearance that’s a problem to me. Some pairings are fine but then you see broken combos now and then.

    Chaos is Battle Brothers with Daemons, but they have special rules invalidating the point of B.B. That’s just sloppy.

    Make all allies into Allies of Convenience and you’ll solve a lot of these issues. Maybe allies should even be non-scoring. It seems like a cleaner solution than comp (which is ALWAYS gamed by someone) or inventing new rules.

    I think White Scars make a very good deathstar unit, I know this from having my ass handed to me by such a unit… and I was playing GK Purifiers and henchmen like assassins.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:52 pm #

      Yeah, some of the allies don’t really make sense like DE/Eldar. But, I think they wanted to give DE Battle Brothers with someone?

      I also think IG and Chaos should be BB as that would allow you to take IG and Chaos mixed armies.

      And same with Genestealer Cults, etc.

  11. Baal Viper February 27, 2014 10:56 am #

    I really feel that what is causing all these problems is first and for most the GW rules. They are very flawed, for sure, but that can be worked around if players changed their attitude.

    If we as a community could get away from always wanting to bring a list that puts us at a huge stratigic advantage before any dice are rolled and instead look to bring powerful but challenging armies to the table so each player had a reasonable chance of victory we would fix all these issues without comp/bans/etc. that game would be more enjoyable, and would be more based on player skill instead of who bought the new toys.

    No one would say Chess is fun or competative if one side had more Queens than the other, Why are we ok with this in 40k? Specially if we are the ones with all the Queens? If you win you basically proved that what should happen, did happen… doesn’t say much about you.

  12. Sly February 27, 2014 11:16 am #

    First, Rune Priests.

    Second, prevent Battle Brothers from passing USRs to Allies that they’ve joined, and the problems are solved.

    Third, the Deathstar units don’t match up in CC with heavy CC units like Hammernators, Soulgrinders, etc, at equal points. I don’t think I’m nearly as worried about them when I can bring some strong CC units rather than an all shooty list that crumbles when the opponent brings a unit that is almost impossible to shoot down, as I am about D-class weapons.

    But, foremost, bring more Rune Priests and the Psyker-based Deathstars are going to get blown up just like the ultimate weapons of destruction that they are.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:54 pm #

      The Deathstars will walk through Hammernators in most cases as they can’t be killed.

      D weapons I agree are a bit much.

      Rune Priests are very good but do you want them to be mandatory? And what about folks that can’t take them? Lastly, what do you do when they get taken away in the Wolf codex?

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:46 pm #

      Death Stars have no problems with dedicated hth units which can never catch them anyway.

  13. Adam February 27, 2014 11:37 am #

    I guess one frustration I’ve always felt is that the BAO FAQ thought it was RAI that flyers can’t contest/score objectives, but never weighed in on if it’s RAI that the presence of drones was intended to allow characters to join Riptides, or if it was RAI that the Grimoire could stack with Forewarning… Why stop at flyers?

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 11:42 am #

      The flyer thing was more of a balance issue. Terrain isn’t guaranteed, and it’s possible for one deployment zone to have a building you can place an objective on top of so Flyers on that side can score, but the other side can’t because they don’t have a building. Plus, while most flyers are too tall to grab ground objectives, the Heldrake alone for some reason is swooping low enough to grab ground objectives. And there’s issues with modeling for advantage and the like. The most reasonable solution is that Flyers simply don’t score at all. Basically, it wasn’t Reece and Frankie deciding “scoring Flyers are stupid, let’s ban that”.

      • Baal Viper February 27, 2014 12:13 pm #

        Why not just either ban them all or just measure from the base so there is no model advantage?

        • Gordy February 27, 2014 12:58 pm #

          Banning all Flyers is far, far beyond the scope of clarifying an annoying, but ultimately minor, flaw in the way Flyers work. And measuring from the base would be a huge buff to Flyers, so while it is a possible solution, it’s not really a good one, particularly since it explicitly conflicts with the rules in the BRB.

          • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:55 pm

            You said it Gordy, it was because of the Drake being low to the ground and able to score while not other flyer could, it was inherently flawed.

      • Adam February 27, 2014 1:02 pm #

        But O’vesa-stars and the rules used to get 2++ re-rollable saves are more balanced? That’s where it breaks down for me.

        • Gordy February 27, 2014 2:24 pm #

          My point is, it’s more a clarification of the rules than an attempt to balance them. They did the flyer thing so they didn’t have a bunch of players arguing over whether or not flyers could score.

          • Adam February 27, 2014 2:44 pm

            I guess we never had that argument because the rules are clear about what is and isn’t scoring… There wasn’t any ambiguity about flyers and their ability to score, the rulebook is clear that vehicles can score in the Scouring, it doesn’t make any exception for Flyers.

        • Gordy February 27, 2014 4:01 pm #

          Yeah, it’s not quite as much an ambiguity as there were some people getting pissy over whether or not Flyers could score and whether or not it was bull and so on, so to avoid that potentially bogging down a tournament game they decided the simplest course of action was to unilaterally make all flyers not scoring. Kind of like how there are some issues with fitting certain fortifications like the Fortress of Redemption on a terrain heavy board. Where can you place it? Can you shuffle terrain around to do it? What do you do with terrain you’ve moved asides, and where do you temporarily store that terrain? It’s more about making the game run smoothly in a time-pressure tournament than about a “this is OP” thing.

  14. CptHygelac February 27, 2014 11:55 am #

    Admittedly, I’m fairly new to the game, so I’m still learning many of its nuances. However this does seem like this May lead to a revival of the Space Wolves, at least as allies ( I won’t get in to possible rules changes, I’m not nearly knowledgable enough for that). With runepriests and / or Njal Stormcaller denying psychic powers 50% or 66% of the time, many of these Death Stars would come at least a bit more down to earth. The problem is that armies that can’t ally in Space Wolves are left out in the cold. Hopefully an increase of SW in the meta could at least decrease the prevalence of these Deathstar lists and make a bit more balanced meta. I personally want to try this out some as SW are one of my favorite armies and it’s a bit depressing to see them so underplayed.

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 12:13 pm #

      The counter will make its appearance this weekend at the TOF invitational. The Wrecking Crew has created a White Scars/Space Wolves deathstar that has Korsarro, a Bike Master, a Wolf Lord and a Rune Priest in runic armor all joined to a command squad on bikes. It has scout, hit and run, skilled rider (sort of ), two eternal warriors, shuts down psychic powers, it has grav guns, and three 2+ armor saves.

      Sure it’s a counter, but it’s just another deathstar caused by battle brothers. More of the same.

      • CptHygelac February 27, 2014 1:32 pm #

        I saw that, but ya, its definitely just another death star. What I was thinking about was the possibility of sprinkling in a few rune weapons into a more traditional type list as a way to just neutralize the psy-based death stars. I definitely think it has some potential. I’d be curious to see if anyone is running such a list competitively.

        • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:51 pm #

          SW allies were all over at LVO strictly for RPs. Not many SW primaries but tons of allies. I took them but I find them boring & wish I could justify allying in something I actually enjoy.

  15. Lungpickle February 27, 2014 12:10 pm #

    There’s some good ideas posted here and most importantly intuitive. I like dropping battle bros rules it effects everyone. Plus the idea of contesting and capturing an objective could be tweeted as well. Ie: cannot contest or capture unless your on the objective at the end of the movement phase. D weapons sucks in a tourney, so that’s a no go, I liked the tiger vs rats analogy Reecius.

    One dude had an idea about gamer integrity, as to not bring such list and how it’s our fault as gamers for not doing something devoid of GW doing something. Your right on the button there, plus I’ll add we will prop these players up like they are some kind of gods to gaming when they used a point and click army and won it all.. Meanwhile some one goes 4 and 1 with. The new NIDS codex and there’s no mention of that accomplishment though IMHO is way more significant than a Death Star winning the LVO, Shame on us.

    As for balance there is no way unless we as a community sit down and rewrite everything. Not going to happen but little tweets here and there can happen and should to create a little fairness for those w

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:57 pm #

      I think we can find a middle ground that stops the worst abuses while still staying the game that we know and love.

  16. Lungpickle February 27, 2014 12:10 pm #

    Who come and pay to play..


  17. Baal Viper February 27, 2014 12:17 pm #

    That is a great point pickle. I was very impressed with Blackmoore for his performance with NIds. We should give him a lot more glory then Alex with his Seer Counsil. I think our collective focus only on who won it all has resulted in the meta we now have any way.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:53 pm #

      I believe blackmoor played a couple games against other nids, so not a great barometer. He’s still a great player, just sayin. Also correct me if I’m wrong.

  18. Brakhal February 27, 2014 12:50 pm #

    Well, I think this whole edition is, in terms of competition and strategic gaming, a total crap.

    Models are awesome, and imperial armies (and other “good guys”) have more options than ever, but the gaming experience feels like you can’t field whatever you want to play unless preparing yourself for a ridiculous defeat or an overwhelming win. Not fun in either way. Or at least if you play versus people at similar tactical level.

    Death stars are the top predator on the 40k food chain, but this pyramidal-shaped structure does not stop on them. You can ban or nerf the seerstar, the beaststar, and all the stars, and then, for instance, the tau can rise to the top. Then you can do the same with the long range shooting, and flyers will rise.

    I know that happened with almost every single edition, but in 6th the differences between OP and UP options are harder than ever. Even the considered most balanced and best worked codex, the space marines, lacks some internal balance: when one thinks about getting tactical marines, explorers or bikers for scoring units. Tactics and explorers are not as bad as being useless, but bikers are far better being that cheap with all their advantadges.

    Now, do the same comparing genestealers or devourers with gants or tervigons…

    So, in the end, I think the only way to make 40k a fun game to play from a competitive approach is with a non oficial ruleset. Is sad for players that are gamers and hobbyist at the same time (like I consider myself).

    Of course you can still have a lot of fun in tournaments because socialize is entertaining, not matter how disappointing the game is.

    • Gordy February 27, 2014 1:03 pm #

      Play an appropriate amount of LOS blocking terrain, and Tau are not longer unreasonably OP. The LVO did a good job of demonstrating that.

      • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:56 pm #

        Tau still had the best win % at 66%. I’d say tau are easier to play so they may make a bad player average, average good, good great, etc. etc.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:58 pm #

      Some good points Brakhal, I think that there is a lot balance issues in 40K. We don’t expect it to be perfect but we can work to even out some of these incredible highs and lows.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 10:59 pm #

      I agree with you brak. At this point I can’t wait for 7th & am actively looking for another game/hobby. Warmahordes just isn’t customizable enough for me. Maybe when ESO comes out…

  19. Rob February 27, 2014 1:02 pm #

    I think we would be remiss to point out that 40k is about match ups. Yeah Seer Council won but he didn’t play a av 14 wall. In my local circle people have fits with my ork army not cause of my nob bikers but the 70 + scoring bodies. . Death stars have always been popular as some of us hate painting. The achiles heel of deathstars is missions where you have to take territory and objectives. I think re-working the allies chart is key . Remember when every imperial army had a inquistor and 2 mystics so they took it out in 5th then they put it back in . Allies on the battle brother level need to go . The counter to the death star has always been double tough templates in copious amounts or buckets of dice.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 5:59 pm #

      True on stars but with Eldar they have access to the incredible Jetbikes! Gah, those things are so good.

  20. narceron February 27, 2014 1:05 pm #

    What about a form of super comp? I would propose the tournament organizer put together army lists for each force. These would be say, 1500 points of fixed units with the remaining points variable, or even an entire army list pre generated.

    I don’t like the idea that superior rules can win before the game even begins, so I am biased, 🙂

    • joedrache February 27, 2014 1:09 pm #

      that sounds terrible

  21. joedrache February 27, 2014 1:08 pm #

    well- for one thing “7th” ed is on the way. will GW actually listen to their fan-base(i doubt it)

    escalation is here to stay. the hold-outs of fair and balanced 40k will not hold as GW moves on
    so- get used to it.

    now you hafta factor in a titan-killer unit or two. i think generally, bringing the sphvys is a liability and i highly doubt one could win a real tournament with one

    i do think, in the meantime, disallowing allied IC’s and nerfing the D is key to keeping it enjoyable. just say No battle Bro status, for anyone, and the D is 10,1 ignore cover.

    (that still leaves the screamerstar…) (and Ovesa??)

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 1:48 pm #

      If they incorporate destroyer weapons into the core rulebook, that will be the straw that broke the camel’s back where TO restraint against rules-dickering is concerned. You cannot hold an event where Revenant Titans are legal because it’s absurd, so they won’t be.

      O’vesastar doesn’t work because it relies on Tau/Tau swapping with the buff commander.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:00 pm #

      I’m holding out hope that 7th is real and works to fix a lot of these issues.

  22. JJRC777 February 27, 2014 1:14 pm #

    Allow the D. Give it -2 to cover and inval saves. So you have a chance for a save.
    With that said take away the Eldar titans inval save and we are good. Changed 2 rules and fixed the D. And super heaves.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:01 pm #

      Some good ideas there, thanks!

  23. CousCous February 27, 2014 1:18 pm #

    The problem isn’t just deathstars, the problem just includes the deathstars. The real problem is that rules are released without much consideration on how they are are going to affect the game. There is little consideration of equality amongst the armies, and some of it seems almost prejudicial (is really just happenstance that Eldar is probably the best army and then also gets the the most silly powerful super-heavy?!).

    If the “problem” is going to be fixed, then the only real way of doing it is to start at the source, and that is the rules. In the legal system, you see new statutes and codes every year. They come in large horrible books, that are a maze of past laws being adopted on top of one another. Inevitably, problems arise and people abuse the rules or become confused. To remedy this, statutes usually have “supplements” that are issued periodically and change the rules. The “supplements” are inserts that fit in the back of the code book, and stay there until the end of the year when a new book comes out. At the beginning of a new year, the supplements are integrated. Something like this would be helpful.

    For example, GW could enlist groups such as FLG, and other reputable groups, to draft proposed changes to each codex or the BRB to make them more equal. Supplements for each codex/BRB could be issued every 3 months, 6 months, or year, until a new codex is actually issued. The supplements could be used in countless ways, including raising point costs, increasing them, changing stat lines, making certain units unable to use certain rules that result in deathstars and so forth. I mean, they kind of do this with FAQs, but just one a very small scale. Enlisting the people who enjoy the game, as opposed to profiting on it, to make new rules would really be beneficial.

    In short, I think a solution can only be reached if there is a way to regularly ensure that there are attempts made to balance the armies. Adding a system where periodic supplements can be attached to codexes would be great, and GW could happily pass the cost onto the consumer.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:02 pm #

      That is an excellent idea, CousCous, I think that would go miles to making a better system and keep things up to date and balanced.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 11:03 pm #

      If only GW gave a dam. Their only tactics seem to be slashing costs, raising prices, & releasing tons of poorly written rules.

  24. Baal Viper February 27, 2014 1:20 pm #

    I agree with what your saying and I think a player based rules set would be great but I don’t think it would be practicle. It would be a massive undertaking to put it together. I think comp is the answer. Changing the rules within the basic framework of the BRB rules. Institutionalized comp could work and I will back/aid anyone willing to try it I just don’t have the clout to pull it off by myself. I see LVO as atleast an attempt at fixing the problem and I will support them as much as I can.

    As I have already said earlier though, a much more effective and much more immidiate fix to all this is a communal shift in attitude. If the community did not reward and encourage players to bring abusive, what I call “Gimmick” lists and instead shunned these people, the rest of us could have a much better gaming experience IMO. Friends don’t play friends that bring uber cheese… It’s not very friendly, nor very fun.

    If we as a comunity self-regulated and brought armies that are not OP, the community would be more enjoyable. As it stands, many people flat out avoid tournaments becasue they believe (often correctly) that unless they play certain armies and units, they have little chance of even placing much less winning then event.

    • CousCous February 27, 2014 1:33 pm #

      100% true. On the local level, I ask before bringing certain types of armies. It’s just a courtesy. If the opponent doesn’t want to play mass flyers, then so be it. Likewise, if someone shows up with the cheese, which almost never happens in friendly games (most people are smart), I just make it clear it’s really not worth my time to get beat up by a deathstar/spammy list. At the Tournament level, I won’t even consider going. Whats the point of going when you know you are going to be playing the same army 50-75% of the time.

      I think periodic rule changes are an avenue to consider, still.

      Also, TOs could reward points based on army concentrations. I.e. if the most common army is say Orks, no bonus points, but if the least common army is sisters, then extra points towards your total standing. There could also be penalties for certain pre-specified lists.

      • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:03 pm #

        Yeah, it works quite well on the local level, but at a big tournament that is incredibly hard to enforce without rules posted in advance as what is cool in one group may be uncool in another, etc.

  25. bigpig February 27, 2014 1:43 pm #

    I’ve mentioned this a couple times in the forums; but I do not think that D weapons are a benefit to the competitive game. Allowing them in on the argument that they can deal with deathstars is introducing poison snakes to deal with your rat problem (the gorillas are down the road). D weapons, most notably shooting ones, are not balanced for competitive play. GW has made it clear that competitive (or even internal codex) balance is not what they are striving for. They are simply about putting out rules to play with whatever toys you want at this point. I originally held that D melee weapons weren’t that bad, though I am considering rethinking that now that an initiative 4 D weapon is about to hit the scene. Some armies, just have not answer and they greatly increase rock/paper/scissors matchups.

    The answer for Deathstars clearly lies in the Battle Brothers interactions. The ability to place cross army buffs and psker powers is what makes these things so overpowered. High cost tough units have always been around but they could be dealt with the. The buffing now makes these units hugely destructive, or super tough, or at least shores up the weaknesses they had (like being tarpitted, easily avoided by adding one IC with hit and run).

    Allow BBs to join other army units, just don’t let them share USRs or psyker abilities outside their own army. This will cut down a LOT on the Deathstar problems we are seeing and make the game not only more fun to play, BUT also more of a test of a general’s tactical skill on the board than on the strength of a list. I feel now that too often the game is won or lost based solely on the army brought with tactical skill taking a back seat. It should be the other way around.

    • Slaede February 27, 2014 2:00 pm #

      To this point of not allowing USR’s to be exchanged between detachments, it is not good enough.

      For example: the Baron has hit and run and stealth. He does not grant this to a unit he joins. The fact that he has it means the whole unit benefits. Moreover, the Seer Council he has joined probably has a Farseer who has Shard of Anaris, which makes him fearless, which transfers to the unit. If you say rules to not transfer, is the unit fearless, or is it not?

      If I join a Space Marine Captain to an IG blob led by a Lord Commissar, does the unit now lose both ATSKNF and Stubborn? Does the unit lose all special rules because you’ve joined allies?

      You have to outlaw the character joining the unit or it doesn’t work.

      • Bigpig February 27, 2014 2:17 pm #

        its not that hard to fix honestly. Simply do not allowed the joined characters Universal special rules to function if they would normally transfer. Any rules from the host unit would remain. in your last example, the blob squad would retain stubborn and transfer it to the captain however the captain would not transfer and they shall know no fear.

        • Slaede February 27, 2014 2:44 pm #

          Okay. What if I join the fearless Bikeseer to just the Baron? Who joined who? Which special rules are negated?

        • bigpig February 27, 2014 4:00 pm #

          Again, not a big deal to overcome.

          There are two ways to look at it. One is to say that both are joining an allied unit, so both lose the ability for their special rules to apply to the IC they joined with. (By comparison a primary detachment IC joined to a primary unit that also has an allied IC in it is joining the unit, not the character). Another option would be to have both let all their rules apply because they are not actually joining a “unit.” It would need to be looked at to see if any real broken combos can result.

          The goal here is to eliminate the overpowered cross army combos and still differentiate between BB and AoC in some way. Simply changing all BB to AoC or, as you say “Outlaw the character from joining the unit or it doesn’t work” is easy, but is heavy handed and kills diversity. Maybe I want to join my allied character to a unit for mobility or defense purposes. The troops he brought with his detachment may be across the board, etc. As long as I can’t hand out Ignore Cover, Twin Linked, FNP, Hit and Run, and the other hugely powerful abilities to my allies, its not a big deal to join the unit. What is the problem with a simple solution that lets me join the unit, addresses conflicts, and fixes the broken combos? You seem to be looking for problems, not solutions

          A final alternative is simply to identify those USRs that a BB IC cannot extend to an allied unit. Fearless, for example, is good but it really isn’t game breaking. The same with Adamantium Will. Examples of those to gimp might be Relentless, Hit and Run, Twin Linked, FNP, Ignore Cover, Stealth/Shroud. If an IC with those abilities joins an allied unit he cannot extend them to or allow them to effect that unit. If there is a conflict (such as with the wording of ATSKNF or Hit and Run) then the IC loses those abilities while in the unit. Psyker powers would still not be able to be cast on an allied unit.

          Seems simple enough, does differentiate between BB and AoC, and encourages diversity. Again the goal is to increase/maintain options, do away with broken combos, and not create a bunch of fiddly rules.

  26. z3n1st February 27, 2014 1:45 pm #

    I think adjucating rules for the sake of ‘fixing’ is a flawed approach, really what you are doing is hampering your own ability to overcome something someone else put together. Putting bandaids on wounds that need surgery is not a solution its a fallacy of thinking in a shortsighted manner.

    Reece’s point in regards to tigers and rats was right on, you need to look at what caused the rat issue in the first place, but guess what its not the cheese (battle brothers), because if you simply put the cheese away the rats don’t stick around.

    I am not sure Battle brothers is the problem, I certainly don’t feel the deathstars are the problem (these have existed since the game began in different incarnations, these are just the new ones), and I definitely don’t think adding the kitchen sink is the way to solve the issue either.

    Whats the next death star look like, perhaps the 1st strike star? (blast them to bits before they power up and wait for the dust to clear?), It can be reliably done with Eldrad (or Lady Malys), Vect, and Coteaz and Battle Brothers isn’t even required…redploy to counter any of their deployment, then grab first turn (or deny theirs) and blast them to death.

    A new edition is supposedly right around the corner, at which point I fully expect the current deathstars to disappear in their current form and new ones to rise in their stead. If you are thinking otherwise then I suggest you get an ID card for the medicine you are using, I hear its only legal in Colorado and Washington 😉

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:09 pm #

      Lol, good points.And yes, Deathstars have always existed and honestly, I am fine with that as largely they are fun. But, what we have now is beyond anything in the past. Before you could play around a Deathstar pretty easily, but now that is increasingly more difficult.

      I want to wait for May and hopefully, the 7th ed book, to see what happens. I have heard that at least some of the worst stuff is going away. Here’s to hoping!

  27. z3n1st February 27, 2014 2:02 pm #

    I just had a thought that dates back to 2nd edition, why not let any army buy a single vortex grenade? Have a death star problem? Have a LOW problem? Have a Strongpoint problem? Take a Vortex grenade and call me in the morning.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:09 pm #

      Haha, that would make for a super fun event! Haha, vortex grenades were the ultimate equalizer.

  28. Charlie February 27, 2014 2:52 pm #

    I will preface this that I believe we will be seeing some form of updated rules this summer (call it what you will 6.5 or 7th).

    Overall, I think the BAO format fixed a lot of the issues with the 40K rulebook missions, which are fairly inconsistent with creating a balanced game.

    I do think updating terrain is very important. Games with updated terrain appears to produce a bit more of a tactically challenging game.

    Finally, what to do about Deathstars? I have come to the conclusion there are two key pieces that I think will really help in this area.

    1. Battle Brothers ICs cannot join units. Most current deathstars do revolve around this mechanic.

    2. D weapons become S10, AP1, Ignore Cover and -1 to invulnerable saves deserves merit to be played out.

    3. When it comes to Stronghold Assault, I say allow it with a few conditions: if GW has not produced a model for a piece, it cannot be used. This is not to say people must use GW models, rather, gives us a baseline on what the fortification should be size/shape. This means there would be no Void Relay Networks, Promethium Pipes and possible another off the top of my head.

    Now, if folks want to play something akin to more old school 40K, I recommend trying out a Highlander styled event. I played in my first one and the games were a blast and created a lot of great challenging moments and each game was a lot closer than when I’d bring my typical Jetseer deathstar list.

    • bigpig February 27, 2014 3:40 pm #

      Agree with you, though I’d allow cover saves and invul saves with a -1 or -2 modifier and must reroll successful saves.

      The deal with Ds is that there is no defense against them. You just sit there and take your models off the board. Allowing the ability to take invul and cover saves gives you some defense, but the reroll mechanic makes them less effective.

  29. Charles February 27, 2014 4:43 pm #

    I don’t have any big objections. The only minor quibble is adding more dice rolls in an already dice intensive game.

  30. Chuckles February 27, 2014 5:10 pm #

    The simplest solution is usually the best. The problem here is quite simply that a 2++ re-rollable is too good. So add a rule that the best re-rollable Inv save a unit can have is 3 or 4++ (I would lean towards 4++ personally). Any buffs that take it past this are discounted and you cap at 4++ with the re-roll. You can choose between 2++ or 4++ re-rollable. The closest a unit then gets to being invincible is discounting 75% of wounds, which is still extremely good and well worth the points you’re paying in any case I can think of.

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:11 pm #

      That is a good idea, actually, and it is still better than a 3++ by 9%

  31. Fister February 27, 2014 5:21 pm #

    I don’t mind death stars. They make me better when an opponent plays them.

    It doesn’t make my opponent any better by playing with them. What do you learn from using an unimaginative broken combo?

    When I beat them with a list without cheap tricks, it just makes them that much more silly.

    Besides, when GW takes their precious crutch away with their next codex or edition, their delicious tears and cries of “nerf” will sustain me.

    Keep abusing those one trick ponies, scrubs. Just don’t cry when GeeDubs takes your toys away.

    • Fulcrum February 27, 2014 11:11 pm #

      Fork out a bunch of cash to be crushed for 2-3 days at a few events & lmk is you still have the same sentiments.

  32. Cameron February 27, 2014 5:49 pm #

    Play a different game! (That’s what I did)

    • Reecius February 27, 2014 6:11 pm #

      Oh man, I would laugh if that weren’t so unfortunately true and I am seeing many players make that choice.

      • Brakhal February 28, 2014 9:43 am #

        I’m seeing the same thing here, in spain. Lots of players are quitting 40k and changing to fow and/or infinity. In my region, we used to have relatively big tournaments every 2 months, of about 40-50 players, that went out of tickets in the week they were announced. Now is hard to see more than 30 players in this events.

        It’s like if GW wants to push away from the game the competitive players. I just can’t understand why they don’t want some of their customers.

        I’m painting my Everblight while I give 40k and nid’s dataslates a last chance to give me something that could be fun to play with… A shame that here is hard to find warmahordes because of PP ceased their distribution in spain.

  33. Smuffle February 27, 2014 10:09 pm #

    Could always just say invuln saves can never be rerolled. Then they’d still re-roll armor or cover but could be countered but ‘ignores cover’ and strong AP weapons. It may decrease the current idea of ‘more shots the better’ as with serpent shields and any Tau army ever. At that point, Blastmasers and Heldrakes would start to shine again =P

    Then again my Beastar would then have no point of running a Farseer, though I haven’t yet anyways. =p

  34. RyanL February 28, 2014 1:38 am #

    Reecius, as a respected member of the community and TO have you tried to compile your concerns and contact GW?

    You could offer three levels of support to help them out:

    1) Identify the existing issues.
    2) Offer possible solutions to the existing issues.
    3) Act as a “consultant” with the ability to play-test and gather community feedback.

    Of course, you wouldn’t want to do level 3 without a modest fee!

  35. TableTopJosh February 28, 2014 8:49 am #

    After reading all the posts I do not see one good agruement aganist banning Allied IC from joining primary army units. This rule is an extemelly easy to implement rule and if used it would have immediate changes hurting many of the deathstars but still allowing for fun and competitive combinations of armies.
    Yes if that rule was instated it would take away from many other combinations and armies that are not currently abusing the buffs and psyhic powers, but this loss would be overcome by creating a more even playing field for those such armies.
    This game was played without allies for a long time and people enjoyed it then. The option to bring allies is still valid and players are still free to create complementary armies.

  36. TableTopJosh February 28, 2014 8:53 am #

    In my example this would still allow BB to cast psychic powers on their allies.

  37. TableTopJosh February 28, 2014 9:01 am #

    Look at Frankies DE/Eldar. His list in my opinion is how allies should work in this game. Allies, if used correctly, should be there to fill in the missing wholes and gaps of an army. In frankies case his big blob and Wraithknight offer his DE some more diverse, tough units. At the same time taking away the ability to join allied IC does not take away his ability as a BB to buff his DE.
    This to me is how conpetitive allies should work.

  38. Denneysman March 6, 2014 10:50 pm #

    I think they need to being back the Psychic-hood and the like. Since they took them away powers have blow out. Most P-power are unstoppable now.

  39. Lord Krungharr March 12, 2014 1:25 pm #

    I am really itching to bring the WAAC pain to Adepticon (which means not bringing my CSMs) just because I feel mean these days, and resentful of the handfuls of armies which bring such shooty goodness to themselves to wreak havoc upon my more favorite models (who do not shoot anything).

    So whilst I realize the Rune Priest may very well get nerfed to Niflheim next year, I am compelled to buy 1 or 2, and some Wolf Scouts just to make a cheapass Allied detachment for my Traitorous Squat-Guard Primary.

    If Coteaz (my most hated nemesis) from the Inquisitor Codex does the seize on a 4+, I may unfortunately be getting one of those too! Prescience is always nice.
    I’m such a treacherous traitor to my traitor legions now!

Leave a Reply