40K Rules: Invisibility: To Nerf or not to Nerf?


Hey everyone, your friendly neighborhood gamer, Reecius here to discuss a topic that has been on a lot of folks minds since 7th dropped: to nerf Invisibility or not.

First of all, what is invisibility? It is arguably the most powerful psychic power in the game of 40K. It is in the telepathy school, power number 5, costs warp charge 2, and is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24.” That unit can only be hit by Snap Shots and is hit in close combat on 6’s.

This makes a unit nigh-invincible. As you can only hit it with Snap Shots, you cannot target it with blast or template weapons. It also means normal shooting attacks hit on 6’s, same as with a flyer, and in assault, 6’s as well.

Now, what we’ve seen in the tournament scene, is that many top lists revolve around this one power. It is a bit disconcerting when an entire list strategy revolves around getting a single power, and then successfully casting it. Tossing ALL your dice at it, disregarding perils, simply to get a single game winning power off with consistency in every game of a tournament is a sign that something is amiss.

If you have an army that relies on blast or template weapons to deal damage, you are in a tough spot as you can’t even impact the target unit. If you rely on assault, your damage output will be reduced to a fraction of what it was.

The issue is exacerbated by the fact that often, the unit that is the target of invisibility is extremely powerful, often a deathstar. These units are brutally difficult to deal with sans invisibility, with it, you often can’t do anything to them at all. Plus, WC2 is comically low for a power this impactful. Haemorrhage, a stinky witchfire, costs WC2 as well and that these are equally costed is hilarious.

This non-participation in the game is fun-killing. Yes, I understand that many folks believe you should play the rules as the lay, and you know what? That is cool, too. But for organized play, where folks make a long–often expensive–journey, to come and play, having a game where you can literally not impact a unit that steamrolls your army is no fun. Having an army that does well simply because the other player literally couldn’t hurt a steamroller unit is lame. And let’s face it, 7th ed REQUIRES you to alter or choose to omit some of the rules in order to even play the game in an organized setting.

So, in order to create a more enjoyable environment for a larger number of players, we propose nerfing Invisibility as follows for our events: the target unit is hit at BS1 in shooting and on 5’s in assault. What this does is double the amount of close combat attacks that will hit an invisible unit, and it allows templates and blasts to hit them, too. We do not say hit at WS1 in assault as it means the target unit would actually get an offensive buff to hit enemy units always on 3’s.

So, it is still an incredible defensive buff, but not so over the top as to throw the game out of balance. Also, our gaming brothers and sisters over in the UK are already using this nerf in many of their organized play events and it has been well received. Much like the nerf of the 2+/2+ reroll save to 2+/4+, this is a change that I believe will be well received and make the game more enjoyable and less of a, “who got Invisibility off” contest.

What do you all think? And, on an aside, the LVO is filling up rapidly! We have hardly any rooms left in our room block at the incredibly price of $63 a night plus taxes and fees. The 40K champs only has about 30 tickets left out of 256! Don’t wait to grab those. 


About Reecius

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

166 Responses to “40K Rules: Invisibility: To Nerf or not to Nerf?”

  1. Avatar
    Jayson Collier October 29, 2014 12:33 am #

    I am down with BS 1! And I don’t see why you would not make the WS 1 as well. K.I.S.S. 98% of the time you needs 5+ to hit anyway. The only time you get 4+ is attacker WS 1, and the targets WS is 1 or 2.
    IE: irregardless of bonuses or war gear the attacking(defending only in CC) unit WS and BS are dropped to 1 as long as the target unit has successfully cased invisibility. Furthermore the only “snapshots” that may be fired at an invisible unit may only be done in the assault phase.

    • Avatar
      Gordon October 29, 2014 5:23 am #

      We’re talking about nerfing it, not mixing a buff in with the nerf. Your example is also a bigger change to the wording than Reece’s, pluss all the grammar nerds will mock the use of irregardless.

      • Avatar
        fluger October 29, 2014 9:24 am #

        I was just about to!

  2. Avatar
    bigpig October 29, 2014 12:44 am #

    Fix that broken, poorly thought out, non playtested rule….

    I know there are several opinions, BS1 or WC 3 for example, but I simply say do something. …and do it soon so that people have time to complain and then get over it 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:07 pm #

      We like to get a feel for what the community wants to do, but I think a majority of players want to see a change.

  3. Avatar
    Fagerlund October 29, 2014 12:55 am #

    “the target unit is hit at WS1”
    You might want to edit that to avoid confusion. 🙂

    But I think it looks like a good idea! Especially to allow templates and blasts to target them, because that part in particular really doesn’t make sense. If I have a flamethrower and I see some enemy in front of me go invisible I would put up a wall of flame in their general direction for sure… 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:08 pm #

      I agree on the flamer part, too.

      What about that sentence was confusing for you? Er wait, BS, not WS< haha, thanks!

  4. Avatar
    zed October 29, 2014 1:10 am #

    Do not forget about weapons that don’t require LoS like all barrage. If they don’t need to see the target why thay can not shoot an invisible target? That thing should be fix also. And i thnik idea about WS1 against invisible unit is very good and i will try this inthe next game.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:08 pm #

      That would be covered by the BS1 change.

  5. Avatar
    W October 29, 2014 2:09 am #

    While Invisibility is certainly powerful, too powerful even, I fear nerfing it might be a step in the wrong direction. It is not balanced if you get it off, on the right unit, at the right time, sure, but what about other things that are deemed broken by the community? Should Wave Serpents be nerfed, too?
    I say this as an AM player who has been decimated by invisible Centurions and Beaststars several times when my blast-heavy army has been unable to do any damage.

    To be close to guaranteed to get it off, a player needs to invest a lot of points in just getting Warp Charges, which can reduce the effiency of their army. You will usually only have enoug charges to reliably cast Invisibility on one unit, which is dangerous on a death star, but that one unit can often be tied up while you focus on taking down the rest of his army.

    Maelstrom missions especially favour MSU over death stars, at least in my own experience.

    If you kill his warp-charge providing units and/or have more warp charges, you’ll quickly ruin the day for a player who depends on Invisibility. And the look on their faces when you come flying in with a Culexus in a vendetta, remove invis, and proceed to bombard their exposed star with blasts is priceless 🙂

    ti;dr – I think it’s better to focus on how to play against Invisibility (and Wave Serpents, and other unbalanced things) than to simply nerf it. But that’s just my 2 cents 🙂

    • Avatar
      fluger October 29, 2014 9:26 am #

      I think Wave Serpents should be nerfed as well. There’s a rumor floating around that the shield was only supposed to be 6″ range (which makes LOADS more sense), but they kept the misprint.

      Honestly, if wave serpent shields were dropped to 6″ range, they’d still be worth it, and the balance would shift to something else that’s good in that dex (jet bike spam?).

      • Avatar
        Jural October 29, 2014 9:47 am #

        I heard this rumor also… but can’t understand why they wouldn’t have FAQ’d it… They FAQ’d the Heldrake… Also, what a horrible typo… I hope Cultists accidentally get a 30 toughness next edition (but sadly, they will probably cost 50 points each instead)

        • Avatar
          fluger October 29, 2014 11:23 am #

          Rumors are, obviously, just that: rumors. However, changing the serpent shield to 6″ really makes them go to being transports (which they do REALLY well) instead of gunboats.

          Meh, I wish we were cooler with errata-ing things.

      • Avatar
        AbusePuppy October 29, 2014 4:45 pm #

        The thing about the Serpent Shield is that it’s not without precedent. The old 2E version and Epic Armageddon ones were also extremely long-ranged, so the 60″ isn’t a mistake- it’s just that everything else about the ability is.

        Also, the Shield isn’t half as strong when it’s not twin-linked off a Scatter Laser. In more casual games I’ve run Bright Lance Serpents and while they’re still good, they no longer just clean whole units off the table with contemptuous ease.

    • Avatar
      Scumlord October 29, 2014 1:31 pm #

      Totally agree here. There’s a lot that needs to be nerfed across the whole game. Taking something away from all armies (except Tyranids) while not addressing the army-specific overkill is not the way to go. This is from someone who frickin’ hates invisibility and has lost unfun games to it many times.
      Rather than looking at “how we feel about what’s op” why don’t we look at what actually wins too much, specifically, what was obviously overpowered at the BAO, and hit that with the nerf bat. I don’t enjoy that the ONLY practice games I need are against WSS/Seerstar because that is the tip of the bullsh*t spear.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:14 pm #

      Thanks for your input, W. The slippery slope argument is the most common point of resistance to these proposed changes. However, I think our track record shows we don’t propose to change things willy nilly, or without community support. Plus, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, too, and not a really valid counterpoint.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 30, 2014 2:02 pm #

        Just FYI- there are valid and consistent uses of the slippery slope argument. In general terms, it is a relatively small event which, by nature of the other premises in play, can bring about a larger, less desirable event.

        Almost EVERY time this argument is used it is used fallaciously (in fact, any arguments used in this topic are fallacious if they rely on the slippery slope type logic), but it is not a fallacy in the way that affirming the consequent is.

        (sorry, really needed that off my chest ;))

  6. Avatar
    Morollan October 29, 2014 2:15 am #

    I’d just go with all attacks against the targeted unit are resolved at WS and BS1. This allows templates and blasts to still hit, albeit with reduced accuracy from blasts. The unit is hit on 5’s rather than 6’s in assault and still hit by 6’s only in shooting. A good defensive power but not game breaking and still worth casting (at WC2).

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:15 pm #

      The problem with that is that you give the unit an offensive buff unless you go on to specify that the attacking unit is only WS1 while hitting, not hit on WS1, which is the ame as saying hits on 5’s =)

  7. Avatar
    Cavalier October 29, 2014 3:11 am #

    Just remove it. lol

  8. Avatar
    Moridan October 29, 2014 3:49 am #

    …or just play against them like you would in 6th against a deathstar, which is to avoid it and play to take out their other units. It is just one unit, and it cant be everywhere at once.

    Just saying…

    • Avatar
      Gordon October 29, 2014 5:25 am #

      Because that worked so well that no one at all played any kind of deathstar army over the last few editions.

    • Avatar
      Jason Brown October 29, 2014 8:30 am #

      You can’t ignore 3 grav amped centurions with prescience and dragon gating them all over. Throw in Sevrwn Loth for guaranteed invis, play against that.

      • Avatar
        Jason Brown October 29, 2014 8:30 am #


      • Avatar
        W October 29, 2014 8:51 am #

        How many points does that unit cost? How many warp charges does a player need to have to reliably get off those three powers? If I assault that unit with 30 fearless guardsmen, he’s stuck, while the rest of his army is bound to be mediocre at best (from having to invest in warp charge-producers)

        • Avatar
          fluger October 29, 2014 9:28 am #

          He’s not stuck. He has gate. He leaves. Draigo + Loth + Cents is crazy good. It also doesn’t take a ton of warp charges to make it work well. You just REALLY need gate to go off, invis is just icing on the cake in that situation.

          • Avatar
            W October 29, 2014 12:42 pm

            Oh right, you can gate out of combat? I wasn’t certain. My bad. But still, it makes this a Gate-issue more than an Invisibility issue. As you say yourself, that is just the icing on the cake.

        • Avatar
          Jason Brown October 29, 2014 10:11 am #

          You Vassal? I can show you how retarded it is.

          • Avatar
            fluger October 29, 2014 11:21 am

            I do Vassal, I know it is good. That said, I would like to try and play against it.

          • Avatar
            Jason Brown October 29, 2014 2:18 pm

            Haha, I was talking to W. But ya, I need to figure that thing out. I figured that the invisacentstar would be so good it wouldnt matter.

          • Avatar
            CaptainA October 30, 2014 11:55 am

            Sorry Jason!

      • Jason
        Raw Dogger October 29, 2014 7:10 pm #

        Well that would also require more than 2 sources which is why the BAO events limits you to 2 choices. You could just take Tigurius for a guaranteed Invisibility and still stay within the 2 source limit. JUSSSS SAYYINNN PLAYA

  9. Avatar
    rexscarlet October 29, 2014 3:50 am #

    What are the other tournaments, Nova, Adepticon, etc.doing?
    What other rules are they doing differently than BaO?
    What are other sites saying?
    For Organized play (and General Start-Up play), IMHO there needs to be a governing body, so YES Nerf whatever needs Nerfing. No Virus, No Vortex, No 4th level Psykers.
    Note; IMHO If armies are fully painted (three color minimum and flocked bases) wysiwyg (as close as possible) and reasonable “Counts As” (no Proxy) then that player has put in the work, and should not be told he/she cannot play.
    If the “Bound” rules say it is allowed, then I will play them ONCE (maybe more, depending on personality), but I like to play all “start-up” games using a governing body.

    • Avatar
      Gordon October 29, 2014 5:30 am #

      They all already happened, and this is a reaction to the widespread use of invisibility at those events.

      The TOs do, in fact, communicate, but it’s easy to say that they should all do the same thing. Reality is a little more complicated. Or, a lot more complicated.

      • Avatar
        rexscarlet October 29, 2014 11:10 am #

        A lot more complicated, lol… 😉
        Again, if it is in the “Bound” rules, and they buy, build, and paint, I have no issues “once,” more than once depends on personality.

  10. Avatar
    Superunknown October 29, 2014 3:55 am #

    I do not know why the west coast has such a difficult time with invisibility. What top list still uses an invisible deathstar? Centurion with Tiggy? Seerstar is dead, no one plays Screamerstar anymore, and when they did, they did not use invis.

    One unit will be invisible at most. Kill everything else. No other large event changes it. Invisible units did not win Nova.(I do not think there was one in the top 10.) It did not win Feast either.

    I think it is just something good players should learn to work around.

    • Avatar
      Jason Brown October 29, 2014 8:34 am #

      I am seeing a TON of Drago (auto Gate…WC1), S Loth for auto invis and a full unit of centurions. You can avoid it and they typically have 2-3 Dreadkbights, so you are not going around killing stuff before everything starts getting wacked.

    • Avatar
      TheWarRoom October 29, 2014 11:18 am #

      A 256 player tournament is not only full of top 10 players.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:17 pm #

      It may be a regional thing, but at NOVA a lot of the finalists had lists that revolved around Invis, so, maybe not? It always amuses us on the west coast how much the east coast seems to fear Knights and AdLance. Differences in perspectives, I suppose.

      And yes, any good player can learn to adapt, but that has never been the point of the changes we propose.

  11. Avatar
    Chip October 29, 2014 4:52 am #

    With beastpack fully dead, I haven’t seen an issue with invis in a long time. Sure, the power is really good, but I just don’t see it as an issue at top tables lately.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:18 pm #

      It’s not about who wins tournaments per se, as that is a metric that involves so much more than 1 power, but it is about the power being unenjoyable to play against for a large number of players. However, as always, we don’t make a move like this without player support, so we’ll see how it shakes down.

  12. Avatar
    Wisdomls October 29, 2014 4:55 am #

    I like the change, just making it ‘All attacks against the invisible unit are resolved at BS & WS 1″ seems a little simpler.
    Sure a good player can work around an invisible unit but that fact remains the we play the game to have fun (or should do) and invisibility as it stands now is just not fun, especially for the opponent but also for the guy running it.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:19 pm #

      Making the attacker WS1 means the invisible unit get a bonus to offense. That is why it is worded as hits on 6’s in the actual power. We’d just change that number a hair.

      • Avatar
        Arclight October 30, 2014 2:43 pm #

        You’ve said this multiple times, but “all attacks against the Invisible unit are resolved at WS1 in combat” does not mean that the Invisible treats its opponents as WS1 when attacking themselves.

        The WS1 bit would only kick in when the Invisible unit is being attacked, not when they are attacking back.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 31, 2014 2:35 pm #

          True, but it is confusing enough that some folks would think it means they always get hit on 3’s by the invisible unit. The actual power uses the verbiage “hit’s on 6’s,” we would be using the exact same wording, but with a different number. Saying hits at WS1 is actually more of a divergence from what is currently the rule.

  13. Avatar
    dst123daniel October 29, 2014 4:56 am #

    Blast weapons should hit the same as barrage weapons without line of sight, and so always scatter the full distance unless a hit is rolled

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:19 pm #

      Saying BS1 essentially does the same thing.

  14. Avatar
    John October 29, 2014 5:53 am #

    If you are going to keep cutting 7th edition rules….why are we even playing this edition? Why not return to 5th when the game was actually enjoyable…that would get me to play again. Speaking of enjoyable games when are we going to get those warmachine articles that were promised? I stoped caring about 40k in May after I read the 7th edition rulebook and GW decided to kill the hobby.

    • Avatar
      droozy October 29, 2014 6:05 am #

      I like 7th edition. The hobby is alive and well, it just seems that you may have lost interest. Come back to the fold, you must want to on some level if you are spending your time reading and commenting on articles for a game you no longer play.

      • Avatar
        John October 30, 2014 6:00 am #

        More like the hobby is alive and well wherever you live. The game store I played at saw a group of 20-30 showing up on a regular basis completely fall apart about one month after 7th dropped all of the tourney players ran for the hills and they were the glue that held the group together. This also occured all over the Chicago area ask Adeptus Windy City about their tourney attendance since 7th dropped. When GW wipes the slate clean and starts over I will come back to the fold…OH thank you GW too for nerfing every single grey knight model I own…I appreciate that….one codex and every single painted model I have is totally worthless and would need to have weapons etc broken off and swapped…thanks GW so much for sticking it to your local fan base..we just appreciate it.

      • Avatar
        D-ManA October 30, 2014 6:31 am #

        We enjoy 7th in my area as well. With maelstrom missions added to the mix I’m having some of the most fun playing 40k in a long time and i have been playing since rogue trader.

        Reese why don’t you make some of your scenarios where the primary mission is maelstrom missions? It will shake things up a little and people will have to decide if they want to have all those points sunk into their invisibility deathstar or invest more points into units to capture objectives, just a thought. 😉

        • Avatar
          John October 30, 2014 9:35 am #

          I decided to vote with my wallet…I sold everything except the iyanden army frontline painted for me. I just like the paintjob and they don’t take up much shelf space. You know GW’s financials continuied to be in the toilet when they rolled out Space Hulk again. I can’t wait for the next financial report it will be lolztastic.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 30, 2014 11:09 am #

          I am loving 7th, too! We have considered that change, actually.

          • Avatar
            D-ManA October 30, 2014 11:34 am

            I’m glad that you are enjoying 7th. It felt like your heart got back into the game when the Ork codex dropped, you got around the mob rule and started thinking of different combos with them. I do hope the missions change becomes more than a consideration 🙂

          • Avatar
            John October 30, 2014 12:40 pm

            The 7th edition Ork codex made you actually want to play 40K? I think you saw a different version than the bland nerf bat edition I fliped through. I can’t wait for the tau and eldar codexes to be redone. Everything will get the nerf bat between now and then and they will find someone way to push those two books even more over the top….make the wave serpent shields 3d6 ignore cover shots up the armour to 15…. you know the typical GW treatment. As a retailer I think you should be putting more pressure on GW to make a game that is worth playing. I know you have alot invested in this stuff and no one really wants to see GW tank, but something needs to be done, because 40K is starting to becoming a dead game in the Chicago area.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:43 pm #

      Again, a logical fallacy. I understand what you are driving at, but it is silly. We don’t stop playing the game or switch editions because we like this one and it is impractical to do the later. We simply dislike some aspects of it. The argument of all or nothing with a rule set isn’t realistic.

      As for the Warmahordes articles, they got sidetracked but the author will be back on track this week it looks like. Glad you liked them!

  15. Avatar
    CaptainA October 29, 2014 6:09 am #

    Isn’t a rule like this only going to empower another build? I’m thinking the adamantine lance for one. I think the ws1 and 5 in cc are reasonable, but just autoallowing templates and blasts to work like normal is a huge reversal of the rule.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:45 pm #

      Blasts don’t work like normal, they scatter at WS1, which is actually a pretty big change for many units.

      Does it shift power? Yes, any change does.

      AdLance is actually complained about a lot, but, Invis is a universal rule and the one I get asked to change the most. I wanted to bring it up to the community.

  16. Avatar
    droozy October 29, 2014 6:11 am #

    Yeah, I guess it’s fair to nerf invis. I mean, the rest of us still have have to play against the eldar codex which is still way over the top compared to other codices. But you can’t nerf a whole codex so I understand grabbing the low hanging fruit. Sigh, I feel bad for be’lakor. Invisibility is what made him in this edition since they took puppet master(thieving cowards)

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:45 pm #

      Under the proposed changes, Invis would still be very good.

  17. Avatar
    Loopy October 29, 2014 6:36 am #

    -3 BS and WS instead of a flat 1. That’s my opinion.

  18. Avatar
    Stainless Steel Rat October 29, 2014 6:54 am #

    I think Reecius makes a good case for the proposed change. Having observed many power specific armies rolling for their psychic powers (usually other players’ opponents), it is amazing how often they are successful at that 1 in 6 chance of getting exactly what they want. That being said, they are less than happy to discover that I spot their cheats (former fraud investigators never forget how to do that) and have them re-roll in the presence of a third party. With that experience, I would suggest one of 2 changes in addition to Reecius’ change: 1) all roles for psychic powers must be done mid-table with the opponent clearly seeing and acknowledging the result, or 2) anybody rolling on the telepathy table must do so in the presence of a tournament official to eliminate this problem.

  19. Avatar
    Nuwisha October 29, 2014 7:04 am #

    Not sure if this overlaps (another power does this already) or is even more punishing (did not mathhammer), but how about forcing enemies shooting at or assaulting the unit to re-roll successful hits (and canceling re-rolls from things like twin-linked).
    Granted… It would impact templates and blasts much less then… But honestly if there is something invisible “out there” area of effect weapons should be your best bet.
    Maybe have blasts deviate full roll, not subtracting BS.

    No clue…

  20. Avatar
    DCannon4Life October 29, 2014 7:08 am #

    I’m in favor of the idea to increase the cost to Warp Charge 3, leaving the rest of the rules for Invisibility as they are now (I think this was Darklink’s proposal). This creates tension between the desire to cast it successfully (i.e. throw more dice at it) and the increased likelihood of a Perils. It has the additional effect of soaking up at least one more charge from the pool (probably two), impacting the effectiveness of the remainder of the psychic phase.

    • Avatar
      Loopy October 29, 2014 9:37 am #

      I’d rather actually change the thing about it that makes it broken rather than just make it harder to get the thing about it that makes it broken. Same thing with Waveserpents. While comp is an interesting way to play in tournaments, the only way to fix Waveserpents is to actually fix Waveserpents by nerfing the Serpent Shield.

      • Avatar
        fluger October 29, 2014 11:24 am #

        Drop it to 6″ range.

        • Avatar
          Jason Brown October 29, 2014 2:19 pm #

          exactly, how is a “last ditch” weapon got 24 inchess off the main turret?

  21. Avatar
    azactaylor October 29, 2014 7:08 am #

    My only thought is that Waveserpant’s are way better than Invisibility… So why have we not nerfed the shield on the serpent?

    • Avatar
      Loopy October 29, 2014 9:40 am #

      I tend to agree, but to answer your question, I think it’s because nerfing the Serpent Shield becomes a slippery slope of nerfing. Personally, I disagree with this. It would not be a slippery slope, but maybe two or three rounds of minor nerfs to a handful of specific rules and the game would be pretty balanced. Leastaways as balanced as it’s gonna get.

  22. Avatar
    Thomas October 29, 2014 7:26 am #

    Full scatter on blasts (and every blast scatter), only half the wounds caused by templates count (rounded down, 3 wounds = 1 wound), and snap fire on the rest. Hitting on 6+ in close combat.

    Or just up the cost to wc3.

  23. Avatar
    Charles October 29, 2014 7:57 am #

    Yes I agree Reece. Do it.

    There’s a few more items Id like see fixed. Number one on my priority list is the relic. JUST MAKE IT UNABLE TO BE MOVED MORE THAN 6 inches per turn, and only in the movement phase.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:47 pm #

      Yeah, the Relic thing always felt like an oversight. You cannot run but you can turbo boost….

  24. Avatar
    bridges60 October 29, 2014 8:17 am #

    If you mod that, then modify serpent shield. that is just as bad.

  25. Avatar
    Hulksmash October 29, 2014 8:42 am #

    So what unit is using invisibility to be nigh unstoppable? Let’s seriously look at this:

    Beastpack? Dead. You can’t hit-n-run without Baharroth and the sheer durability and number of models has dropped by almost half.

    Seer Council? Dead. Again, you can’t hit-n-run without Baharroth and the damage output on this unit is actually pretty low.

    Cent Star? Not Dead but not amazing. How many dice does a SM list regularly have? It also requires gate to be effective. That means you can’t just throw all your dice at invisibility if you want to move the unit. And without gate it’s easy to tarpit. And shooting wise it hits 2 whole units a turn.

    Screamerstar? Dead. You guys nerfed the hell out of it with the no more than one power per “unit” ruling and it doesn’t hit-n-run either.

    So what’s left? Guard Blobs? Seriously, it’s good power but it’s nto breaking the game. How about instead of nerfing a power you guys think is over the top adopting a more open organization format like this:

    0-2 Force Organization Detachments (ex. Combined Arms, Allied, Codex)
    0+ Formation Detachments
    All Detachments Unique

    Now people can bring a Culexus if they want to without hamstringing their army by giving up a detachment that allows for multiple choices. There I fixed your psychic power problem by opening up the rules to be more like how 7th was intended instead of changing rules out of the rulebook 🙂

    • Avatar
      Superunknown October 29, 2014 10:16 am #

      We need a “like” button.

    • Avatar
      Scumlord October 29, 2014 1:37 pm #

      Sound like you just want a free Culexus…everything is a tradeoff. So it’s cool if take three FB support cadres, thats 18 broadsides and three riptides, everything has interceptor, 18 S8 AP1 shots, 72 S5 AP5 shots, all twin-linked, plus whatever on the riptides…sounds fun! No troop tax, no HQ tax.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 29, 2014 1:41 pm #

        Free Culexus for all! Maybe armies should be 1850+ 1 Assassin of choice? 😉

        Seriously though, Nids would be thrilled to get a formation for free too… not sure anyone else really benefits… I guess it would make me slightly more likely to run the Helbrute formation competitively. Sorry, “Competitively”.

      • Avatar
        Superunknown October 30, 2014 3:04 am #

        You missed the part where he said all detachments unique.

      • Avatar
        Hulksmash October 30, 2014 4:40 am #

        I know that reading can be hard sometimes but here was the critical line of what I was saying again for you 🙂

        “All Detachments Unique”

        Keeps the big issues like multiple CAD’s and Tau Firebases under control.

        • Avatar
          Hulksmash October 30, 2014 4:41 am #

          I didn’t read the entire way through and can’t delete my above comment 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:49 pm #

      It’s not an unstoppable specific unit, more of a general change to a power that is too good and more importantly, not enjoyable to play against.

      And some folks would like to see more detachments, and I know you have always been one of them. However, for every detachment you increase the limit by, you increase the chances of uber-combos and deathstar 40k. What that means to you, depends on your perspective.

      • Avatar
        bigpig October 31, 2014 11:09 am #

        You also decrease variety as the same assassin/Coteaz, etc makes his way into so many lists

  26. Avatar
    Brian October 29, 2014 8:47 am #

    All for this, I love the fact that you guys are willing to make changes to keep the game fun. I fully support whatever you guys think you need to do.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:49 pm #

      Thanks, but we will put it to a vote, not just dictate it.

  27. Avatar
    5th Horseman October 29, 2014 9:08 am #

    I can see the argument for the nerf. However, I agree with Hulksmash above’s assessment. One thing that might also be viable is instead of nerfing something that is viewed as OP, buff the units that GW saw fit to kick in the jimmies. Something like what NOVA did for their narrative event which was not take away anything from the units that are good but give some of the stinkers a little help to get them back on the table (not in an OP way).

  28. Jason
    Raw Dogger October 29, 2014 9:18 am #

    First you nerfed the Seer Council now Invisibility? How the hell is Grant supposed to win a game? HUH?

  29. Avatar
    Jural October 29, 2014 9:41 am #

    I don’t see Invis as any worse than Serpent spam, and I really don’t like re-writing rules. If it must be done, simple is better:

    so wouldn’t WC 3 (or even 4) be a better, simpler change?

    Alternately consider only modifying the CC aspect? Literally change the rule to hit on 5’s (normally the worst result available in the game.)

    The whole idea that people won’t have fun because they can’t participate is weird to me. So many of the best lists cancel out other lists. My Nids can’t really play against Knights and most LoW (until the Hierodule arrives), Serpant Spam and/or marker lights (or lack of terrain) can often signal doom by the end of turn 1. At least invisibility on an opponent lets me move my f-ing models around the table for a few turns to pretend I’m doing something!

  30. Avatar
    Bellerah October 29, 2014 9:42 am #

    I think this change is totally needed. This power is out of line with the other psy powers. I would image this power should be something like 6-8 warp charges to cast successfully given its value over other powers.

    I consider my self a good player, but not great. My lists are solid but not optimized. I can understand the best players with the best lists can handle Invis as is.

    But the good players with good lists get steamrolled. if your middle class is getting rolled to an abusive power, then they just leave. That is not good for the community.

    The change proposed seems one of the easiest to implement. And still puts it close to the top of the 2 charge abilities (or any WC abilities)

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:50 pm #

      I agree GW really didn’t think this one through all the way.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 30, 2014 1:55 pm #

        lol… “this one”…

  31. Avatar
    Jural October 29, 2014 9:50 am #

    One other thought- Maybe the hard counter for Invis is already out there but hasn’t had a chance to get tested in tournament play?

    *cough* assassin *cough*

    De-activating invisibility AND pulling WC from the unit to power their psychic machine gun… priceless!

    • Avatar
      DCannon4Life October 29, 2014 10:32 am #

      Frankly difficult to get the assassin into range. Played 3 games with one (not particularly statistically valid, I know). Never made its points back. Assassins are not a hard counter to psychic stars, just ‘a’ counter.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 29, 2014 11:43 am #

        Yep, and in a BAO/LVO setting they take up a valuable “detachment/source/army building unit thing”, which is far from trivial

        • Avatar
          W October 29, 2014 12:45 pm #

          Is that an issue with Invisibility or the strict restrictions on sources implemented by these tournaments?

          The problem with the Culexus is that only Imperial armies can get him where he needs to be (in a transport).

          • Avatar
            Jural October 29, 2014 1:34 pm

            It’s not an issue with Invis at all- just me agreeing with DCannon that maybe the Culexes isn’t a “hard counter” to Invis.

  32. Avatar
    Yojimbo October 29, 2014 10:24 am #

    Everyone immediately jumps to “nerf wave serpent”.
    The thing is, invisibility is a power that almost every army has access too. And with allies, then EVERY army has access to it.

    Serpents are only available to eldar via main army or allies. That is far to focused a nerf. That being said… I don’t think any eldar players would complain if you knocked the Shield shot down to D3+1 and removed ignore cover. That makes it much more fair, imo.

    • Avatar
      Vendra October 29, 2014 11:04 am #

      “The thing is, invisibility is a power that almost every army has access too. And with allies, then EVERY army has access to it.”

      *looks at his poor tyranids and cries*

  33. Avatar
    jmanj123 October 29, 2014 10:46 am #

    Reece, I do not think the nerf is needed, but my bigger complaint about this discussion is the same one I had last year when you did this. First, you know I like you and think you do your best in being fair and honest in running your business. However, for the second year in a row, you have posted the tournament rules, nearly sold out of the event based on the posted rules, then proposed a significant rules change. Why did this discussion not happen between the end of the BAO and before you started selling tickets for this event? Please understand that for some, this is a classic bait and switch, sell me a product based on certain parameters, then change those parameters. You just got burned by the verbal lease agreement falling through, so take that lesson and apply it to your business decisions I do not use a deathstar, but one of my active lists is still my FMC demon list. So, two years in a row now, you have sold me a ticket for your event, and proposed changes that affect my list and certain rules that I use within my list. I think many have posed valid points about why this nerf is not needed, but I think you need to consider the business end of this stuff. Stop making significant changes to the format after you have announce an event and sold tickets for it. If you want to make major changes, do a vote or survey after an event, then make the changes prior to announcing and selling tickets for the next one. Timing is everything on this stuff.

    • Avatar
      Andrew October 29, 2014 11:33 am #

      I think you are the exception to the rule. nobody I know would have their exact list set 4 months in advance of a tourney, we always tweak it based on the shifting meta and our own preferences, and in an atmosphere where GW is constantly releasing new model and rule sources. the idea they are “bait-and-switching” us is foolish considering how hard these guys work to provide a fun and competitive atmosphere. they are proposing these changes well in advance and few large tournies have the player pack finalized 4 months before the event.

    • Avatar
      Jural October 29, 2014 11:46 am #

      Counterpoint- Soliciting community feedback on a point is different from changing an LVO rule. Reece has the option to:

      1) Do nothing with this info
      2) Wait until after the LVO to implement
      3) Offer refunds if someone is cheesed off
      4) collect the data then track the issue more heavily at LVO

      All of the above would be quite reasonable and I would find it hard to say was “bait and switch” in any classic sense.

    • Avatar
      Bellerah October 29, 2014 1:11 pm #

      Another point is when you bought your ticket, the rules were actually not known to you. You assumed they would be constant between now and then, but that is just an assumption you are making. GW could put out an FAQ, new codexs, an updated psy deck.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 29, 2014 1:39 pm #

        That’s true- everyone will need to adjust their lists for the inevitable Blood Angels drop, the Necron redux.

        But nobody will be changing their list to deal with the two new Tyranid bugs ;( Actually, Tyranid players are probably the least equipped to deal with both bugs 😉

        • Avatar
          iNcontroL October 29, 2014 7:21 pm #


        • Avatar
          bigpig October 29, 2014 7:34 pm #


    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 1:58 pm #

      Hey Jeremy,

      Yeah, I 100% see your point, especially for you as you got the same treatment last year. If I was you, I cannot say I would react differently.

      However, hair splitting here, a bait and switch would be if you paid for something and showed up and got something else. What we are proposing to do here (it may not happen) is to make a change well in advance, and if anyone thought it was no longer worth their dollar, they can get a refund of course. That is the only fair way to handle it.

      As for timing, ideally yes, you are right, it should be done far out in advance. However, this is a dynamic thing we do with set dates. And, I have been getting asked about altering this specific rule a lot lately, and it has come to a head here, so we raised the issue.

      If we do bring it to a vote, it may not work out. I was opposed to CtA allies, but, the majority of folks wanted that so in they go. I simply state my opinion, and then we see what the community wants to do.

      But, if this change does occur, it doesn’t invalidate Invis, it just tones it down. It would still be incredibly good.

  34. Avatar
    Andrew October 29, 2014 11:28 am #

    putting in my vote for changing it to WS1 and BS1, basically etherium rule for the culexis assassin

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 12:35 pm #

      Only problem with that is that is gives them a bonus to hit.

      • Avatar
        DCannon4Life October 30, 2014 1:37 pm #

        Hard to avoid being hit by what you can’t see….

  35. Avatar
    Vendra October 29, 2014 11:35 am #

    I have always been the advocate of playing the game with the rules as they are written even in tournaments, and I have to say that yes invisibility has always been a pain because I love to play tyranids and they can never get invisibility. I would love nothing more than to see invisibility nerfed, but I have read many compelling arguments here as to why it should not be nerfed and I would have to side with those people. Meta changes, armies change, things just change. Something new will come and I really do look forward to seeing what the top tier players do.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 12:36 pm #

      Do you play unbound and unrestricted lords of war in tournaments? Most players do not, they already modify the rules. The question then becomes, how much do we change the rules to make the game more enjoyable? It is a different answer for different people.

  36. Avatar
    tiber55 October 29, 2014 12:28 pm #

    Allowing blasts and barrage to target invisible units is a way harsher nerf to invisibility than changing 2+ rerollabale especially since knights and ia13 lists wI’ll both be using blasts to great effect and will be at the top end of the meta.

    • Avatar
      Jural October 29, 2014 1:29 pm #

      Having played some flyer heavy lists, I agree with this. (as in- flyers also can’t be targetted by blasts and templates.)

      The difference is- it sort of fits the narrative that templates and blasts can’t target flyers… but using a flamer on an invisible unit seems reasonable… and don;t get me started on things like no line of sight barrage or the Hive Guard seeking shots!

  37. Avatar
    CNitram October 29, 2014 2:33 pm #


    – Flamer templates act as normal;
    – Blast templates scatter w/o subtracting BS;

    – Serpent Shield range down the 24″ and unable to target flyers.
    ** Personally, I always picture the shield as traveling horizontally along the ground like a wave crashing into the beach/shoreline.

  38. jy2
    jy2 October 29, 2014 2:34 pm #

    I vote Nerf It!

  39. Avatar
    Loopy October 29, 2014 5:39 pm #

    Sideboards might also be a good option. I’d love to see what a tournament with open-book sideboard detachments look like as far as standings are concerned.

    • Avatar
      Jural October 30, 2014 12:40 pm #

      +1… certainly seems like it would be a lot of fun to try it as well.

  40. Avatar
    iNcontroL October 29, 2014 7:27 pm #

    I preferred making it WC3 which I think is a really solid nerf but at the same time if you are going to get it off you are going to be rewarded. That said I am not miffed at all by the proposed nerf. Basing your entire army on a power that negates a LOT of what your opponent can do to you is silly and is a part of that deathstar mentality that a lot of people find very unappealing. Invisible beast packs, centurions or councils hit hard and have good saves behind that power as well.. it’s silly.

    Ask yourselves: What army becomes significantly weaker with this nerf? Is invisibility a crutch for anyone? Gating centurions are still amazing. Belakor will forever jink for 2 or 3 ups. The councel can still get a 2+/4+ if you play by the BAO rules. Who REALLY needs this power? I think it is more that people DO get this power and take a really powerful unit and make it fairly broken.. people are complaining about wave serpents in here but for the most part while very powerful and obviously silly good you CAN interact with them and you CAN take weapons that deal with them. With invisibility outside of a culexes you have nothing.. that or 20+ WC of your own.

    • Avatar
      Hulksmash October 30, 2014 5:06 am #

      You can take weapons, units and powers that deal with invisibility. Be it multiple shot twin linked weapons or nova powers, or stomping super heavies/garg. creatures. You can interact with them as much as you can most wave serpent based armies.

      Nerfing it doesn’t nerf any armies. That said if it doesn’t nerf a particularly bad build (which we’ve already pointed out doesn’t really exist anymore) then why are we still nerfing it? Changing rules to change rules based on units that don’t exist in the previous form with the release of the Dark Eldar Codex?

      I just feels like an overreaction to something that isn’t even in the game anymore.

  41. Avatar
    Rikkumon October 29, 2014 7:28 pm #

    Hey all – I must admit that I haven’t played against a lot off invis – but would simply making it ‘choose either the ranged or close combat protection’ help? This would force more tactical decision making on both the caster and the defender and have the added benefit of making well rounded shooting and assault lists?

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:44 am #

      That is a viable alternative for sure.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 30, 2014 12:23 pm #

        For most turns/units it really isn’t a major choice though, and it adds some book-keeping.

        Not a bad idea IMHO, I just like some of the others better (especially WC 3)

  42. Avatar
    Rev October 29, 2014 10:22 pm #

    What about just making it like Vortex of Doom. If you do not successfully manifest it you take a Perils result.

  43. Avatar
    azactaylor October 30, 2014 5:40 am #

    What super power lists are we all afraid of that we are having to nerf Invisibility?

    I will run invisibility with my Grey Knights, by dammit, I actually need it to live till the end of the game! Even when using Invisibility my other units get focused down while this unit may take out 1 unit a turn… however I usually have to assault to even get close. The only thing that has saved a game for me was putting Invisibility on a Dreadknight at one point.

    So what list are you afraid of on the table? I am just curious more than anything… I probably do not use invisibility to be a dick, but rather I use it to survive to the end of the game… giving me a small chance of winning.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:26 am #

      Again, these aren’t specific units that we fear per se, simply that the power itself is largely perceived to be unfun. We will put it to a vote as we do though, and if the majority of folks want to play it as it lays, then that is what we will do.

      • Avatar
        azactaylor October 30, 2014 11:41 am #

        Thanks for the reply Reecius.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 30, 2014 11:43 am #

          NP =)

          • Avatar
            Superunknown October 31, 2014 3:16 am

            But there are a lot of things that are unfun to play against. I do not find it fun to play against 7 wave serpents. I do not find it fun to play against 5 Knights, or 3 Riptides and 9 broadsides. Fun is objective. Maybe someone has fun running an invisible Centurion Star. The only time I have used invis is with Bel’akor and I targeted my Seekers with it. Every game there were still less than 5 Seekers on the table at the end of the game.. =p

            I just dislike make changes of this nature. But you have to keep your tourney customers happy in the end.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 31, 2014 2:32 pm

            I totally get what you are saying and yes, fun is subjective for sure. However, in this instance a large number of people have voiced their opinion that they agree this specific thing is not fun. When enough people say the same thing, we take notice and if we feel like we have, take action, too.

            We don’t like changing rules either, honestly, it is a monumental pain in the ass. But, GW games are not very balanced.

  44. Avatar
    John October 30, 2014 6:03 am #

    I got a question, if we are reqriting the rules…..Why don’t we just rewrite the Dark Angel codex so it has a shot or lower the point costs of the units in it? If we are going down that route we should just rewrite the entire game honestly. Make a set of rules for building armies that doesn’t require an advanced degree to understand and two hours of argument with the person you are playing each time you want to try and get a game in.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:10 am #

      This is a very old argument, but it always comes up. The slippery slope. However, it is also a proven logical fallacy. We aren’t talking about changing the entire game, just one aspect of it.

      • Avatar
        John October 30, 2014 12:35 pm #

        Yeah but honestly its a popular argument, because where do you stop? You should ban adamantine lance too if you get rid of invisibility etc….then wave serpents as has been mentioned other places in this thread…All of these changes still don’t let the sad face codex have a chance to play…where is the love for the sisters players and the dark angels fans. I think if you are going to rewrite the rules you should at least do something for them to make their books have some sort of chance. Honestly if GW could care less about game balance you are just always fighting an up hill struggle to balance their game system. Just my two cents…also why I quit after playing for 20 years.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 30, 2014 12:40 pm #

          Well, a lot of logical fallacies are popular, doesn’t mean they are sound arguments =P Lots of people also thought the world was flat, doesn’t mean it was…see what I did there? Extrapolating something out to an extreme and using it as a counter doesn’t really hold water. I’m not being combative here either, just trying to illustrate a point.

          We aren’t talking about Wave Serpents or AdLance in this instance, so bringing them into the discussion (while understandable) doesn’t pertain to the issue at hand.

          I would love to give a boost to weaker books, but, the objective is to alter things the least amount possible and only when you have to.

          • Avatar
            John October 30, 2014 12:52 pm

            I think it is interesting that we are debating logic and then having this discussion within the context of games and decisions made by GW….deliciously ironic….I don’t see where it is much of an extrapolation, because if you start making changes to cater to someone’s opinions of how to “balance” the game, then someone else is going to fire back what about X what about Y….all you are doing is moving the goal line. You want 40K to be something that is not and you basically have to significantly rewrite portions of it to get to a quasi playable form in a tournament setting…if you want to argue with that then just run army consturction pure out of the book in the do whatever you want format…that would be an entertaining train wreck. You basically had to put together an extensive list of how to build armies, because GW decided to print a rule set that lets you take and do whatever….you start changing the game to make it fun, fair, and balanced, why make as few changes as possible? Why not actually do what you are intending….the few minor changes you are proposing will just shift the meta slightly to knights or to eldar or whatever other OP thing that you failed to comp.

          • Avatar
            bigpig October 30, 2014 1:29 pm

            In response to John above, the changes are in response to the “community’s” opinion, not “someone’s”.

            It seems they are taking input and will put it out there to gather the opinion of those who will be playing in that environment. You seem to be singling this out as the “will of Reece,” and while he is proposing it, this is in response to problems seen in the community. This is not an arbitrary one man show when it comes to making minor tweaks to enhance the enjoyment of those who will attend. It is probably more reasonable for FLG to do it this way than to make an arbitrary and unilateral decision that there will be no changes

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 30, 2014 2:01 pm

            Exactly. I am actually speaking for a large number of people that approach me about the topic. I happen to agree in this case, but it is not me trying to impose my will on everyone. I just get the ax falling on my head as I am the one who brings it up, but that is OK, comes with the territory.

  45. Avatar
    CaptainA October 30, 2014 9:05 am #

    So looking at some data from Nova and BAO

    BAO Top Ten
    1st Overall Champion Steve Sisk Space Marines – No Invisibility
    2nd Overall Carlos Kaiser Space Marines – No Invisibility
    3rd Overall Adam Gati Eldar-Dark Eldar – Invisibility
    4th Overall Adam Merlic Tau Empire – No Invisibility
    5th Overall Julio Rodriguez Space Marines – No Invisibility
    6th Overall Alex Gonzalez Necrons – No Invisibility
    7th Overall Chris Long Necrons – Chaos Space Marines – No Invisibility
    8th Overall Sean McNamara Space Marines – Invisibility
    9th Overall Tim Deetlefs Eldar-Dark Eldar – Invisibility
    10th Overall Ben Schimmoller Space Marines – Imperial Guard – No Invisibility

    3 of 10 lists had a chance to get invisibility

    NOVA Top Ten
    1st Overall Champion Tony Kopach Nova 2014 – No Invisibility
    2nd Overall Thomas Donslund Nova Open 2014 – Invisibility
    3rd Overall Gareth Hunt Nova Open 2014 – Invisibility
    4th Overall Aaron Aleong Nova Open 2014 – No Invisibility
    5th Overall Lee Zagrzebski Nova Open 2014 – No Invisibility
    6th Overall Zach Pawlikowski Nova Open 2014 – No Invisibility
    7th Overall Matt Schuchman Nova Open 2014 – Invisibility
    8th Overall Frankie Giampapa Nova Open 2014 – Invisibility
    9th Overall Matthew Robertson Nova Open 2014 – Invisibility
    10th Overall Justin Adams Nova Open 2014 – No Invisibility

    5 out of 10 lists had a chance to get invisibility

    So 8 out of 10 had a chance to get invisibility, but I don’t know that they were. The winners of both tournaments were not using invisibility.

    I’m not saying don’t change it, just that many of the top armies are not even using it. Seems a lot of the top players are going more for things that they can count on, like Khan’s scouting ability.

    • Avatar
      Slaede October 30, 2014 9:09 am #

      Good points. This is an overreaction to a power that is overblown.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:08 am #

      Again, the point here is not that the power auto-wins, it does not. The point is that it is unenjoyable to play against for a large number of people just as the 2+ reroll save was.

      • Avatar
        CaptainA October 30, 2014 11:15 am #

        I don’t know that I would enjoy a game against the adamantine lance and I am really tired of playing against wave serpent spam although I do understand your point. Again, I’m not saying don’t change it, but be careful as for my centstar list, without invis I really don’t have a lot of chance against the adamantine lance.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 30, 2014 11:43 am #

          I see the point you make, and understand, but I raise this point as a reaction to a lot of feedback on the topic. We are not talking about slippery slope arguments, just about invis.

          • Avatar
            CaptainA October 30, 2014 12:00 pm

            Totally understand. I just worry that the more changes we make will just narrow the band of the top lists of the meta.

        • Avatar
          DCannon4Life October 30, 2014 11:55 am #

          Hah! I’m tired of playing against the Adamantium Lance too–and I do it without resorting to Serpent/Wraith Knight spam!

          Oh: I’m 0-3 in tournaments vs. the Adamantium Lance and 1-5 overall. Good times. Missions help/hurt. Haven’t played against it in a true Maelstrom where low model count becomes a significant factor.

  46. Avatar
    Slaede October 30, 2014 9:07 am #

    Gonna nerf adamantine lance while you’re at it? A lot of armies can’t deal with that. This nerf does nothing to make an invisible T-Wolf cavalry star less unstoppable. Your 2+/4+ nerf didn’t stop Seer Council from winning LVO. What you are proposing will not have much of an effect.

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:07 am #

      I think you miss the point. The point is not to stop if from being good, or taken. We still think it should be good, we still think it should be taken, we just feel that it should be toned down. We didn’t want Seercouncil to not win at LVO, we wanted people that played against it to enjoy the game and feel like they could actually kill the unit and not just watch it do whatever it wanted.

      • Avatar
        Slaede October 30, 2014 3:21 pm #

        My point is, you’re not actually fixing anything while being awfully picky choosey about what you “fix”.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 31, 2014 2:34 pm #

          I hear you. But please remember, this isn’t me specifically as an individual choosing what to do. This is me simply being the mouthpiece for a large number of folks that have asked for this. I am presenting it to the community to get more feedback and if necessary, put it to a vote. I am not unilaterally choosing anything for everyone else.

  47. Avatar
    CaptainA October 30, 2014 9:17 am #


    Jesse Newton Farsight-Tau-Inqusitition 1st Seed – No Invisibility
    Tim Gortham’s Space Marines-Space Marines-Inquisition 2nd Seed – Invisibility
    Tyler DeVries’s Tau-Space Marines-Inqusition 3rd Seed – No Invisibility
    Bill Kim’s Daemons 4th Seed – Invisibility (Fateweaver)
    Sean Nayden’s Eldar-Dark Eldar 5th Seed – Invisibility
    Brad Townsend’s Tau-Eldar 14th Seed – Invisibility
    Clark Welch’s Legion of the Damned-Eldar-Inquisition 7th Seed – No Invisibility
    Matt Schuchman’s Eldar-Dark Eldar-Inquisition 8th Seed – Invisibility
    Robert Tilly’s Deamons-Chaos Space Marines 9th Seed RUNNER UP – Invisibility (Fateweaver)
    Tony Grapando’s Eldar-Dark Eldar-Inquisition 10th Seed – Invisibility
    Nick Nanavati Deamons-Chaos Space Marines 11th Seed OVERALL WINNER – Invisibility
    Brad Chester’s Eldar-Dark Eldar-Inqusition 12th Seed – Invisibility
    Alex Fennell’s Eldar-Dark Eldar-Inqusition 13th Seed – Invisibility
    Brad Nichols’s Tau-Space Marines-Inquisition 6th Seed – Invisibility
    Troy Esposito’s Space Wolves 15th Seed – No Invisibility
    Alex Bessinger’s Daemons 16th Seed – Invisibility (Fateweaver)
    12 of 16 had a chance at invisibility but three of those were Fateweaver.

    • Avatar
      DCannon4Life October 30, 2014 10:26 am #

      6th edition results from AdeptiCon? Are they relevant given the changes to how Invisibility works?

      • Avatar
        CaptainA October 30, 2014 10:41 am #

        I was wondering why they said 6ed…lol, forgot it was a 6th tourney.

        • Avatar
          DCannon4Life October 30, 2014 11:56 am #

          No worries. 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:05 am #

      Yeah, exactly this. While those are 6th ed results, 7th ed Invis is actually better and many top lists still revolve around it.

      • Avatar
        Hulksmash November 1, 2014 6:56 am #

        No, no they don’t….

        One list might make use of it. Centurion Star. Name another top list that revolves around inivisibility….

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 1, 2014 9:02 am #

          Brad, not here to split hairs with you, but fine, I’ll play ball. FMC daemons, any list that uses Be’Lakor or Lloth, many eldar builds, etc.

          And, considering you never come to our events, lol, your opposition here must he purely academic. =p

  48. Avatar
    deFl0 October 30, 2014 10:25 am #

    Lame. I hate when tournies fuck with core rules. Lists with invisibility are beatable as is… and so are waveserpents and so are 5 knights and so are lists with rerollable 2++.

    Yes they are frustrating, but honestly a better solution is maelstrom missions and missions with multiple objectives.

    Tournies tend to use single objective missions which only re enforces the unkillable deathstars…

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:03 am #

      We do use modified maelstrom missions with multiple objectives. Also, do you go to tournaments that use unbound rules, unlimited detachments, etc? If the answer is no, which is probably is, you go to tournaments that modify core rules already. And, as always, the issue is not that these things are unbeatable, they are not, it is that they make the game less fun to play for a lot of people.

  49. Avatar
    azactaylor October 30, 2014 10:59 am #

    Maelstrom missions are way to random. I have won and lost games due to card draws. I mean I drew an objective I was just sitting on in the corner 3 times. That was basically a free 3 points. I think that adding in more objectives overall is a great way to counter the death stars!

    Is this decision already made or is it still in the process of being decided?

    • Reecius
      Reecius October 30, 2014 11:04 am #

      We will put it to a vote. I have been getting hit up very frequently about this in the past two months.

      • Avatar
        Jural October 30, 2014 12:28 pm #

        Good call- I suggest breaking the poll up into two questions (minimum) though-

        1. Should invisibility be changed

        2. how should it be changed.

        You don’t want the people who dislike changes to the rules as a whole being locked out of the vote on how to change it. I suspect this would lead to a more radical change than is ideal.

        While you are at it, are there other topics for feedback? I seem to remember the 2 detachment issue was a hot button with strong opinions on each side, as was the potential inclusion of CtA allies and some mechanics of Maelstorm objectives.

        • Reecius
          Reecius October 30, 2014 12:41 pm #

          The only other issue brought up lately has been 2 vs 3 detachments. That may, or may not be the topic of another article =)

          • Avatar
            Jural October 30, 2014 1:55 pm

            I seem to remember a CtA thread you posted awhile ago with a lot of back and forth.

            But honestly, that’s more of an “atmosphere” or “immersion” issue than a “OMG, game broken, #ragequit” argument, so maybe best left up to the TO’s depending upon the type of event they’d like to run…

            Although I feel that I haven’t posted a joke about ‘Nids and “Nights in awhile… which is surely bothering nobody but me.

          • Reecius
            Reecius October 30, 2014 1:59 pm

            Yeah, and more folks wanted CtA so we went with it.And Knights and Nids, gah, the fluff gods rage at this! lol

    • Avatar
      DCannon4Life October 30, 2014 11:59 am #

      Take a look at the AdeptiCon Maelstrom cards (and missions). They’re in draft form, but already vastly superior to GW’s. I won’t even bother to play the GW ones (and I bought a deck out of pure optimism…), these are good:



      Pay close attention to the different ways cards are accumulated in the three primer missions.

      • Avatar
        D-ManA October 30, 2014 1:14 pm #

        We use the GW tactical mission cards and have no problem with them. The only modification we made was if you draw an non-achievable card (killing a flyer when your opponent doesn’t have any flyers) you get to discard it and draw another one.

  50. Avatar
    Maelstorm October 31, 2014 2:54 pm #

    Another Possibility: Leave it “as-is” (snapshots only) with a twist:

    At the start of the shooting phase you must declare which direction the Invisibility shield is facing (like the Imperial Knight shield). Turn your psyker to face the direction you want to be shielded. Only incoming shots/assaults from that direction are at affected. All other facings shoot and assault as normal.

  51. Avatar
    Swanson4969 November 1, 2014 12:15 pm #

    Hey I think this us a lot of whining over nothing. I plan on bringing daemons to the LVO. But now we are nerfing invis. We have already got rid of 2+/2+. How exactly am I going to get my army across the table against 6 fast moving wave serpents plus two wraith knights etc…..
    I guess I am going to be forced to try and get cursed earth and take the grimoire. Invis is in no way game breaking. I hate playing against the ad lance and wave serpents but know what it is part of the game. Guess I will just have to play a different army. Probably the only thing game breaking about it are the special characters that automatically get it. I would really hate for you to nerf it.

Leave a Reply