So still pondering a restricted Lords of War allowance, as I think GW is going to continue to push them on us regardless (i.e., nerfing Ghazkull yet still making him a Lord of War).
I hope it is something we can all understand is meant to push Lords of War, but they are the designers of the game, and it's their game we play. Recognize that due to the bonus points due to wounds dealt / steal the initiative bonus for facing Lords of War, and the fact he lost an invul and gained ... nothing (he already had Eternal Warrior, for those who erroneously posted initial reactions commenting that he gained it), Ghazkull is substantially worse than he was before (and he was already a poor choice).
So taking a model, nerfing it, and making it a Lord of War, is sort of silly.
Regardless, the notion of allowing at least some Lords of War has been nagging at us, and we're still considering it.
We're working hard on the draft FAQ. We're also working hard to finalize the revised mission catalog ... updates to the missions in short-hand change notes ....
Mission #1 - Deployment Zone objectives only accumulate points (in the accumulation choice) on turns 3-5. Other objectives accumulate 2-6. There are now 6 objectives, in a hexagonal shape (2 in dep zones 24" in from short edges, 2 in midfield 12" in from short edges).
Mission #2 - Major changes; 5 objectives in play; center of table and center of each quarter. Center objective is the Relic. Goal 1 - Relic is now worth 5 points if held at end of the game, each objective is worth 2 points, max of 9 points as usual for the primary. Goal 2 - Points accumulation as per Mission #1, except the Relic (which, if you choose Goal 2, you cannot move) is worth 2 points/turn accumulated instead of 1. Still cannot accumulate homefield objectives except for Turns 3-5.
Mission #3 - Simplified wording of MKP, roughly the same mission; should be much easier to read and play.
Mission #4 - No major changes, aligned with others for the revised catalog to address "All score" / etc.
Mission #5 - Major changes for simplification and quality. Goal 1 - Points Superiority table quarters at end game; objective secured units are always worth full points.Units must be able to Score to count (thus no zooming / swooping / etc.). Goal 2 - Control Markers your units place down in table quarters, maxing at 2 per quarter.
We've also added a lot of language to make it easier to understand Mission #5, and make it much clearer how to play.
These will be updated ASAP. We are working hard and burning the midnight oil to get all this stuff codified and published for the July 1 newsletter; if for any reason that's delayed, we'll release a news splash very shortly thereafter.
Yes, GW is trying to force LoW upon us, but until such a time as they become readily available to all factions and have their rules balanced, keep Super Heavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures out of tournaments.
ReplyDeleteBan super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures. Arbitrary ban lists aren't the answer right now, many Factions are not fairly represented and many units are terribly balanced. Obvious offenders as the Transcendant CTan will destroy and remaining tournament scene we have left.
I for one will avoid tournaments that include them. One of the main reasons I was eager to sign up and did for the NOVa was the strong leaning towards not including Lords of War. Seeing as Ghaz has become a Lord of war, maybe the restriction needs to me on Superheavy Vehicles and Gargantuan creatures, not on the FOC Slot Lords of War. It's the simplest, most streamlined, and true to 40k competitive precedent as we've got. GW may be trying to force it upon is, but arbitrary restrictions and allowances aren't good, whereas a simple and clear exclusion of Super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures maintains some semblance of sanity on the tabletop, and is most reminiscent of competitive 40k at its height. Opening Pandoras Box, even selectively will make it harder and harder to put that particular genie back in the bottle. The scale and scope of the game changes.
Now, many don't cause problems and are fine, but others are problematic and selective ban lists are difficult while still leaving many factions without effective and even cost effective options.
Let GW put certain LoWs in each codex, and support them with less expensive NonForgeworld models before they gain wide admission.
My 2 Cents for what it is worth.
The scale and scope of the game are changing. You can't just pretend it's not happening. And the ban list proposed by BAO isn't arbitrary. It's based on a specific type of weapon. Apoc size templates (10" or Hellstorm) that ignore cover and are AP2 or extremely good a making you pick up a 10" circle of your army (vehicles and all).
DeleteThat said I'm fine with a limited LoW list. Especially since we have the no double force orgs and no unbound. We essentailly already have a LoW in the Knight and it's not breaking the game. And now we have a second/third LoW included in a codex. Like it or not the people entering the game at this point are going to assume the stuff in their book is ok to play everywhere. It's something the community needs to start accepting.
Either way I'll be there at Nova. No idea what I'm running yet. I finally got some games in now that I've moved and have the 40k bug again so I'm looking forward to the finalized rules so I can start building/painting my Nova list.
Grr... Forum at my well crafted response, here is the abridged version...
DeleteI agree, the scale and scope are changing. GW is going to open everything up and expects the players to decide what kings of games they are playing.
The three biggest problems with SH and GCs...
1. Balance. Some are broken, badly and have to be removed.
2. Buffing. Allowing standard buffs for SH and GC is not good. Precienced Invisible Titans... Auto Repair SH...
3. Buying. Some armies have access to the "relatively" inexpensive GW kits, while other armies simply do not.
4. Availability. Factions to not have anywhere near equal access to SH or GC. Some armies severely are lacking in options, especially when a ban list is used. This also goes to GH and GC counters.
Now, their ban list isn't arbitrary, I used the language there. But, having to pick and choose gets a bit sticky where the cleanest, simplest, and most equitable solution is to simply ban SH and GCs from tournament play.
Just because GW want to open up the entire breath of their model line for 40k, that doesn't mean the community can't keep some of it reigned in and sane.
Im sorry Lee, but your argument falls flat when you preferance it with such things as "arbitrary bans on LoW". The ban list has been pretty well thought out from what i can see.
ReplyDeleteIm fine with Nova going either way no Low or Limited.
I think the only thing both BAO and NOVA need to decide on is the "Little things dont work on Big things issue" with super heavies and gargantuan creatures. Should Buffs/repairs/powers that work on normal 40k models also work on these models ? Personally i see nothing good coming from it and would like to see the rule taken into account.
-ed
Arbitrary was the wrong word, but it was a selective ban and that gets messy, not to mention the rules issues you've brought up and have been mentioned before.
DeleteAllowing SH and GCs drastically changes the game and until we have balanced, available options for Factions, allowing them, even piecemeal is a bad idea.
yes .. selective bans can get messy, however the limited bans were focused on very specific game breaking things. Mostly low AP ignores cover giant templates. The C-tran ban is because its just retarded. Now you generally have things left that are really no worse than seeing a Imp Knight across the table from you.
DeleteI agree that the focus of the bans is appropriate, and I even think its a good list, and the remaining options aren't terribly game breaking in any real respect.
DeleteBut, my main concern and problem arises from SHs and GCs favoring the Imperium Faction, the potential rules abuses and buffing/repairing etc SHs and GC, and subjectively the forced alternation and scope change to the game.
Availability. The Imperium simply has an unfair advantage with access to a plethora of SHs whereas other factions may have access to one for two, most of which are cost prohibitive monetarily speaking(~$500 for an Orca Dropship for example). They have access to the vast majority of Super Heavies, are Battle Brothers and access to force multipliers for said Super Heavies.
Availability of Rules, many players don't have access to or are not familiar with units beyond the codices themselves.
Buffing Superheavies. Most buffs on SH or GC are vastly more effective than buffing non SH or GC. Prescience, Invisibility, Grimiore etc. Do we really want to see a Stompa filled with Big Meks and Meks repairing all damage every turn for the cost of half the Ork army. And the Stompa is pretty reasonable.
Scope and Scale, we've got an opportunity to push the game back towards MSU Troops etc reminiscent of 40k in 5th when it was at its arguable height competitively. The Deathstars of 6th took a major hit and are going to see reduced frequency, the last thing we need is the push towards Superheavies. Maybe, they'll prove to not be very effective competitively, maybe they'll be required. Either way, they are likely to have a large effect on the game.
That is why I recommend a straight ban on SHs and GCs. Many may not pose problems, but some certainly do. IMO removing them keeps the scope and scale of the game reminiscent of the 40ks competitive Golden Age and is more comfortable and more appealing to most players. At least until we have balanced and effective rules for adding them in without piecemeal banning, house ruling, and many additional source books which don't predominantly benefit a single faction over all others.
Lee... the game already allows for them.
ReplyDeleteImp Knights are here to stay. The Ork LoW in there Dex more than likely will be allowed in Tournaments.
Theres already an imbalance with the advantage given to Imperial Armies who can run Knights.
Does allowing LoW (Limited) fix everything ? No... but it does allow more armies access to them.
Notice, I'm not saying limit Lords of War, I'm saying limit Super Heavies and Gargantuan Creatures for normal competitive play. That would include Codex SH and GC which currently is limited to the Stompa and the Imperial Knights. Ghazgul as a LoW is just fine.
DeleteIts a limit on the unit types, not sources or the FOC slot.
I believe that codex escalation also has to be thrown in. All in or exclude them all. Either way is fine with me. Selectively choosing is not the answer. Just leave all LOW out anwatch the other tournies and see how it unfolds. TOs have too much personal funds invested to not follow what game the masses want to play to ensure their tourney is a success
DeleteI love SH and GC but I don't like the fact with 1850pts in some armies have v limited units that can deal with them and they will be targeted early.
ReplyDeleteI imagine GW included LOW to promote sales and now with ghaz further pushes it on the tournament scene which means tournament go'ers will start investing in SH and GC to keep up. Meaning all their products will be in demand from tourney goers. I doubt ghaz was a LOW for any other reason as it makes no sense.
I agree, it's one reason I've suggested drawing the line against SH and GCs, not LoW. Keeps any non SH or GC LoW available.
ReplyDeleteGhaz as LoW does have the advantage of not taking up an HQ Slot when trying to fit them in a single CAD, etc, but that is about it.
I am playing in the narrative, which is much more permissive about lists and FW etc. If I am allowed a LOW, I will be brining a primarch. I think it will be a load of fun for my opponent and I to see Horus leading the defense of humanity against the alien Virtue invasion. I am pretty sure it makes a poor list, but there is that one spot of pure destruction that would be fun to see let loose.
ReplyDeleteThe GT is going to be fun. After all, this is our game!