Questions for the 40K prospective attendee:
1) Should we allow Forgeworld in some capacity, given the variety of things now in the game anyway via all the datasheets/formations/white dwarves/etc.?
2) Would you like to see the detachment rules change from "max of one CAD" to simply "2 detachments" as the limit, in light of the fact many of the factions can now 'effectively' get 2 Combined Arms Detachments via their Codex-specific detachments anyway?
3) How do people feel right now about lords of war? They were widely reviled by casual players in our post-event survey. Should we allow a limited LOW list? Should we ban adlance or ban superheavies altogether while allowing Lords of War that are not superheavies/gargantuans?
Feedback is always welcome at NOVA, and we typically perform post-event and sometimes pre-registration surveys. We're contemplating a survey in January prior to registration opening.
Happy Holidays,
- Mike
1) I've always thought the argument against Forgeworld was pretty valid. Now, with the proliferation of books, supplements, datasheets, etc - I can't keep up with what's supposed to be the baseline... so now, I think it's pretty indefensible.
ReplyDelete3) I don't know that I have an informed opinion about non-superheavy Lords of War, but I do know that I'd be happier not playing at all than having to play against anything like the number of Knights I had to endure this year.
1) Sure, but there needs to be a list of some sort of which book you should be pulling rules from.
ReplyDelete2) Eh. I don't have a real strong opinion on either or. You might as well open it up to just 2 detachments of any type. Since, as you've stated, you can essentially take 2 CADs already.
3) I dislike Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures. LoW Characters are fine in my book, but the other stuff I'd prefer not to see.
Here is the best source I've found for legal forgeworld and there current source
Deletehttp://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Forge_World_and_Apocalypse_Rules_Index
1) I get the localized bans on Forge World rules, because they make the LGS near no money, but there's really no point to it. Almost everything that players seem to complain about is main-line rules. I don't see how adding diversity to the bottom half of the tables is going to harm the experience of the GT (it did nothing to harm the Narrative).
ReplyDelete2) I think we can reasonable say that all players in the GT have experienced the plug and play nature of the game. The more you cling to the now dead Force Organaization chart, the less you actually are running a game of 7th edition Warhammer 40k. I would go with 3 detachments of any kind.
3) If Super Heavies are so broken, why didn't I go 7-0 in the Narrative and curb stomp everyone? We're staring at the super badass rules and ignore the fact that it drastically cuts down on what the player can field when half of his points are spoken for in one model. If you ban everything that casual players dislike, then you'll be clipping the wings of damn hear every powerful build. Why do it with super heavies?
My question on super heavies is: if casuals don't want them, do competitors need them? If so, why?
DeleteThe real question should be, would it matter if people field them?
DeleteYou know, casual players don't want death stars either.
Craig, I read your response and laughed out loud. Nail on the head!
DeleteCraig's response describes my thoughts exactly.
DeleteHi mike, Here's my input:
ReplyDeleteForgeworld seems to help a few armies out, namely marines, giving them access to the vehicles required to even compete with todays meta i.e. sicarian battle tanks to help against serpents. I think this is required because armies such as marines are dropping like flies to xenos and it would be nice to see some variety. As previously mentioned, theres soo much variety in detatchments etc that you just may aswell accept 40k approved stuff.
2) Detetchments can be potentially broken, but 2 is fine, I wouldnt go with 3!
3) No to super heavies. After extensive playtest, ad lance is just potentially impossible to play against as it doesnt rely on much luck i.e. if a current deathstar doesnt get first turn it could lose, or if it fails to cast. These are just 24.7 a PITA, with the potential to KO anything, that just shouldnt be in 40k imo. Nevermind the numerous other horrif units out there for example typhon siege tanks which can wipe out an army itself (almost happened to me lol). Lord of war characters are fine though imo.
cheers,
Alex
Oh no, not the death stars.
Delete1) Used to be Forgeworld was the only way to get a Superheavies or Fliers, which were considered OP since you had to tailor your list to deal with them. Now there is really no reason to not allow FW, unless you are personally afraid of specific units you don't want to deal with. Those books are pricey too, and you can't get them in digital...
ReplyDelete2) Two detachments is easier all around. But I don't have much experience playing against maxed out codex-specific detachments. What would be the negative effects if you did not limit detachments?
3) Imperial Knights make it difficult to ostracize other superheavies/gargantuans. I think full escalation and full stronghold assault should be allowed.
In general, I am all for keeping things as open as possible. The game has been forcibly opened up via Imperial Knights and LoW in codices. Trying to draw a line in the sand is now a tricky proposition.
However, I also understand that many of the regular tourney-goers would stop going if they had to deal with ALL of the releases. In the interest of keeping the tourneys going, do whatever most of the paying players want :)
1. I really, really, really really really want the IA13 Renegades and Heretics list allowed. I won't have such an army done this year, but after the allies chart changes, bringing back guard allies would be really nice
ReplyDeleteOther FW stuff seems like a no brainer at this point.
2. I'm pretty much against detachment limits at this point. With mini-codexes like Inq and LotD having the ability to take 3 sources opens up options like Inq with Storm Troopers and deathwatch etc, or even 2 Inq detachments with deathwatch etc.
if we can't relax it past any 2 detachments, so.be it, I'll be disappointed but it's better than nothing.
3. I'm still not super into gargantuan creatures and super heavy lords of war, they just don't add much fun to the game. But I can deal.
I'm beginning to think 2 detachment limits are a little too restrictive. I don't think that there's anything too crazy from 3 detachments that isn't already crazy with 2.
ReplyDeleteMy own opinion is the more you comp things like the number of detachments, forgeworld, etc. the more you just continue the status quo of the same lists dominating. I can honestly see superheavies being somewhat over the top (at least a few of the worst offenders - baneblades and stompas really haven't done a whole lot in our local scene at least), but other LOW such as Draigo, Dante, Logan etc. are hardly overpowered.
ReplyDeleteby comping the game you're just effectively choosing what type of list is going to stomp around on everyone, be it admantine lance or sepent spam or whatever. Taking away people's tools to deal with these lists doesn't exactly make for a competitive environment now does it? It just means you choose what's on top. A few years ago the "competitive crowd" as it were (guess that includes me for the most part) cringed at the very idea of comp.
what exactly is the detachment restriction preventing? Is this theory hammer or has someone actually played something so terrible with 3 detachments that it would completely destroy the tournament because all the top players would just bring that... oh wait do armies actually need multiple detachments to bring an insanely powerful combination?
Lords or war and forgeworld are a sticky issue...one that is muddied because not all LOW / FW units are a problem.
ReplyDeleteFor example a tau orca (FW super heavy) is no where near as effective as a eldar ravenant. Tau and orks for example, don't even have access to D blasts and tyranids don't have access to D anything (no not even in CC).
LIkewise, can you even compare an imperial knight titan to a scythese heiordule? Or dragio? Or the swarmlord?
If you nerf LOW I would say make sure to include "no superheavies" or just say "no super heavies" and then be done with it.
Again, the crux of the issue is the large variance of power in the LOW/SH/FW units that is the problem - anyone kind find a unit that is terrible for the points (tau heavy gun drones for example) or ones that are just amazing (knight titans, revenants, etc.) and then use one as an example of non-issue or big-issue.
1) Yes. There's no statistical evidence that Forge World has upset the competitive tournament meta and most of the top lists don't even incorporate Forge World.
ReplyDelete2) This would be a reasonable change that I wouldn't mind.
3) I'm open to super heavies. Apart from the Ad Lance Formation, there's no evidence that taking superheavies really upsets the meta. I would, however, impose LVO and Escalation rules where you award +1VP for every hull point/wound taken off and give +1 bonus to seize the initiative for the army that does not use a super heavy.