Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: WARGamesCon 2015

  1. #21
    Senior Member Sloth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Yeah, that's about what I figured.



    Besides that in any army's case I'm generally against incorrectly breaking the RAW when there's no "interpretation" to be made on rule that's unambiguous when read carefully, in practical game terms, it has a hugely detrimental effect if you're playing summoning with heralds and horrors (as I said, to the point of not even bothering to bring your best tournament army that you've been practicing and modeling).

    By the RAW, the Heralds will get 3 roll on malefic on top of the summoning, which means much higher chances to get cursed earth and incursion, which are key (you are going to have a very hard time if you don't have some units that can cast these in addition to the primaris each turn). Not only do you get 1 less malefic power per herald under the FAQ change thanks to having to burn 1 for the summoning primaris, but you are less likely to get the powers you need on the 2 remaining powers because you have to give up one of the bad powers for Summoning which means you can roll that one a second time instead of re-rolling for the ones you need.

    For horrors it's even worse - you only get 1 roll on malefic, so under the FAQ change to the focus powers, now they have to burn it up for the primaris. All of the sudden you never have horrors casting summoning + incursion or summoning + cursed earth anymore from those units, which is crippling. Overall an army that's already pretty dependent on chance for power generation and casting has way less access to generating two key powers, and will have less units capable of casting those spells. So that's the problem for Daemon players with changing the Psychic Focus rule.
    I agree this is not as powerful as RAW, but it hardly makes the army unplayable. I think you are over reacting a bit.


    Yours Truly,
    Skymarshall Baron Von Castle Void Shield

  2. #22
    Senior Member Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    560
    Quote Originally Posted by ccrraazzyyman View Post
    Actually, you'll never have the 10 man pink horrors casting more than one power per turn, because the ITC FAQ explicitly denies the ability to cast more powers than your mastery level (sorry grey knights!)
    This is a good point. The 6th edition mechanic for Horrors is just generally outdated for 7th Psyker rules, to the player's detriment....hey look I spent all the points on getting them to be 3 warp charges a turn. What's that, you only roll based on mastery? So just once? Hooray.

    If only they had updated the CSM and CD books instead of starting in with all the Daemonkin stuff :-( we'll see if there's a Tzeentch book that improves things or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    I agree this is not as powerful as RAW, but it hardly makes the army unplayable. I think you are over reacting a bit.
    I didn't said it made the army "unplayable," I said it was crippling to the point of where I probably won't bother bringing it to a tournament even though under RAW it's my favorite and best-performing army. I've played with CD summoning psykers at a bunch of tournaments ranging from the first big one of 7th (WGC last year) to a big tournament two weeks ago, across three different cities under various metas with all the new stuff coming out every month. So I think I have more than even experience and practice to judge the extent of how much this impacts CD Psykers and competitiveness.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Caldera02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Any rules that stop you from putting more models on the table and maybe finish a game, Im all for that!

  4. #24
    Senior Member morella888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Taylor
    Posts
    1,013
    My problem with the faq in general is that it obviously is considering how to nerf/limit certain builds or tactics but not others. However, instead of just outright saying so, these generalized changes or interpretations are given. I assume this is in the spirit of appearing to be objective, but it isn't really. My opinion is if an event wants to specifically not allow certain things, they should just require early list submission and deny things they don't want, so it gets returned with a suggestion of what would meet approval. At least then there is honesty to the subjectivity. And people would say it requires too much work, but really it probably would be only about a minute or two for each list I would guess.

  5. #25
    Senior Member RealGenius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Not Austin
    Posts
    4,907
    List submission is a terrible time sink. Yes, it may be only two minutes per list, but players end up submitting multiple lists, especially if you tell them you don't like something. Even if it is two minutes, that's almost 7 hours of work for 200 person tournament. It just isn't worth it.

  6. #26
    Senior Member morella888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Taylor
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by RealGenius View Post
    List submission is a terrible time sink. Yes, it may be only two minutes per list, but players end up submitting multiple lists, especially if you tell them you don't like something. Even if it is two minutes, that's almost 7 hours of work for 200 person tournament. It just isn't worth it.
    I see the point, but at 200 participants paying $55 each, assuming a time valuation of 50 per hour, $350 out of 11000 is a small part of operational budget. Plus there are options to have evaluations done anonymously via the group of participants and setting a threshhold.

    My main point was, the faq seems geared to prohibit only specific perceived abuses which is inherently subjective and arbitrary. I just take personal issue with the veneer of objectivity being used. I have no problem with subjective limitations if it reflects the will of the participating majority, but it should be explicit: we don't want XYZ to be able to do PQR etc. But LMN are ok.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Caldera02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    I despise LMN!
    Wargamescon 40k Judge
    caldera40k.blogspot.com
    Hogleg - "only in my head someone bought CRP's OOP Wraithlord then stuck its toe in cover."

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldera02 View Post
    I despise LMN!
    Whatcha for against Lower Motor Neurons?
    Something something won awards in something something.

  9. #29
    Senior Member morella888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Taylor
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Caldera02 View Post
    I despise LMN!
    Personally I have a problem with HIJ, but I didn't mention them cause I didn't want to seem biased.

  10. #30
    Senior Member RealGenius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Not Austin
    Posts
    4,907
    Quote Originally Posted by morella888 View Post
    I see the point, but at 200 participants paying $55 each, assuming a time valuation of 50 per hour, $350 out of 11000 is a small part of operational budget.
    It isn't a money question, but a time question.
    Jim
    This is why you don't go to Jim's. --Minus67
    Rook End | The Fly Lords of Terra

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •