Matched Play Psychic Phase Rule of 1

[Gentlemanloser]

Nah the Ancient only gives +1Ld to Grey Knights units, the Inq lets you use his Ld9.

 

They won't stack.

 

Not worth using the Ancient.

[Myunch]

Voldus, Paladin Unit, Ancient, Inquisitor

 

Voldus WL Trait - +1 Ld

Ancient - +1 Ld

Inquisitor - Cast terrify

Paladin Paragon - Cast Purge Soul @ Ld 11 while within 6" of Voldus and Ancient

 

 

After typing all that out, seems awfully expensive for a chance at dishing out a bunch of mortal wounds... probably not viable lol *facepalm*

[Gentlemanloser]

Too expensive for my tastes!

 

Ill stick with a Inq casting Terrify and an Apothecary casting PS at Ld9. ;)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I still think you need too many pieces in place to make Purge Soul good. Smite is just simpler and easier. 

[Adeptus]

And they all fail to do so

 

Right, but it's not a binary yes no thing. Balance in competitive games is a spectrum, with games like yahtzee or snakes and ladders on one end and games like chess or go on the other. GW is definitely on the spectrum, but it's much closer to snakes and ladders than it is to chess or go, but some people seem to treat it as if it were on the competitive end of the spectrum. If our imaginary balance spectrum were a normal bell curve, then 40K and GW games in general are way behind the curve. However...

 

The game is whatever you want it to be, and what you make it.

 

... yes of course the game can be approached from any direction or played with any intent. I just literally cannot understand why some people would take such a competitive approach to such an imbalanced and loose game. 

 

Narrative play is garbage.

 

I disagree, and oddly so do you. Your main recomendations for Matched Play are to essentialy turn it into Narrative play!

 

I totally agree that the Power Level system has the potential for abuse (although it is minimised if you play WYSIWYG) but this is only a problem if you and/or your opponent deliberately attempt to abuse it! If you both set out to maximise the effiiency of your armies then power levels will not work for you. But then, neither will points. 40K isn't tight enough to handle players who want to maximise the efficiency of their armies and you'll quickly 'break' the game no matter what way you approach it.

 

My point is that there are a lot of people (myself included) who DON'T want to maximise efficiency. My main motivation for including a model or upgrade is whether or not it looks cool, followed by whether or not it's background is cool, with it's efficiency being a distant third consideration. And GW has been very clever to deliberately acknowledge players like that who get bored with the list micro managing and meta gaming and the chore of maximising efficiency, by still giving us a framework to limit white-wash games without having to resort to micro-costing things like stormbolters. I LOVE power levels.

 

But even without power levels, if you're talking about removing the command point and psychic power rules unique to Matched Play, and heavily modifying the deployment rules to allow null deployment, then you're essentially just talking about Narrative Play lite! Just use Narrative Play with points instead of power levels, I reckon :)

[Adeptus]

Indeed.

 

We're more than happy to let one of the guys go "Guys, I'm not redoing my Dreads, but Heavy Flamers suck this edition.  Anyone mind if my Dreads are all actually dual TLLCs?".

 

Or similar.

 

Which is why none of the guys I play with care that all my TDA armoured Grey Knights are Paladins, instead of GKT.

 

As long as it's consistent, and everyone knows what everything is.

I've never had it enforced on me, or enforced it on others. Short of bringing Lego or counting an entire army of something as something else (like Tau as Nids or something), I'm cool for people to proxy or try out different loadouts. I draw the line only at special weapons and characters, simply so its clear where they are in the unit so people don't try and pull fast ones with casualty removal or allocating wounds. 

 

As GML says, most of the time few people have an issue with whether or not you modelled precisely your loadout. I don't magnetise cos I'm a noob at modelling, so I often count-as. Plenty of people do it, I think its more a community tradition that stands apart from whatever GW spells out as sanctioned.

 

Intent has a lot to do with proxies. If you want to try something to see if it works or give a unit a test-drive before you invest in it then most people I've met are happy to allow it.

 

But I've never met anyone happy to just let someone count their models as other models for a prolonged period of time just because the rules have changed. A lot of people will allow it, but they'll be salty about it. Around these parts it's definitely frowned upon to count your GK Termies as Paladins just because Paladins are the new hotness, or to count your Heavy Flamers as TLLC because you don't like the Heavy Flamer rules.

[Gentlemanloser]

From a personal pov is thing like this.

 

I think one of my ndk looks cool wielding his greatsword.

 

I don't always want him to use one in game, and the guys i play with are cool with that.

 

The model is cool and I'm not disadvantaged because I'm keeping a model because of ascetics.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Right, but it's not a binary yes no thing. Balance in competitive games is a spectrum, with games like yahtzee or snakes and ladders on one end and games like chess or go on the other. GW is definitely on the spectrum, but it's much closer to snakes and ladders than it is to chess or go, but some people seem to treat it as if it were on the competitive end of the spectrum. If our imaginary balance spectrum were a normal bell curve, then 40K and GW games in general are way behind the curve. However...

 

I disagree. There is a lot more RNG and decision making in 40k than there is in a lot of other games. Even experienced players make mistakes and don't sequence things correctly. That's assuming players get the rules right too. GW are notorious for leaving loopholes in their rulesets. 40k is basically the law of unintended consequences taken to its logical limit. 

 

Well 40k has always had a tournament scene, so it would seem actual players disagree with you there. There is a metagame, and it has consequences for every faction and every army build. Even GW has vaguely acknowledged it in 8th. So whilst it may be your opinion that 40k isn't a competitive game, people don't agree and play it competitively. 

... yes of course the game can be approached from any direction or played with any intent. I just literally cannot understand why some people would take such a competitive approach to such an imbalanced and loose game. 

 

Maybe because not everyone thinks like you, and gets different enjoyment from the same game. So I would suggest the problem lies with your inability to think outside of your defined paradigm of what 40k is. 

I disagree, and oddly so do you. Your main recomendations for Matched Play are to essentialy turn it into Narrative play!

 

No, because I still wish to retain Battleforged requirements, and detachments. They are key aspects of constraining abusive lists. Its why I dislike unstructured or poorly structured game settings. They're basically begging for people to break them. This is something that the 30k scene sometimes stumbles with, because they at times operate under the illusion that all share the same vision of the game. 

I totally agree that the Power Level system has the potential for abuse (although it is minimised if you play WYSIWYG) but this is only a problem if you and/or your opponent deliberately attempt to abuse it! If you both set out to maximise the effiiency of your armies then power levels will not work for you. But then, neither will points. 40K isn't tight enough to handle players who want to maximise the efficiency of their armies and you'll quickly 'break' the game no matter what way you approach it.

 

Not just potential, it actively encourages it. This is why oppertunity cost ie points, is so important. Placing meaningful hard choices in front of people changes their decision making. 

 

Points do work, they've worked in prior editions, and they still work now. More powerful units cost more points, and have greater oppertunity costs both due to role and the points they chew up out of your total. 

 

If that's true, then a competitive scene would be impossible. And yet, it isn't. Even in 7th edition, when it was dying, the few Eldar and Tau players left were still duking it out for supremacy. As I mentioned earlier, you lack appreciation for how others might enjoy the same game. 

My point is that there are a lot of people (myself included) who DON'T want to maximise efficiency. My main motivation for including a model or upgrade is whether or not it looks cool, followed by whether or not it's background is cool, with it's efficiency being a distant third consideration. And GW has been very clever to deliberately acknowledge players like that who get bored with the list micro managing and meta gaming and the chore of maximising efficiency, by still giving us a framework to limit white-wash games without having to resort to micro-costing things like stormbolters. I LOVE power levels.

 

That is your choice. However, nothing is preventing someone curbstomping your list into the ground. Especially in narrative or open play, where there is basically no limits other than refusing to play opponents who bring lists you don't like. Battleforged lists reward creativity, the different detachment types all have different taxes and requirements. I have yet to see what factional combinations can be made, but the keyword system seems to put a lot of barriers in the way of that (as does detachment requirements). I've very interested to see what faction-specific detachments will emerge when the army books arrive. 

 

It's not a chore, its a cornerstone of the actual tabletop game. I don't see what is onerous about adding wargear costs to base costs. Use a spreadsheet or a calculator (or wait for one of the many mobile apps to update to it). Metagaming is also a key aspect of the actual game. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. If you fail to bring high damage weapons, stuff with 8+ wounds will roll over you with impunity (as just one example). 

 

Power levels degenerate the game further, ironically, which is something you apparently want nothing to do with. So how is point costs worse?

But even without power levels, if you're talking about removing the command point and psychic power rules unique to Matched Play, and heavily modifying the deployment rules to allow null deployment, then you're essentially just talking about Narrative Play lite! Just use Narrative Play with points instead of power levels, I reckon 

 

I'm talking about removing jank that doesn't balance anything in Matched Play, and is yet another GW fumble. I actually think there are deeper issues in 8th than the threadbare restrictions GW have put in place. I still need to get more games in, but there is a lot more RNG now, and I'm not a fan. I think it will require an FAQ, if not from GW then from the players. The abandoning of Tau in 8th is concerning. Unpainted Riptides on ebay is already a meme. 

Intent has a lot to do with proxies. If you want to try something to see if it works or give a unit a test-drive before you invest in it then most people I've met are happy to allow it.

 

But I've never met anyone happy to just let someone count their models as other models for a prolonged period of time just because the rules have changed. A lot of people will allow it, but they'll be salty about it. Around these parts it's definitely frowned upon to count your GK Termies as Paladins just because Paladins are the new hotness, or to count your Heavy Flamers as TLLC because you don't like the Heavy Flamer rules.

 

I'm thoroughly glad I'm not part of your gaming scene. Sounds like a lot of drama I'd rather avoid. Not letting people use Terminator GK models as Paladins is nonsensical. They're the same unit (TDA GK squad), one is just the 'veteran' version. GW do this all the time with other factions.

[Adeptus]

Well 40k has always had a tournament scene

40K has never had a GOOD tournament scene. Every edition boils down to two or three power builds where nothing else is relevant, and even within those two or three factions only maybe three or four units are actually any good.

 

Maybe because not everyone thinks like you, and gets different enjoyment from the same game. So I would suggest the problem lies with your inability to think outside of your defined paradigm of what 40k is.

I totally get different people play games for different reasons, this isn't an obtuse 'why don't people play like I do?' thing. But there are games out there SO MUCH better suited to competitive play that I can't understand why someone would frustrate themselves by taking 40K in this or any other edition and attempting to use it to create a highly competitive environment. The rules are blatantly not fit for that purpose.

 

Sure, tournaments exist, people like playing tournaments, but why 40K tournaments? The rules are a mess, the factions are imbalanced both internally and against each other, the amount of RNG involved significantly detracts from player skill, and the game is hideously expensive to start and to remain current. Why do that to yourself when other games with tight rules and real tournament quality design are out there already, with huge followings?

 

I'm thoroughly glad I'm not part of your gaming scene.

So am I

[Gentlemanloser]

RD, Detachments do nothing to contain abusive lists.

 

The current Detachments are so open and flexbile they might as well not exist.

 

Especially if GW reach the balance they have touted, and every unit is balanced and wanted.  If that's the case, then there is zero reason for detachment to exist.

 

GW want to try and stop 'unfluffy' (yeah go argue that one...) lists, and reward players who build armies the way the fluff dictates they should.

 

But they have in no way achieved this.

 

Heck, when I can build a 20 Apothecary list to spam Purge Soul, you know you done messed up.  Big time. ;)

 

I don't know who's to blame.  The Playtesters?  Maybe they were hamstrung by GW themselves.  But whoever was responsible for the 'balance' of 8th should never be allowed to touch the designs of a wargame again.

[Valerian]

++Let's get this thread back on track.  It's supposed to be about the Rule of 1.++

[Reclusiarch Darius]

40K has never had a GOOD tournament scene. Every edition boils down to two or three power builds where nothing else is relevant, and even within those two or three factions only maybe three or four units are actually any good.

 

Good is an extremely subjective term. It's enjoyable to people who participate in it, at least until the complete nadir that was 7th edition. Maybe things will revitalise in 8th. I think the factions have been levelled a lot. 

I totally get different people play games for different reasons, this isn't an obtuse 'why don't people play like I do?' thing. But there are games out there SO MUCH better suited to competitive play that I can't understand why someone would frustrate themselves by taking 40K in this or any other edition and attempting to use it to create a highly competitive environment. The rules are blatantly not fit for that purpose.

 

Sure, tournaments exist, people like playing tournaments, but why 40K tournaments? The rules are a mess, the factions are imbalanced both internally and against each other, the amount of RNG involved significantly detracts from player skill, and the game is hideously expensive to start and to remain current. Why do that to yourself when other games with tight rules and real tournament quality design are out there already, with huge followings?

 

Like i said, different strokes for different folks. Why do people play Magic the Gathering competitively, despite it being a cesspit? Who knows. Even I enjoyed it briefly, but eventually the insane barriers to entry made me quit.

Heck, when I can build a 20 Apothecary list to spam Purge Soul, you know you done messed up.  Big time. 

 

I'd be thoroughly amused to fight that list with a horde army. GG.

 

Getting back on topic, I'm thinking of perhaps three alternatives to Rule of 1 for psychic powers:

 

- Increased casting cost past the first: A simple +1 to cast is very easy to apply to all psychic powers, and rapidly sets in opportunity cost on spamming. Makes a certain amount of sense, if you think of it as a throwback to warp charges. 

- Hard limits: Maybe 3 casts of the same power per turn? That would still allow say three 'Gate' casts or three 'Hammerhands' to go out. It's more arbitrary, but still less gutting than 'lol psychic armies don't exist'. 

- No restrictions: Honestly I went up against Eldar recently, and their one Farseer singlehandedly shut down most of my psychic phase (re-rolls to cast and dispel is insane, I don't know how that is 'balanced'). That and a few expected Perils and failures to cast meant my Smite spam wasn't even as bad as it could have been. 

 

I still need to playtest all three options, but I do think Rule of 1 is unfair and requires FAQ removal. It's just such a braindead approach. 

[Gentlemanloser]

I like the +1 difficulty to cast successive powers.

 

I suggested it back on the first page. :)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I think its probably the easiest mechanically to implement, and its pretty uniform in how it impacts all psykers across all armies. But I'll playtest and see how I feel. 

[Gentlemanloser]

I'd even be tempted to have the +1 add to enemy Deny tests as well.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Well they already have to beat your score to stop you, so I feel like it balances out. Your odds of a successful cast go down, but opponents also need clutch deny rolls to stop you. It would be kind of heartbreaking to get a third or fourth 'Gate' happen, then have it stopped by a mediocre Deny. 

[Lysere]

I think a big problem with the rule of one is they made it a matched play rule rather than a core rule. If they made it a core rule they could build in ways for certain armies to work around it a bit.

 

Like having a model with 2 or 3 casts give up those extra casts for that turn to recast a power already used.

 

Obviously there would need to be a trade off of some kind but it's something they could work into different units and such.

 

By making it an optional matched play rule they lose that option.

[SyNidus]

I like the rule of one in the psychic phase.

 

It forces the GK player to be tactical in choice of who needs a particular power most in that turn.

 

We are also better protected against more powerful psyker armies (1k Sons come to mind, the number of sorcerors they can bring outstrips ours).

 

It balances our army against non-psyker armies. It may not feel like a big deal on our side, but when you play against an opponent with more psychic powers than you (if you're playing other armies), you'll be grateful for the rule of one here.

 

Perhaps they can, in time, give each unit type a specific power, but for now, i'm happy with the rule of one.

[deffnob]

The rule of 1 isn't all time bad. It just looks that way now, because every army has like 3 native powers.

 

Once Factions get 6 or so powers each, it won't feel as bad (unless ALL the extra powers blow, which is possible with this R&D team).

[Gentlemanloser]

It still doesn't scale.

 

You would have thought that GW would hve learned from Acts of Faith.

[Adeptus]

I don't think scaling is a problem. It's for Matched Play only, and most matched play games will be of a very similar size as the competitive scene finds a point size that works for them.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's a design problem.

 

A 500 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 7 units.

 

A 1000 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 10 units.

 

A 2000 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 21 units.

 

The larger you get, proportionally, the less your units can utilise Grey Knights Psychic Powers.

 

Where as for armies with a single Psyker (say a lone Librarian), this doesn't effect them, no matter hat size army you have.

[Adeptus]

It's a design problem.

 

A 500 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 7 units.

 

A 1000 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 10 units.

 

A 2000 point GK Army can cast Hammerhand once, GoI once and Purge Soul once.  You might have 21 units.

 

The larger you get, proportionally, the less your units can utilise Grey Knights Psychic Powers.

 

Where as for armies with a single Psyker (say a lone Librarian), this doesn't effect them, no matter hat size army you have.

It's for matched play only. Tournament style play only. How many tournaments do you think will be running at 500 points? How many at even 1000 points? I would imagine most tournaments will fall at around 1750, give or take a couple of hundred points.

 

Sure, it doesn't scale, but if you never intend to use it for a wide range of game sizes then it doesn't matter, does it?

[Gentlemanloser]

Totally does.

 

If only for all the 'escalation' leagues that people play.

 

Now with baked in campaig rules in the core rulebook, I'm sure there will be more o those than ever.

[Adeptus]

Totally does.

 

If only for all the 'escalation' leagues that people play.

 

Now with baked in campaig rules in the core rulebook, I'm sure there will be more o those than ever.

 

Campaigns would be much better suited using Narrative play rather than Matched.