 |
Here is the post at Frontline Gaming.
OK, so they took a vote among those attending and got the results and acted upon it. What's wrong with that? Well nothing. As long as this doesn't cause a trend and other events pick up the nerf rule without a debate or votes of their own. Cherry picking rules to nerf is not fair to the community at large. Here they picked a rule that maybe 20 percent of the players will use. So when they ask the LVO attendees if it should be nerfed guess what happened? I believe, predictably, that those players not using Invisibility broke heavily in favor of nerfing it. And why not? That makes one less bump in the road towards victory for them.
And why Invisibility? Yes, when 7th broke it was argued that it was too powerful but reactions like that are to be expected when new rules hit. Honestly, I hear much less belly-aching about Invisibility these days than about Wave Serpents, come the apocalypse allies, powerful formations and Imperial Knights. As a Chaos player I can also tell you that it is Invisibility that helps Chaos stay somewhat competitive. I use it all the time and I still end up losing about half the time; invisible Flesh Hounds, while frustrating to opponents, are not game breaking. OK, so maybe that's not the best example, I'm not the greatest player. Still, can you recall the last time you heard an army using Invisibility winning a big tournament? Probably not, the Flying Circus's time has come and gone.
Eh, I don't enjoy writing posts like this, I'd rather write about something positive. So I'm just going to stop here. Obviously I am squarely in the camp that disagrees about what happened. I can just hope it doesn't influence the community at large. My point is this: you can't cherry pick what rules to nerf - it's not fair. So don't nerf, 40K has a way of fixing itself in due time.
In my opinion, 100% melee units really need any boost they can get, and I play guard. I get plenty of shooting buffs, Divination + orders is a pretty brutal combo.
ReplyDeleteI think tournaments have the major problem of nerfing things that people think are annoying, and people confusing annoying with actually too powerful. If we want to get into a bit deeper, invisibility gives two distinct buffs, that address two mechanics that arn't perfect.
Snap shots are functional with ways to negate it, but very broadly applied. Shooting a reaction shot to charging opponent, firing at an aircraft, hauling and setting up a heavy weapon quickly, and firing a gun on a bouncing transport. All the same result, 6s to hit. Add in that 6s are treated as critical successes for lots of guns and units, you can get some very weird results.
The traditional Ork AA, lootas in a transport flatout, snap firing, only works because the penalty is the same, even if it is applied three times.
If snap fire was split up into different rules, it would give more options for abilities, allowing a more balanced version to be applied for invisibility. But there is only one, and invisibility gets the full version. The attempts to nerf it by not giving snaps shots, but something simulator like BS1, seems to me like an indictment of snap fire, not invisibility.
Weapon skill chart also has problems. There is no 'one' on the chart, even Deamon Primarch vs Grot. and getting to hit on sixes needs 2 vs 6 3 vs7 or 4 vs 8. This is why we get such huge statistics in WS, when BS rarely gets past 5. The chart just slightly moves back and forth from 3 to 4. If the chart was re-did, then forcing someone to roll ones, may just be common enough for CC units, that it is a totally regular occurrence.
Invisibility just happens to include two big buffs, that are only big, because of the lack of a deeper look at the rules at the developer level. Users trying to fix the problems should expand their corrections more evenly. But that won't happen, because that is waaaay to much.
I really don't understand why the WS chart hasn't changed.
DeleteOk so you don't want it make it better then 3+ or worse then 5+...how bout giving a reroll if the weapon skill gets past 6? (etc).
I think it is a hard balancing factor. Many people will outcry about how CC doesn't work, and this is a shooting game...and it is for a part...but CC can enable you to sweep and eliminate units that are nearly invulnerable otherwise. (4+ res orb warriors, with re-rolls of 1, with D6 getting back up afterwords).
Units like that, you can shoot at all day and have little effect, but kill a few in CC and sweep the entire 20 man unit, drastically shifting the game.
Good read Ryan, I haven't had much trouble with invisible, i just know i have to swing alot of melee at it. and not to ignore it or they will get you. But i haven't come across anything yet that Razulle's Orks can not give a run for their money.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree that you cannot cherry pick rules to remove and or alter. It's a damn slipper slope once you start doing that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response from all of you. I've read what all of you wrote and I am glad to see contribution to the discussion. Hopefully you will all continue the discussion on other forums and with your own local gaming communities. Also, I'd like to point out to others reading that you don't have to agree with what I wrote, disagreement furthers the discussion as well.
ReplyDelete