Doubles Tournament Feedback

[Chase]

I just got home from the event.  You're all still playing round 3.  I'd like to take a few minutes to go over some of the feedback I got from talking to most (all?) of you.

First, it was cool to see so many not-so-familiar faces in the store rolling dice and pushing models around.  It's been a while since I've shown up on a 40k event day.  Very cool.  Everyone seemed super nice and I'm glad I got to put names with faces.

Anyways...

Some (basically) unanimous feedback is that the super-heavies (Lords of War) are too much for "normal" events.
Lots of people mentioned this to me without me having to ask.  Some of you got into specifics which I found to be valuable.  Some of you felt that the tanks are probably okay, although not preferred.  One group I spoke to even felt that the C'Tran (as they're calling it on the internets these days) was fine because you can try to avoid it.

Sam said something I found particularly valuable.  He mentioned that people have now played in an event that's allowed them to see, first or second hand, what the "big stuff" does to the game.

As you all know, one team took a Warhound Titan and a Baneblade.  Their lists were the talk of the tournament and when I left they were at table 1 in the final round.  They obviously took things to an extreme, but it was within the rules of this event (and of 7th edition) to do so.

And it begs the questions: What to "do about it." It's not not immediately obvious to me or an easy decision.  Banning Lords of War seems like a knee-jerk reaction to one specific thing that's powerful and different (here's looking at you, Invisibility).  Banning LoW ends up eliminating Imperial Knights and the new Ghazghkull, which I'm definitely not interested in doing.

Some of the bigger TOs have been going back and forth on what to do about LoW.  My guess is that they'll end up allowing a certain list of them.  I'm interested in seeing what they conclude.


The feedback surrounding Tactical Objectives was very interesting.
I made an effort to ask most tables how they felt about the inclusion of Tactical Objectives.  It seemed that about 30% strongly dislikes them due to variance (fair), 30% is okay with them but doesn't love them, and 40% thinks they're great, make for an exciting game, and are tons of fun.

After it became clear that people were so split on the topic I began asking what improvements might be made to them.  (Spoiler: I plan to include them in some capacity in all future Doubles tournaments if for no other reason than it communicates the "not a super competitive event" message)

Some of the potential solutions that were mentioned were:

Instead of drawing X cards at the start of turn 1, draw X+3 instead and discard down to X before the start of your first turn.

Play only with objectives that are in "no man's land."

Draw cards BEFORE deployment.

Score cards starting with round 2.

Score objective based "cards" at the end of your OPPONENT'S turn.

Be able to discard more than 1 card per turn.

Always ignore cards that are impossible to accomplish (which we did).

I thought that a lot of these were pretty good.  A good solution probably involves a combination of some / all of them.  It is my belief that solid mission design can create a similar feel to these Tactical Objectives, but for the time being I think it's important to keep events "feeling" something like 7th edition as it appears in the book.


New Edition = Make things super clear in the packet.
In round two I heard a fair number of questions that could have been avoided had I been more clear in the packet.  That's on me.  I debated getting into all sorts of details but refrained due to trying to keep the mission + score sheet to 1 page.


Don't nerf things that might be in the game for a reason. 
It was probably a mistake to nerf Invisibility for this event.  As it turns out, Invisibility might be quite strong against.... things that are quite strong, like Warhound titans and other super-heavies.

After thinking about things, talking to people, and reading a bunch about how to "handle" 7th edition Invisibility it might not be game breaking after all.  It's obviously quite strong and probably exploitable, but... That remains to be seen.


Consider getting rid of the different restrictions the allies matrix puts in place.
In mission 3 it might be very difficult or costly to claim and an objective if you're playing with a team member that's not playing a friendly army.  Do we think this is a problem going forward?

(You need a scoring unit from each player to claim an objective in this mission, which means that a unit from each player would have to be within 3" of a given objective marker and therefore within 6" of a "potentially unfriendly unit" giving them both a chance to do nothing.)


So that's most of it.  Please use this thread to post your opinions or any different feedback you might have.

Thanks!

[Benjamin]

I'm glad to see the feedback about Invisibility, and I'm glad it's currently in favor of leaving it as is. It's nice to have a ruleset not continually on the cusp of comp.

[RobbHarkins]

My only comment is def don't mess with the Ally matrix, no one is forced to play with someone who isn't battle brothers or allies of convenience, I played tau with dark eldar and we actually crushed that 3rd game and just waited til last turn to claim those objectives together and it didn't interfere. I had a great time as always, thanks a ton chase.

[shwnlyns]

I had a lot of fun today, it was a good turn out and most everyone was very friendly and fun to play against. My third game in particular was a blast, blood shed and mayhem to the extreme ending in a draw with cheering and laughs all around.

That said I liked the tactical objectives. We played it so that if an objective was not possible to achieve, we generated another instead and that was great. However, it totally sucks when you have a ton of objectives that you have a very hard time achieving because the objectives are in your opponents zone, surrounded by broadsides or something. So I think discarding more than one per turn would be nice and scoring beginning at the end of turn two might help, but it would have to be tested.

As for Lords of War, I don't like them. One reason in particular, if you are able to kill a lord of war vehical, it blows up and wrecks everything near it. Some codexes have no good way of killing a lord of war outside of close combat, so doing so is sacrificing your unit by doing something they are suppose to be doing. Example' tank bustas are suppose to be good at blowing up vehicles, but if they do so against a super heavy, they themselves die in the process. And not every codex has a good way at all to deal with a super heavy. I'm tired of the argument that a unit of melta wielding space marines in a drop pod can easily take out a super heavy because not everyone plays space marines. And, finally, I know there are measures taken to try to give the player not using a lord of war an advantage in scoring, but it doesn't seem like enough to balance the game.
 
About the psychic phase, it's strong. I don't think it is game breaking strong but it seems to me like the dispelling might as well not even be a thing. In the six games I've played of 7th edition, I ever only dispelled once, and it was the last spell cast out of desperation with very few power dice remaining. Biomancy in particular is very good. If you like winning, use psychers, and not just to cast prescience anymore.   

And lastly, it's a doubles event, Partners shouldn't have to worry about moving close to each other. They don't have to benefit in any way from each other, but some people want to play they army they enjoy playing with people they enjoy playing with and it doesn't always result in fluff approved battle brothers. Doubles isn't the most competitive event out there and I think allowing partners to play without one eye open (or whatever the rule is called) makes for a more fun event.

That'll do it. Thanks for putting on the event and I look forward to doing it again sometime.

[Mike D]

Today was a ton of fun, and here goes my 2cents.

Firstly,  Tactical objectives are way to random.  If you get "bad" ones you can do everything right and still loose.  Or on the flip side play lousy and win due to "good" fortune.  Great fun within a friendly environment, not a competitive one.

Second, Lords of War are great to see on the table top but some form of restriction is required to keep games fun for both sides.  Warhammer 30k restricts them to games of 2k plus and no more then 25% of your point total.  The Bay Area Open and Nova have come up with a list that basically eliminates the Lords that can ignore cover or use hell storm templates.  Possibly 2 good starting points.  For team play Mabee limit teams to 1 CAD they can split up, much like 5th ed but allows for a single Lord and a single Fortification.

Third, Psychic phase.  It's a mess, army's getting insane power dice vs army's that get almost none and the dispell mechanic doesn't balance out at all.  It is no fun facing such a massive mismatch.  One idea is to remove a success for every 6 rolled and if the castings total successes are dropped below there warp cost then it fails.  This eliminates the all or nothing mechanic and allows army's with only a few dice to have a decent chance at countering that one critical power.  Another idea is to cap dice on a sliding scale based on the total points of the list possibly 5 per every full 500 points.

Lastly,  Allies.  Keep the ally matrix intact.  Friends that want to play together still can but have a slight chance of messing each other up if there army's are desperate or come the apoc.  That is the way the game is designed in this eddition.

Just my initial thoughts on the matter, they are meant to be constructive critiscism and not start a flame war and they are not targeted at any person or team.  Let's keep this civil and build a better framework for competitive play together.

[MM3791]

I played a few games this weekend, my first taste of 7th. I played as pure Grey Knights and didn't think my psychic phase was overpowered. Yes I generate a lot of dice, but as GK the model count is incredible low & always outnumbered.. so I need every drop of firepower I can get. On the reverse side, if I get perils.. it is a severe blow. Like I said, it's a low model count army, so loosing even one marine to perils is devastating.

I don't like the Maelstrom cards at all because it's like playing Texas Hold'em on top of 40k. It wouldn't be as bad if objectives were captured at the end game turn.. NOT player turn. It encourages suicide tactics, even throwing away your HQ because the objective is worth more.  If it was done at the end of game turn (as opposed to player turn) it would at least give the opponent a chance to retaliate. Seriously, something like the life a Farseer with 5000 years of experience, all of a sudden means nothing when he sees a shiny trinket in the ground. It's also DUMB that you can literally obliterate your opponent's army and still lose the entire game because of the stupid cards.. lol WOW 

Other then that 7th is a lot of fun.

[Admech]

Honestly besides restrictions keeping the limit to one Lord of war besides knights would be fine,
I assumed that I would fight one and came packing for it,
I think the mechanics for the objectives cards could be done better, perhaps one deck amongst the table.
But over all I enjoyed it And will probably run a different army next time,
In terms of allies matrix?
Leave it, if people want to choose whacky combos, make them work for it,

[Tsilber]

 Had a great time, and 3 great games.

My feedback is the strategic cards are ridiculous and all luck. It takes up time and frankly I simply do not think you should consider them going forward. Our 2nd game, we happen to draw the exact cards we needed to shoot us up by a lot of points right out of the box.

As for the Lords of war, sure we got both of them down (Alex and I). But only because we had the tools to do it, 3 tzeetnch deamon units all getting flickering fire for free + a lucky divination roll from Fateweaver to acquire misfortune. Plus Alex had haywire staffs and guass weapons. Honestly at first I thought what a terrible draw for us to have to face a warhound titan and baneblade. But soon realized it was a terrible draw for them, as I am not sure many other armies/players could of dented those things (this being from the armies I saw in the top tiers, not the players). They are cool and all, but I do not think lords of war belong in a skirmish based game. If so then the restriction of 1 at 1850-2000 points, and only 25% of your points cost is a great one to consider. This allows Orks to use Ghaz but takes out the 800point ridiculousness.

As for the psychic phase, Even having 9 dice + d6 at 1000 points... You still cast less spells than the last edition, even if your opponent has none. Alex and I played some practice games, My daemons Vs. his Necrons. 13 + d6 Vs D6. And I still got off less spells than I was able to last edition. We also played space marines Vs his Seer council/wave serpeant. He had 16+d6 Vs my d6, and he could not get off the same amount of spells as he used to be able to in 6th. Spell casting is weaker than it used to be and doesnt need a nerf really. If you are really considering one, then perhaps try something like roll a d6 for each warp charge point you will generate for free (per mastery level, not dice roll). On a 3+ generate the warp charge as normal, on 1-2 you do not. So 9 warp charges = 9 rolls. On a 3+ you get the warp charge to use, on 1-2 you do not.

I enjoyed the games, thanks everyone for their compliments on my painted Daemons.

[Mad Dok Rob]

Some of what I would have said has already been covered, but here are a few things.

Allies-  Everyone should be allies of convenience.  People say you should have to work for wacky combos, it is what the edition is, blah blah blah.  Doubles is supposed to be a more casual event.  I play Orks and Shawn plays SM.  We should not be penalized just because 2 friends want to play together...especially when one of us plays with a subpar codex.  Imperials have way to much of an advantage since they can pull off wacky combos with the BB stuff.  Also, I like dual allies to capture objective and table quarters, but with imperial BB is is ridiculously easy.  Scotti and John were able to just flip HQs into each other squads and done (which was a brilliant idea).  If everyone is AoC, it just lets people come and have fun (and does not immediately give a big advantage to some teams)

Superheavies- Do not like them.  It is cool to see James's big walky thing of death (and I know he had fun playing it) but it is exceeding difficult if not impossible for some armies to fight them.  1 Imperial Knight pretty much wrecked almost my entire Ork force before I killed him...and then it blew up and took out another chunk of my force.  Especially having no Deffrollas in 7th, going to be even harder.  I think they fit better in an apocalypse style game.  They are not point balanced for what they can do (unlike the colossals in warmachine) and probably do not belong in a skirmish game.

Tact Objectives- Cool, but need some work.  One opponent kept drawing hold objective so and so, which was the objective in their deployment zone that they put 2-3 of their riptides on and all their broadsides.  We kept drawing that too.  Auto points for them, impossible points for us to take.  I would move the objectives to no mans land and actually make people go after them instead of just having them in their deployment zone.  I also like in Warmachine you do not score objective points until the second players second turn.  It gives you a chance to contest.

All in all a fun experience for a first 40k tournament.  I would do the more casual ones like this again.  Although since I got a taste of the more tournament style lists 4 riptides, an imperial knight, and a bunch of crisis suits (and seeing the super heavies James and Brenton brought), I think I will only be doing the casual ones since my 40k army seems to pretty much lock me into NPC status for the "forge the narrative" crap GW is pushing.

[Grimwulfe]

Allies - I would like to see them left alone but wouldn't be objected to AoC for doubles so everyone can have a fun time.  HOWEVER if a non daemon army summons daemons they should still have to follow the allies matrix and take the negatives of doing so.

Tactical Objectives - I felt like I needed a secretary to just keep track of all of them.  I think they slow the game down allot and with added phases and rules that is not helpful.  Also it makes a tactical game a pure luck of the draw game which isnt fun at all.  Possible solution?  Keep all objectives in no mans land and maybe limit the amount of cards you can draw a turn to a maximum.

Superheavies - Normal 40k games have no place for them.  They are ridiculous.  I think if you allow them Todd has a great idea.  Limit the amount of points that can be spent on them.  This allows the cool things like Knights and Gaz but eliminates the ones that shouldn't be in 40k. (my opinion agree or disagree its cool)

Physchic phase - Not a big deal spells are harder to cast then they used to be.  Even armies without pychers get a chance to throw dice at a deny.  I font see this as being an issue.

All in All - Had a great day of gaming alot of fun to be had and it was really good to see the place full up again!

[keithb]

I'm glad to see the feedback about Invisibility, and I'm glad it's currently in favor of leaving it as is. It's nice to have a ruleset not continually on the cusp of comp.

Almost every post in this thread is suggesting some kind of a change.   Why are you against changes for the sake of it.

Certain aspects of the ruleset are garbage.   Fantasy is the same way.   However, Many people feel that 8th edition Fantasy, with some minor comp changes, is the best edition ever.   GW genuinely encourages TOs to run their own ruleset and experiment.

[MM3791]

Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.

[Eversor]

Ello! SoB player here.

Just some thoughts from my side of things.

The Tactical Objectives are a fantastic way to keep players moving and thinking about about the board state, instead of waiting till later in the game for the mad rush to hold points. It keeps players on there toes about the mission at hand. While I did get bad draws, we were every turn moving toward our goals at hand. I do welcome the ideas that were suggested to be able to discard more than 1 card per turn.
and always ignore cards that are impossible to accomplish. Do keep them for future games if you can!

Superheavies - What has already been said about them I agree wholly about. I don't have any studious ideas on how to keep them and make them work. I am sure you guys will have the better mindset to handle it. I welcome the big vehicles and such to the table, but limitations are needed.

Physchic phase - I didn't do enough research it seems, but invisibility is quite amazing I learned. I remember last edition it was all about prescience, but wow invisibility is spiffy!

I had a amazing time overall. It was a bit overwhelming and I learned a lot from all of you guys. I have been playing up on Lowell for a long time now and I got used to the same similar tactics people did around here. You guys showed me that 40k really has a lot more to show me then I thought! Thanks again!

[Grimwulfe]

Keith, it's cool that you like fantasy, but there's no need to keep bringing it up in the 40k thread. 7th is really good, the biggest criticisms seem to be the Lords of War and the objective cards.. other then that it looks like a solid edition.

As much as I hate to agree with Keith I do.  He mentions Fantasy because they have gone through the EXACT thing 40k is going through now.  They had to adjust the game to make it better.  Are we not talking about the same thing? 

Since he plays both he has an even better idea on how fantasy can relate to 40k and what 40k has to learn from Fantasy.  I would advise not to immediately dismiss his thoughts or statements because they mention Fantasy but rather try to see them from his point and maybe learn from SOME of them.

LOL cant believe I just said that.  Overall I think minor tweaks are needed to make this edition a very solid game I am looking forward to how things move forward at a BG level and a GT level.

[piratingwerewolf]

as One Of The Superheavy Players I Admittedly Disagre With What Is Said. Yes They Are Very Powerful, But That Isn't The Players Fault. If We Took Four Lemon Russe Instead  We Would Have Had More Fire Power Than Either Superheavy. And It Would Have Been More Advantages To Us As We Could Have Better Fire targets. Also The Fact Of The Matter Is, If You Killed All 30 Of Our Other Guys, We Could Have Not Win The Match Since We Would Not Have Been Able To Bold Objectives Well. I've Playe Against SuperheavIes In 1850 WithouT One And Won By Objectives. Also There Are Combos Far Worse outthEre Than Them. 2+ Rerollable Saves? Really? Anyone Who Played Against Us And Uses That Combo Normally KnowsExactly How People Feel When They Play Against That. The Fact Of The Matter Is You Restrict All Broken Ideas Or None Of Them. Look At It Like This. At 1850 It'sEntirely Possible To One Round A Warhound. Your Entire Army shooting At Seerstar Removed A Bike A Turn On Average. YouWillComplain About Big New Models, But Not Complain  About AutoWins?