Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Blog Wars 9 Rule Amendments and FAQ

Blog Wars 9 is a little less than five weeks away and GW is determined to make things more and more complicated with each passing week. There's therefore quite a lot to discuss before the event.

I'm keen not to restrict things too much because I hope that players will remember that Blog Wars is supposed to be a friendly event without the usual filthy lists. I've only ever had to return one list for being too dirty and I hope that I won't have to do it again. I'm not a fan of telling people what they can or can't use in their army but I'm conscious that some things just aren't much fun for anyone involved. Please make my job easier by writing your lists with the spirit of the event in mind. I have no problem with a strong list, just try to avoid particularly dirty combinations. Right onto a few things that I think need clarifying.

New Codices 
In the old days there might be a single new book between each BW event. This time there's probably going to have been half a dozen or so (and counting). The new Imperial Knights book is confirmed for this Saturday and I'm going to make this the last new book that will be allowed at Blog Wars. At that point there'll be just two weeks before army submission so I'd prefer to avoid people needing to make last minute changes. Therefore if your army gets an update after this date (May 9th), but before the tournament, the old rules will still be in play. Similarly, any new factions released after May 9th will not be legal at Blog Wars 9.

I'll need to read through the Imperial Knights book at some point soon after it's release (I'm getting a copy anyway) to decide whether anything needs to change regarding their use. Unless I say otherwise they'll stay as they are though.

Whilst we're on the subject, codices without an option for a Special Character to act as Commander may still be used. A character must be nominated as the "Commander" and his death with still generate 100 extra VPs in game one, however, he will not receive Objective Secured in missions 2 and 3.

Detachments & Army Selection
From the multitude of emails I've been receiving I worry that the army selection criteria are a little bit overcomplicated. I think it would make sense to simplify the whole thing by saying that each army can have a maximum of two detachments but no detachment may be used more than once i.e. no double CAD etc. I think that makes things much easier to understand and frees up more options for people. You can still only have one Lord of War and/or Fortification in your army though and your "Commander" SC must still be in a CAD/Faction and it be your Primary. I'll update the BW9 page to reflect this unless I hear any strong objections.

I know this opens up more nasty combos but some were still possible with the old system and hopefully you guys will self-police a little bit when it comes to filth.

Invulnerable Saves & Re-rolls
Once again, I'd hope this won't be an issue at Blog Wars because I'd hope people would realise that a 2++ with re-roll isn't fun for anyone. However, just in case one slips through the net I'm going to say that a re-rolled Invulnerable Save is only passed on a roll of 4+. That means your unit is still pretty damn durable but your opponent should at least feel like they have a chance!

Invisibility
In its current form Invisibility is a bit daft, I think we can all agree. I therefore think it's reasonable to say that Invisibility simply reduces the BS of enemy units to 1. That means you can still fire blasts/templates and things that boost BS like markerlights will still be effective. I'm also going to rule that you can't cast Invisibility on a Super Heavy Vehicle or Gargantuan Monstrous Creature (or their variations). Having an invisible Wraithknight just isn't necessary.

Eldar Craftworlds
Well, GW really made my job tough with this one. There are some frankly ridiculous things in there such as jetbikes all with scatter lasers and Wraithknights full stop. Of course, there will always be some nasty combinations but again, I hope I can rely on people to be sensible rather than banning the Warhost completely.

Lords of War
As per the rules in Escalation, Lords of War (including those like Logan) will give up an extra VP for every full 3 wounds or hull points they suffer. This will hopefully mitigate the inclusion of Lords of War and give armies facing them a way of claiming points even when they aren't destroyed. Of course, in the first mission this will be in addition to the points scored from Blood Points.

Conclusion
As I've said above, I'll update the BW9 page now to reflect these things. Please please please comment if you strongly disagree and tell me why. I'd also like people to comment if there are any other issues I need to address. Finally, I want to thank everyone who's supported this event so far and got into the spirit of it by bringing something that's a bit different from the usual "netlists". Games Workshop may be making my job more and more difficult but hearing the positive feedback from people (just about) makes it worthwhile.

34 comments:

  1. All sounds good Alex looking forward to blog wars enjoyed it last time despite not winning all my games or any random prizes . I've made my list round one detatchment now and I'm not changing as I have already had to change it so I had a special character. I appreciate u try to accommodate most people and lists but don't worry ur restrictions do help towards better games although u will always find that people find a way despite ur efforts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the one hand I've got people who will find a way of taking cheese and on the other I've got people who wanted to run something fun/fluffy that I've now stopped. It's an impossible thing to balance.

      Delete
  2. Sounds good to me. My Skitarii force is well on the way!

    ReplyDelete
  3. No problems here. My list was coming from one detachment anyway (though saying that I just picked up the assassins game and checked out the rules for them, wonder if it's too late to get one painted up?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I've got a crapload of orks to paint so I'm sure you can paint one assassin...

      Delete
  4. Forgot to ask, is there an official blog wars ruling on grav guns against vehicles? Specifically, if a grav gun rolls a 6 against a vehicle that is already immobilised, does the vehicle take just one hull point damage or does it take two hull points damage (one from the grav gun and an additional point because it is already immobilised)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm relatively certain that's just how being imbolised works- you couldn't just change it for that and not apply it to the whole vehicle damage chart. Plus you do get a cover save now

      Delete
    2. As far as I can recall (and I'll double check later). I've previously said first shot does immobile and a HP. Second shot does two HP. It's only the same as a normal anti-tank weapon rolling two immobilise results.

      Against super heavies they'll just do a hull point per 6 as you can't immobilise them.

      Delete
  5. You did not mention the dirty D word in your post above. Will you be making any changes to the way they work?. Currently I think the eldar codex is the most filthy thing out there and the D weapons and D Flamers are the worst. What are your thoughts on those going into blog wars 9? I can't help but feel that the top tables will be all eldar (even 'friendly' lists are a whole different power level than most other codexes) and the rest of us will be scrapping at the bottom if some amendments aren't made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know the feeling. My most regular opponent plays Eldar. He is not a power gamer by any means and always tries to come up with "friendly" Eldar lists based on a theme or something he wants to try out (such as massed swooping hawks). Even these friendly lists are very powerful compared to most armies out there (this was even before the new codex).

      Delete
    2. I am putting a Skitarii list in. All I can hope if I get rolled against Eldar is that I learn something haha. Not going to moan though. Just the way the cookie crumbles!

      Delete
    3. The "dirty D" is a difficult one. If I ban ranged D like the Americans are doing then I'm banning wraithguard completely and I'm not a fan of that. Normal wraithguard have a threat range of 18" if you blow up their transport so if you can manage that you can deal with them. D-scythes are only slightly better than before. No 6s and 1&2 do nothing. Against most targets they're no different. Vehicles are affected the most but a heavily mechanised army should be able to down the wave serpents somehow.

      All that aside. The Eldar codex is very strong (as is the Necron one frankly). If I ban certain units there's plenty of other things to fill the gaps. Eldar were strong before and placed highly. It will probably happen again but that has more to do with GW than me. The book simply doesn't fit in with the other new books which are pretty balanced between each other.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough. Maybe just amending the D so it is a little less powerful would be sufficient? Say 1-3 no result on a flamer and all 6's on d weapon shots count as a 2-5 result instead? I agree that the codex is totally out of wack, and also think you are right about the necron one too. It is like GW designed those two for a completely different edition and forgot about everything else they had done before.

      Delete
    5. If you take away the 6s then they're not much better than other non-destroyer weapons. You need to have that chance of rolling a 6 to justify their existence. Not such a big deal against vehicles as a 2-5 will be enough most of the time but against a character with a storm shield you need to lose the invulnerable save. I know it's very powerful but it's supposed to be. If you take away the 6s then why run a unit with destroyer weapons?

      Delete
  6. All looks good Alex - looking forward to it!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm gonna be honest Alex, I wouldn't know the difference in the "2 detachments" thing that you've changed it to- but maybe that's because I'm not playing the game how G-dub wants me too! I was wondering about D weapons as well, but I can appreciate its harder to counteract specific items in codecs as that will have bias (perceived or otherwise) from the TO.

    Overall it seems to be a good job, looking forwards to it :) as ever, some of us from lesta will be there the night before- if anybody wants to arrange a practice game (or fly casually)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doesn't affect my mono CAD 3rd edition necron phalanx :-)

    Looking forward to it now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since IG/AM have no CAD style detachments could I get away with the Steel Host with a Tank Commander (Pask) and then the 3 russ squadrons and the Hydra?

    As ironically trying to fit a CAD/cad style chart in made the list better as it had support..

    John Holland (Anon as work PC's hate technology).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Was going to use the plasma obliterator with pure ravenwing need to try and work something else out now, or change from DAs...

    Jonathan Lyness

    ReplyDelete
  11. The rumour is that all imperial knights will be lords of war. Does this mean the triple build is now banned?

    http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/imperial-knight-codex-information.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that needs editing. I don't think it's fair to ban multiple Imperial Knights having only just allowed them!

      A CAD will still only allow one Lord of War and I'll probably say "only one detachment in each army may contain one or more Lords of War". That means IK only armies will still be allowed but few, if any, other armies will be able to field more than one. Seems an elegant solution unless I've missed something?

      Like everything else I do, it'll penalise some armies more than others but I can't win!

      Delete
    2. Of course, I'll need to read the book and decide if any of the formations are too stupid.

      Delete
  12. Feck is it that soon, I have no idea what the hell list I'm going to use...finally got what I wanted since I started playing again, an Eldar codex where pretty much all of the Aspects are viable, and they just HAD to add that extra level of crazy. Basterds.

    Despite having profited from invis in BW8 I think you've made a good decision in changing both it and the whole 2++ thing, definitely tones them down whilst still being significant boosts.

    I think you're underestimating the Power of the D on Wraithguard tho'; sure you can limit their range if they're in Serpents but what about the friendly Dark Eldar Deep Striking Taxi service? Especially with the scythes, which are significantly more powerful against higher toughness than they were, wounding anything on a 3+ now as opposed to a 5+ against Thunderwolves for example - they can kill Wraithknights now, couldnt before. I get that they're meant to be powerful, but are they meant to be carried by what amount to line troops? Personally I have no problem in keeping the previous codex's profiles for all the ranged D weapons, and letting the knight run with the cc D stick - it's not as if every Eldar player was crying out for the Distort rule to become Str D, so in a format like Blog Wars I dont feel there'd be many complaints.

    Btw, what is it about the Warhost that's worse than the Decurion? Not trying to be snide, I'm honestly curious as to your assessment of their relative strengths.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have to agree tess, d-scythe have had the ID taken away, so have only have a change to wound on a 3,4,5,6. Then it's a 1 in 3 chance to do any significant damage.

    Also thinking about the eldar warhost, the benefit is a guaranteed run of 6", the other benefits are only the ability to take multiples of other units, although multiple wraithknights are banned as only one lord of war can be taken (as I cast a glance at my previous question regarding Imp knights.....), whereas the decurian detatchment makes necron night on indestructable, as my 10 fire dragons, 10 dire avengers, 2 wave serpents and 6 dark reapers firing at 3 canoptek wraiths and only killing 1 has shown. The shooting of 1 necron warrior with a s9 ap1 fire prism, only for him to get up again was also a touch frustrating!!! Like Tess, not a complaint just also wondering why there are distinctions between the two. The warhost does indeed allow some tough combos, but involves a lot of toughness 3 guardians and paper vehicles, whereas (as previously described) the decurian gives an entire army pseudo FNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what, you guys are right. I think I need to reduce the restrictions and trust people to be sensible. There'll always be dirty combos that remain legal.

      On a side note, I bloody hate Necrons!

      Delete
  14. Out of interest, what's you preferred method for submitting lists, PDF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't care so long as it's legible!

      Delete
  15. Hi Alex, all these new rules and codex releases must be a pain in the ass to keep up with! But with regards to the new knights codex can you confirm if I am allowed to run a baronial court formation of three knights as my primary force? And ally my mechanicum alongside them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you can but then your princeps can't be your "Commander" as he must be in your primary

      Delete
    2. Have you read the rules for that Alex? It's worse than Ad lance which you banned!

      Delete
    3. Yes I have read the rules thanks John. I have to be familiar with quite a lot of rules I wouldn't normally bother with.

      The Ad Lance gives a re-roll to saves on all four facings which is 75% success rate. The Baronial Court gives +1 to the front facing only which is 66% there and 50% on the rest. If you get around the side the bonus is useless. Of course 6" range is better than 3" but you're still bunching up your knights which might help your opponent and isn't great in objective games (particular Maelstrom in last mission).

      The re-roll for Warlord trait isn't huge and there's nothing to say this will be your Primary anyway. Overwatch and Counter-Attack aren't as good as D3 Hammer of Wrath and Charge range re-rolls. The Overwatch will only work for the support weapons anyway (melta/stubber/etc).

      Of course the +1 BS/WS is good but it doesn't make a huge difference to blasts and if you're charging it then you've got more to worry about than +1 WS.

      In summary then, the Court certainly isn't as bad as the Lance and it will remain legal for BW9. If it proves to be ridiculous I might change my mind for BW10 of course.

      Delete
  16. Thanks for the clarification Alex! Your a star for organising this event and trying to keep on top of everything! I think we all owe you a pint on the day for all your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I'm driving I'm afraid and it takes all my concentration to play and run the event at the same time.

      Besides, I couldn't drink 49 pints in a year nevermind a day!

      Delete
  17. Well the first coke is on me then :p

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...