Saturday, September 19, 2015

Blog Wars X - Tau and Rule Clarifications

As I mentioned the other day there are only a couple of tickets left for Blog Wars X so get yours quickly if you haven't bought one already. For those of you who are already coming along I wanted to clarify a few things before the big day and make sure there aren't any other bits and pieces that I need to go through.

I'm pretty relieved that GW has thrown so much time and effort in to Age of Sigmar recently. It's meant that 40K players have had a bit of a breather from the frantic release schedule in the first half of the year. It was getting pretty difficult to keep up with things and think about the dirtier combinations and how to deal with them. The breather looks like it's about to come to and end with what appears to be a hefty Tau release.....

New Tau Codex and Units
The rumour mill would have us believe that the Tau codex will be landing on 24th (pre-orders on 17th). That means people will only have it in their hands on the morning of the list submission deadline. I think that's just too late for people to plan their lists, not just the Tau players but anyone trying to try to prepare for threats coming their way. I'll therefore be ruling that the current codex will remain in play for BWX i.e. the 6th edition one. Of course there'll be some new units released in the weeks prior to the codex which will have rules in White Dwarf. I think it's best to say that these won't be legal either. That's because, theoretically at least, they'll have been created in the context of the new codex.

I know this is irritating for a the Tau players but it's just unfortunate timing. As you all know, I'm a Tau player myself so I'm looking forward to the new units as much as anyone else. I may even be giving some of them away as prizes and you can count on the new Tau codex being in the raffle.

Invisibility
I've previously adjusted the wording of the psychic power to try to make it less ridiculous. I've been thinking about it recently though and I think that banning it all together is a better idea. I know that sounds drastic but I just think it's far too powerful and spoils games.

Re-rolled Saves
This is another thing I've been thinking about. At the last Blog Wars I said that invulnerable saves could only be re-rolled on a maximum of 4+. I deliberately made it invulnerable saves only as both armour and cover saves can be taken away by a lot of different weapons and special rules. Having a re-rollable 2++ save seems OTT though.

The release of the DA codex has changed things a little though. It's not that unlikely for a unit to be getting a 2+ re-rollable cover save thanks to the Ravenwing special rule. I therefore think it'd be a good idea to make the same ruling for cover saves.

Best Save
Playing against Ravenwing recently has made me realise that there's a bit of a problem in the wording of the rules regarding units with multiple saves. The rule says a unit must always use the "best save available". This becomes ambiguous when you're trying to decide between a 3+ armour save and a 4+ cover save with a re-roll. Statistically speaking the armour save has a 66% chance of success and the re-rolled cover has a 75% chance of success. I think that factoring re-rolls into the decision is wrong. There's no right answer though (as with many things in 40K).

I think that for units with a 3+ armour AND a 3+ cover you could make the decision either way. I know that makes Black Knights significantly better than standard Ravenwing bikers but I think that's reasonable.

Comments and Anything Else?
I'd really like to hear your comments and feedback on these rulings whether you're playing in the tournament or not. Whilst I'd prefer not to change things too many times and confuse people, I need to know if I've not considered something important in these rulings.

I'd also like to hear if there's anything else that I should be making a ruling on. Obviously I'll be on hand during the day to help out with situations where players can't agree but I'd rather have something in writing before the day so that delays are kept to a minimum and people can enjoy their games knowing what to expect from the start. Your feedback over the years is what's made Blog Wars into what it is today and I'm grateful for your support.

23 comments:

  1. I think invisibility is a ridiculous power that really does ruin games and should not exist. I am pleased by your ruling :). I also agree with your re-rollable save ruling. It is a fun tournament after all and things like that really are a little ott and can have a negative impact on the game

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well fun is a subjective term; in my first ever blog wars I shot my entire army at a SM command squad on bikes with the ubiquitous Chapter Master and his 2+ 3++ and feel no pain with SW allies and did precisely no wounds. The unit then split and smashed in the face. Repeatedly. The SM wolf/bike star is insanely durable. Never heard anyone call for it to be reined in.

      Delete
  2. I'm not sure what your decision on Best Save was (if there was one). Isn't the most sensible option to allow the player making the save to choose which save to use? They will most likely choose the save that they feel is best in the situation. It's just another tactical decision to be made (do I jink and get an increased save, but have to Jink next turn?).

    If I have a unit of Black Knights within range of a Darkshroud, they get a 2+ Jink save and a 3+ armour save. Does this mean that I will be forced to Jink with the unit whenever they are shot at as the Jink save is the best save available? In this case, my opponent simple has to target the unit with a storm bolter in order to severely decrease their firepower next turn, so being forced to use the best save may be a penalty for me that I cannot avoid.

    I am happy with invisibility, I rarely use telepathy as it is.

    I'm not sure about the cover saves issue at the moment. Yes, a 2+ re-rollable makes them insanely durable, but this can be negated by charging the unit where they don't get a cover save. In the case of the Darkshroud, these are armour 10 vehicles, so normal bolters can damage them and you can expect a lot of shots to be going their way and most combat units will destroy them with ease.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be honest I wasn't thinking about the impact of Jinking in subsequent turns. I wasn't forcing anyone to use Jink though. You choose to Jink when targeted so by the time it comes to taking saves you either have a Jink cover save or you don't. You won't Jink if you think it'll hamper you to much next turn but will if you think you might not survive if you don't. The problem is whether you consider a 3+ armour save to be better or worse than a 4+ cover with re-roll. Statistically the cover save is better but should re-rolls be considered?

      Of course you can negate a cover save by charging but I think it's too powerful otherwise. Remember these rulings are from a BW standpoint where lists shouldn't be as OP as at other events.

      Delete
    2. That's fair enough and I honestly wasn't expecting anyone at Blog Wars to make a big fuss about it. Just wanted to clarify the situation in case anyone protested "you can't take your Jink save as the 3+ save is better).

      Also, what are your thoughts on Jinking vs Blast weapon scattering? If someone fires a blast weapon at one unit and it scatters onto a second unit. Is the second unit allowed a Jink save? They are not technically the target of the original attack, but have been affected.

      Delete
    3. That's the problem though. You could argue about which save is better and end up with a situation where you have to take an armour save. The idea of ruling that re-rolls aren't considered when deciding which save is best is to prevent people Jinking only to be told they have to use their armour. You still might decide to Jink though if there's low AP fire. GW makes things bloody complicated.

      You can only Jink if targeted so, no, a unit hit by a scattered blast would not be entitled to a cover save from Jink unless they'd already Jinked earlier in the turn and hence already had a cover save.

      Delete
  3. I think having a flat ruling on re-rolling of 2+ saves makes more sense than just invuns, pleased to hear it.

    If I role invisibly what happens do I just role again, or do I pick another power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've put it on the BWX page but, yes, you'd roll again.

      Delete
  4. Happy with the rulings, just a thought - for those that want to use telepathy there will be a perceived lack of option on that discipline compared to the others. thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eh, you now have a better chance of getting Shrouding or Hallucination, the other three ain't bad, and it's still a good Primaris.

      Delete
    2. As Westrider says there are still plenty of good Telepathy powers. I doubt it would put people off rolling for them. Hopefully it'll stop people writing lists with invisible deathstars in though.

      Delete
  5. I've never used invisibility but I think banning it out right is a bit... meh. Some armies require that power to operate. Seems a bit "pick and choose" when there are Imperial Knights running around the place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think about the kind of armies that need it to operate though. It tends to make already powerful armies obscene more than anything else.

      All tournaments are "pick and choose" in 7th edition. GW has made it near impossible to run a tournament without restrictions of some kind. Of course the game can't be balanced but should we just not bother?

      Delete
  6. Invisibility. I'm a Blood Angel player. We can't use telepathy. So yeah, ban the hell out of it! :)

    Seriously though, these seem like sensible rulings to me. Some armies suffer from a lack of nice re-rolls and such and this just evens the field a little bit and allows people to bring the army they like, not just an army that's 'good'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree with the reroll ruling on the 2+ jink. The game is absolutely litered with ignore cover weapons, and that completely nullifies their 2+ save. Heck, there are weapons that not only ignore their save, but also ignore their armor save at the same time.

    The 2+ rerollable jink is mainly there to help them actually reach their targets.

    2++ invuln can't be stopped by anything outside of a D on a 6. Totally different animal.

    But both armor and cover saves are defeatable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see your point, but I think it's better if nobody has a 2+ re-rollable of any form. It makes things cleaner and also means you can't go looking for the type that's exempt. It's a tough call, but I think it's the right one. However I do play guard, so what even is a 2+ save?!

      Delete
    2. Aye, but then where do you stop? Is it just a 2+ rerollable? What about a 3+ rerollable, with a 4+ or better reanimation or FNP? That's almost as high as the 2+ rerollable, and not defeatable (unless D).

      2+= 83%
      2+ reroll: 97%

      3+: 66%
      3+ reroll: 89%
      3+ reroll with FNP=92.6%
      3+ reroll with 4+ reanimation= 94.5%

      4+=50%
      4+ reroll:= 75%
      4+ reroll with FNP=
      4+ reroll with reanimation= 94.5%

      Delete
    3. whoops, ignore the 4+ section, was calculating and hit sent before I realized the 4+ was still in there.

      Delete
    4. Well RP is only 5+ at BW as Decurion is banned. I see your point though. There's a big difference between 97% and 89% though. Obviously 8% doesn't sound much but it's 4 out of 36 dice rather than 1!

      Delete
    5. Really interesting stats :) I would say that I just "feel" like I'd have more of a chance against 3+ rerollable, or 3+ with fnp. Even if that doesn't bear out 100% in the dice.

      Delete
  8. I'm playing Scars again but I am wondering if the War Convocation will be legal in Blog Wars as it is quite a powerful formation due to its free upgrades. More curious than anything :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a general rule. Any formation or detachment that is itself made up of formations or detachments is not allowed. So no the War Convocation would not be legal as it bypasses the two detachments rule.

      Delete
  9. I Agree with your decisions Alex what I find most interesting about this debate is some of the comments against ur save ruling are the same people who hated the decurion and bemoaned its use ,brilliant 😁 can't stop laughing . Can I just add we had a pre- blogwars practice tournament at mine last week and banned knights all the games were more enjoyable no d nonescene either mainly thanks to pete our Eldar player being nice with his list making . Just food for thought

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...