Annihilation 3 question

[AgentP]

So Annihilation 3 is coming up in December.  I have a question for those interested in playing.  Some people have expressed a desire for events to return to the "core" of 40k....think old man get-off-my-lawn 40k.  Would people prefer the following "comp" be added to the event?

 

1. Same Annihilation maelstrom rules as posted

2. No formations, only a single CAD allowed 

3. No allies

4. No LoW

5. All D weapons are treated as Str 10 Ap1

 

Would this enhance, or detract, from peoples' enjoyment?

[pretre]

1. Same Annihilation maelstrom rules as posted

2. No formations, only a single CAD allowed 

3. No allies

4. No SH/GC

5. All D weapons are treated as Str 10 Ap1

 

I would change 4 to the above, just to make it fair. Taking logan isn't a big deal, taking a Wraithknight is.

[pretre]

To answer the question, I would be fine with it.

[pretre]

Also, to go off of the other thread... Are fortifications or flyers allowed? Or are flyers converted to Fast Skimmers?

[AgentP]

I'm personally fine with fortifications and fliers.  But I'm soliciting ideas here, not really putting my own ideas out

[pretre]

Amusingly enough, my last Annihilation list fits into the original requirements.

[CaptainA]

No LOW characters?

 

Oh, eben addressed this.

[pretre]

No LOW characters?

 

Oh, eben addressed this.

Yeah, cause I'm the man!

[Guest]

So Annihilation 3 is coming up in December.  I have a question for those interested in playing.  Some people have expressed a desire for events to return to the "core" of 40k....think old man get-off-my-lawn 40k.  Would people prefer the following "comp" be added to the event?

 

1. Same Annihilation maelstrom rules as posted

2. No formations, only a single CAD allowed 

3. No allies

4. No LoW

5. All D weapons are treated as Str 10 Ap1

 

Would this enhance, or detract, from peoples' enjoyment?

 

2&3: I'd really like to be able to include a small allied detachment. Not a formation, but either an allied or INQ detachment should be allowed. Could restrict it to only allow the mandatory units.

4. Alter to no SH/GC LoWs. Draigo and such special character ICs are not the same thing as the SH/GC LoWs.

5: D weapons should have armorbane, at the very least, if going with that profile. D weapons should not pen land raiders only 1/3rd the time. Ignores cover wouldn't be entirely unreasonable, as the old D weapons did ignore cover.

 

6. Can we go back to area terrain rules?

 

Also, can we have tables without ruins? 40k is almost 100% ruins in 7th.

[Guest]

Oh, could we also have flyers start on the table and all flyers count as skimmers (like in 5th)?

[pretre]

2&3: I'd really like to be able to include a small allied detachment. Not a formation, but either an allied or INQ detachment should be allowed. Could restrict it to only allow the mandatory units.

4. Alter to no SH/GC LoWs. Draigo and such special character ICs are not the same thing as the SH/GC LoWs.

5: D weapons should have armorbane, at the very least, if going with that profile. D weapons should not pen land raiders only 1/3rd the time. Ignores cover wouldn't be entirely unreasonable, as the old D weapons did ignore cover.

 

6. Can we go back to area terrain rules?

 

Also, can we have tables without ruins? 40k is almost 100% ruins in 7th.

Inquisition or assassins as allies would be similar to 3rd.

D weapons weren't in 40k; they were in apoc. The idea is to remove them from this event effectively by making them S10AP1

Let's not change the terrain rules.

[pretre]

I love the idea. Count me in.

I think we're still in the exploratory phase. :)

[Guest]

D weapons weren't in 40k; they were in apoc. The idea is to remove them from this event effectively by making them S10AP1

Let's not change the terrain rules.

Nerfing D weapons is fine, but making them worse than non-D weapons seems like a bad call. A D weapon should be at least as good as the Deathstrike missile's profile (S10, ap1, ignores cover, ordnance).

 

And besides, without LoWs, how many D weapons are out there? I mean, the melee D weapons already ignore cover, so there is no change over your suggestion.

 

I *love* how players that don't use things are always suggesting nerfing them to the detriment of others.

[Nato Sicarius]

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Papalith

Get off my Lawn! 

 

These rules seem fun. Does this mean no Imperial Knights, 1 Wraithknight?

[Guest]

What about Skitarii/Cult and or Harlequins?

I think CM can fit in a CAD, but the present list bans skitarii, assassins, and INQ. Not sure on harlies.

[Guest]

For the record, the "Destroyer Weapon" I would be bringing would be a chance rolling of the "Vortex of Doom" psychic power for my Grey Knights. There is no reason that power should be nerfed to be less impressive than the TK "Psychic Maelstrom." Especially when "Vortex of Doom" causes auto-perils if I fail to cast it, while "Psychic Maelstrom" does not.

[pretre]

Nerfing D weapons is fine, but making them worse than non-D weapons seems like a bad call. A D weapon should be at least as good as the Deathstrike missile's profile (S10, ap1, ignores cover, ordnance).

 

And besides, without LoWs, how many D weapons are out there? I mean, the melee D weapons already ignore cover, so there is no change over your suggestion.

 

I *love* how players that don't use things are always suggesting nerfing them to the detriment of others.

Vortex, Wraithguard, HWP for Eldar, etc.

 

I LOVE how players like to make sweeping generalizations about people without thinking. I have used, and continue to use, all of the things we're talking about not allowing. If you weren't being specific about me, then the ITC votes have proven, at least in the ITC 40k community, that you are incorrect.

[pretre]

What about Skitarii/Cult and or Harlequins?

Anyone who can't fit in a CAD would be excluded, assumedly.

[deadwing34]

I like this idea, I think it would help playing games in a tournament setting quite a bit as follows:

 

1. Less time looking in your rule book for all of the special LOW rules, allied rules, formations rules, fortification rules etc.

2. Should help with game balance.

3. Makes list creation quicker and easier.

[pretre]

I like this idea, I think it would help playing games in a tournament setting quite a bit as follows:

 

1. Less time looking in your rule book for all of the special LOW rules, allied rules, formations rules, fortification rules etc.

2. Should help with game balance.

3. Makes list creation quicker and easier.

While I agree that 1 and 3 might be true, 2 is a bit dubious. Codexes with strong overall choices will still have strong overall choices. Other books that become more viable with allies and don't have strong overall choices will still be behind. Balance is a game of whack a mole.

[pretre]

I think this format should appeal to people from a sense of nostalgia, not a sense of balance. As I already noted, my army (which won the last annihilation) fits neatly into this format. That means that I lose almost nothing (+1 WS for a couple units basically) and many of my opponents (My first round opponent had at least one formation and an army that may not be even fieldable, my second round had multiple knights and my third round opponent had flying monstrous creatures and alternative detachments) are made weaker. So, in actuality, it becomes less balanced. :)

[Kwodd]

Sounds fun.

[AbusePuppy]

I would be okay with it, although personally I'd prefer the "special" detachments (Company of the Great Wolf, Harlequin's Mask, etc) and Decurion formations to be allowed so long as nothing else was taken, as I think the lack of Objective Secured is a pretty good balancing factor, especially in a tournament where every mission is Maelstrom.

[galahad911]

I think this format should appeal to people from a sense of nostalgia, not a sense of balance. As I already noted, my army (which won the last annihilation) fits neatly into this format. That means that I lose almost nothing (+1 WS for a couple units basically) and many of my opponents (My first round opponent had at least one formation and an army that may not be even fieldable, my second round had multiple knights and my third round opponent had flying monstrous creatures and alternative detachments) are made weaker. So, in actuality, it becomes less balanced. :)

You had a fort. I thought Aaron won.

[Nathanvoodoo]

I don't think I like it.

 

It completely rewards people with massive collections or older longstanding players and deters new players. Oh you play Space Marines, you are golden... You have tons of armies, awesome. You are new to the game and only have a collection that features only some formations - don't bother playing.

 

I for one, only own admech, some knights and some inquisitors- I'll simply be destroyed by any and all Space marines with drop pods and obsec- while I'll have no way of even obtaining obsec for myself.

 

The list I've been playing lately- which is silly and not very strong, but can still win- would be completely illegal in this format.

 

Nope.

 

As if the game weren't bad enough about what is viable to use and play a game with...