Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Psychic Powers

Beta Rules

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
78 replies to this topic

#26
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Yes. But would it have made a tangible difference. Backtrack. Each turn you lost 1-2 damage. Look which unit took damage and then as you go through rest of game how that damage affected the unit. Do that each turn.

If you smite would have smited 2 wounds off a Knight but it had 16 wounds left, then losing that two damage was pointless.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#27
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Not if they dropped it to the next degredation level.

You say we cast about 6 smites a turn and loose 3 of those.

A 50% reduction in output from our psychic phase each turn is massive.

Especially as we pay through the nose for it. And our chapter tactic is based on it.
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#28
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Answer the question Gentle, did losing those wounds tangible? And yes like the damage lost isn’t ‘meaningless’ statistically but was meaningful on the tabletop. And while reducing the damage from knight in this case (via bringing it below a certain threshold) might be relavent. You can backtrack and see if it was.

By taking notes, writing down what if and then follow through on the what if. Noting how average would have changed the result. So on and so forth. Yes, doing so it’s alot of work. But otherwise your claim “I lost damage”, is just that a claim.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#29
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Yes The damage loss is noticable.

Why do you even need me to type that?
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#30
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Because your making a statement without defense. In what way would the one damage make a difference. Take the Knight example over the course of the game of shot quite a few times had that two damage occurred turn two, meant you would have knocked it down a teir turn 4

But game ended turn 5. It only had one turn of reduce shooting. How much would have reducing its shooting by 33% been noticeable. Say you smites a IG Infantry Squad for 2-3 damage.

But when shot it with stormbolters even without smiting you effectively overkilled by 4. Of course that means you could have shot a Strike Squad another Unit. But 5 strikes shooting longrange only other viable target was a heavy weapon squad in cover at 18”. If you shot with 10 storm Bolters you hit about 7.5 times if you got rerolls. And then wound 5 times. Killing a base and half. And it likely passed morale.

However if that same squad shot you and missed all its shot the following turn and then sent squad to Melee Kill it. And didn’t lose anything on overwatch. That extra 3 damage you got from the smite was pointless anyways.

That is kind of answers and questions, what if’s you should be doing. Not just ‘I lose damage’ but you did you lose ‘damage’. What tangible difference did it make in the game you lost the damage?
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#31
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Play as GK, and not black templars with no psykers.

Then justify a 50% reduction to your psychic phase output.

And i'd be surprised if in none of your games, ever, a single wound hasn't had a game changing effect.

From removing a squad off an objective. To freeing a squad from a cc it was locked in allowing them to shoot.

Its an unwarrented nerf, is bad design, and down powers an army that is in a very bad place atm.

All of this has been readily explained already.

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 12 January 2018 - 12:38 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#32
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Gentle, then prove it. You said you played a few games, you always say or act like playtesting is easy. And you said a few games you’ve played demostrably prove this interacts poorly. Well then showcase it. Take notes, write down your powers and more. Write down when it would have made a difference. Secondly you have 3-4 relavent powers in your arsenal and 3-4 good casts of Smite. You have 8 relavent casts?

Go through and take notes Gentle. Your claiming X, lets see battle reports, the evidence. What I see is you played two games and then claim those two games it was relavent. If so how? Write it down. Make notes. Explain where the game go different how you got two additional smites
.

Edited by Schlitzaf, 12 January 2018 - 12:44 AM.

PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#33
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
No. I Don't need to waste my time trying to prove anything to you.

Especially when you have no experience playing gk in 40k or how this beta rule effects psychic armies.

You want to discuss how this beta rule effects you, go for it.
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#34
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade

No. I Don't need to waste my time trying to prove anything to you.
Especially when you have no experience playing gk in 40k or how this beta rule effects psychic armies.
You want to discuss how this beta rule effects you, go for it.


I do know several GK players who basically said this rule at the end of the day utterly pointless for them, as you only cast smite 3-4 times as you have 3-4 Units you want to cast with other other things. You want to make a statement and you get called out for it. This board meant to discuss smite changes. It shouldn’t matter what army I play. So defend it you said this rule is bad for GK Armies. You said you lost damage. Mechanically? Sure, but did you lose relavent damage?
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#35
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
I can demonstrate how incorrect that notion is.

Also You fail to take into account how like the rule of 1, this beta rule doesn't scale.

The backbone of any GK army is the NDK, and you will usually see 2 of them. In addition Draigo, Voldus or generic GKGMs are also taken.

All these units can cast 2+ powers a turn.

The non Smite powers that will usually be cast are Sanctuary, Purge Soul and Vortex. With Gate on a non HQ unit. With sanctuary and ps being used on our by the HQs.

To couple with your approximate 3 HQ you will have at base 3 strike squads.

That's 6 smites right there.

On top of that you will usually have an assortment of Apothecaries, Paladin and Doomglaives.

All adding more Smite casts. With higher point level games giving you more casts.

I once ran 7 apothecaries instead of any Paladin and that's 7 smites right there, ignoring the rest of the army.

But if you, personally, had any experience playing a GK army you would be familiar with the fact that we have access to, and regularly use more than 3 or 4 smites.

And all smite damage is relevant. Especially as *we cannot waste any smite damage from overkills* on non Daemon units.

But again, familiarity with the GK army would have made this obvious to you.

And again, how does Beta rule effect the performance of your Black Templar army?
  • Capt. Mytre likes this
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#36
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Okay? That is not relavent here. You are explaining what you mechanically lose not why it’s relavent on the battlefield. Like how would have smite changed affected your gameplay. You keep dodging that point and trying to force a non-relavent question on me. If this was as diseaster as you claim. You should quite easily able to explain how on table top this mattered. But you aren’t. Your resorting to screaming about Mathhammer. Playtesting is about Playtesting. Not MathTesting, how did the change affect you on the table top?
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#37
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Non relevant? Please. The only one obfuscating is you. Seemingly from nothing more than your lack of experience.

*Your* whole point was GK only use 3/4 smite casts so this nerf doesn't effect them.

That is demonstratably incorrect. Even at the lowest point level of games you will see two hq and 3 strikes for 5 potential smites. And that's the smallest GK army you'll ever face.

And you accuse me of not being relevant.

You again seem to miss that all (non daemon) smite damage is 'relevant' as it cannot overkill. But go off on tangents about the relevance of 'relevant'.

You miss that a TS player has also posted that thier amount of Smite casts have been effected. But fixate that this can't be the case for GK. When the impact of the beta rule is obvious and direct in its effect. Without any need to even playtest it.

What The playtesting should highlight is the non obvious side effects. That i have already posted. Locking out d6 damage. Characters With 2+ casts. Making denies easier.

I won't respond any more. There's nothing else to add, and nothing to gain from continuing this. You don't understand how this rule effects psychic armies and can't contribute your own experiences on using the rule either.
  • Black Blow Fly likes this
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#38
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Or you realize that is the point? Turning SuperSmite into an increasingly low chance. You know castings 7-9 mortals a turn is an issue? (The average damage from a Supreme Command Primaris is prenerf about 6-7, 2d3 = 3, so 4-5 is 7.5). And I still stand my point/view losing 2-3 damage each turn on tabletop is irrelavent. Given casualty count you should expect from other shooting.

Like GK weren’t broken because how much you costed. And furthermore you lose 3 wounds or as you said Squads worths of kills each turn. But do you never overkill your target? The fact you fail you give examples of relavent play effect instead state but it showcases, how little you understand of the playtesting process

Edited by Schlitzaf, 12 January 2018 - 02:06 AM.

PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#39
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
For others wishing to weigh in, consider the effect of strats coupled with this beta rule.

Take the nids one that forces you to cast on 1d6. Which costs 1CP.

They save this strat for your third casting, where you have a -2 to the roll.

Smite has a charge of 5. Meaning you auto fail this cast. With nothing you can do.

*And* now have a -3 to your next Smite. Making the strat an even note effective protection versus smite, than just stopping a single cast.

An example of the indirect effect this Beta rule has on other aspects of the psychic phase. And how powerful it can be with other synergies.
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#40
Dam13n

Dam13n

    ++ CÆLATOR ALTRICES ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 2,399 posts
  • Location:Poole, UK
  • Faction: The Scions
Remember, this discussion should be about providing something constructive.

So far there's been a lot of bemoaning GW's suggested fix for the definite issue that is 'Smite Spam', but little in the way of an alternate suggestion.

I'm holding off on the mod-voice (for now), but the purpose of this thread should really be about coming up with something that could be proposed to GW as a counter-suggestion for a fix, not cyclical moaning.

Myself, I'd rather see Smite return to a weapon profile rather than causing mortal wounds. The exact profile would need to be playtested to ensure it's balanced, but something on the lines of:

Warp Charge 5+, targets the closest enemy unit.
Range 18", Strength 4, AP -2, Rapid Fire 3
On a cast roll of greater than 10, Smite becomes a Rapid Fire 5 weapon instead of Rapid Fire 3.

With lesser versions for 'Brotherhood of Psykers" units. Which could be "cast on 1d6", to make it harder to cast and prohibit the boosted effect, or reduce the number of shots.

I like the idea of it being rapid fire, rather than simply lots of shots as:
1 - it encourages players to get stuck in.
2 - it limits it's effect immediately post deep-strike, as such units must be deployed over 9" away, and therefore outside of Smites half range.

So, what suggestions would any if the rest of you have for how Smite could be fixed?

(and please, leave off on the moaning. It's pointless.)

Edited by Dam13n, 12 January 2018 - 01:58 PM.


#41
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

That's another great counter point that I can't remember if it's been bought up already.  There is at least one unit that cast powers on 1d6, rather than 2d6.  This beta rule effects them much more harshly.  After two casts, possibly from units casting on 2d6, it then becomes impossible for the 1d6 units to even cast Smite.

 

I agree that it's the Mortal wounds that are the issue, and also suggested that Smite should deal normal wounds and leave Mortal wounds for Discipline powers.

 

There's no real suggestions to fix the Beta rule, as it's targeting the wrong problem, and effects far too much in it's implementation.

 

The best suggestion is to drop this rule entirely, and address the real problem, the application of Mortal Wounds.

 

And Smite isn't even the most prolific generator of Mortal Wounds either.  Fix Mortal Wounds, and you fix Smite by default.

 

Also, another anecdote. Our Eldar player is loving the prospect of spamming 45 point Spirit Seers for mass full Smite casts.  It's not just TS/GK that can, or will, use multiple Psykers.  Eldar are quite capable as well.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#42
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
Dam3n the major issue is that Smite primarily purpose (and mortal wounds in general) is trying to stop the existence of unkillable SuperStars. That said, your change provides a nice fix (I’d almost rather Rapid 2 (+ 1 Shot). So in non-Rapid you have 3 but in Rapid you’ll have 5. It’ll require some play testing.

But rapiding 6 Shots or potentially 10 Shots. Words. Actually thinking about. I think Assault 3 would be fine and keep closer to original functionality. (You can advance and still shoot). Through physic powers don’t use profiles much anymore which is perhaps a major strike against it
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#43
Dam13n

Dam13n

    ++ CÆLATOR ALTRICES ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 2,399 posts
  • Location:Poole, UK
  • Faction: The Scions
Part of the reason behind suggesting that many shots is that you need to factor in rolling to-hit and then to-wound plus factoring in saves as well.

But it is something that would need playtesting.

I suspect that most suggestions will center around moving away from mortal wounds, but how best to do it such that Smite remains a useful power, but doesn't cause problems when spammed. As, let's face it, largely unstoppable damage isn't much fun when you're on the receiving end.

#44
Kallas

Kallas

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,210 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, UK
  • Faction: Howling Griffons
Perhaps it could become:
Nearest unit suffers d3 (d6 on 10+) automatic hits. These hits always wound on a 2/3/4+(?) with AP -2/3/4/5(?) and/or Invulnerable saves cannot be taken(?)

It would then be not automatic Mortal And could potentially be made such that super tough units such as a souped up Magnus can't just tank it easily.

If it ignored Invulnerable saves and had an AP of -2 or -3, it would likely kill elite troops (but with a decent chance of resisting) and would cut through light troops as it does currently.

Removing the need to hit (you've already gone through casting and possible Deny attempts) and a set to-wound roll (so it's a threat vs all targets) would let it function in a similar capacity to now but without bypassing the vast majority of resilience (which is what makes Mortal Wounds so powerful).

Thoughts?
  • Capt. Mytre, burningsky25 and MARK0SIAN like this

#45
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
I think D3 Automatic -2 AP be a solid suggestion at 3+ to wound. It removes chaffs with no saves leaves armored units like Marines and Terminators, at 4+/5+. And the No IV helps prevent the unkillable inky. I think the real question there be cover or no cover?

Second I almost want change 10+ to being D3+1 makes it less swingy (I will note it is does change average from 7 to 5). Or...how about.

Smite being 2 Damage, and SuperSmite D3+2. No that doesn’t help. Hmm. (Average damage goes from 3 to 4 with using 2 Smites). I just want to go out on a limb and say two things.

Smite Power itself is fine. Espacially post nerf. Non-Spam Armies get 3 good casts out of it. And most armies have 3-4 good powers. Meaning you have 6 casts a turn.

However the issue with BabySmite balance wise is the two armies that notably have it (Suns and Knights). It’s spread out, and while not damage not irrevalent I have to see examples of it being relavent. (I know that is contradictory. But if you do 1-2 smite wounds on a target overkill it by 10 in shooting or assault the excess wounds were irrevalevent. Take for example some shooting with Gaurdsman, most folks consider a non-Rapid not first rank gaurd shooting ignorable or mostly irrevalant unless in mass. Vs Marines it comes out to being 0.5 wounds. Just for sake of example, smite in this case is Double that. But spread across entire table).

Which is why folks argue BabySmite shouldn’t be affected because it’s essentially irrevalent, despite being relavent. (For sake of example, 40 SB > 27 > 13 Wounds > 4 Marines. Combat adds 21 > 14 > 7 > 6.) Smite adds about 10% damage increase. It’s 1/11 of a GK Strike at 10 Man Shooting. However when we do it at 5 Man it’s a 20% increase. (20 > 13 > 6 > 2 (or 2.10 with decimals) + (11 > 7.3 > 3.65 > 3).

That means 2 5 Man Strikes do 12 Damage, vs 1 Strike Squad doing 11. However taking Smites tests at increasing difficulty is relavent here. For context an average Smiter at 45-60 Points will do via Smite, about 7.5ish damage over the game. Baby Smite Squads deal 5 Damage. A 33% reduction but in most cases you will have more of them.

However because that damage is spread out over 3-4 Squads your more likely to waste smites (where we need playtesting and why hard examples are needed. To see where the ‘wasted’ smites happened. And to see if the squads that didn’t smite if they had the relevance of that lost smite).

If Baby Smite is too be unaffected, we need to see in gameplay how many smites are lost compared to previously. And how many lost smites were actually functionally relavent on tabletop (hence the need for battle report examples). I could say statistically rerolls charges nerf made my Chapter tactic worthless.

However I spent the next several games looking at when rerolling only a single dice over both actually came up. Not very often. When it did it was 33% chance to reroll into a success. Which at 30ish base to roll a nine, the change was largely irrevalent despite being relavent.

So back to my reasons for tangent
1) We need to see how BabySmite is actually affected and how weak it is compared to Units with Real Smite (to make a comparison. 3 Primaris Pyskers roughly Equivalent to 5 Strikes deals 4.88 Damage to Strikes 3 while 30 Points more and no way to deep strike. Before including charge and such).
2) Real Smite is fine, espacially post Nerf. What should be look at instead, is BabySmite which has a wealth of issues. Here I think changing it to a functionally either Assault 4 or 2 auto hits wounds on 3+, -2 ignoring armor (and cover) might be the best bet. While functionally Killing the same as BabySmite (1 damage vs MeQ). It helps deal with hordes adding 2ish damage (1.5 wounds pre saves for those curious).
3) Kallas suggestion also solid.

I really think the best way to deal with BabySmite v Smite issues. Is make BabySmite something different and uses different rules. What we really need are battle reports that can be analyzed to see how Beta Changed affected how the game would have played out.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#46
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,829 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Some feedback - my recent game the added difficulty per extra casting encouraged my friend to cast different powers.

Twice in the game the power didn't come off because of the +1 (as in failed by 1).

This didn't change the game but helped me somewhat.

Ultramarines vs Tyranids.
  • Black Blow Fly likes this

#47
newdigitalGK

newdigitalGK

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 126 posts

so just saw this after I posted in the GK forum but this is what I think 

 

So here is my suggestion that would help mitigate a lot of this. If your army contains X amount of psykers then you recieve a reduced smite ala GK/TS. IE your smite only does 1 MW. Call it draining the warp or something. This would leave GK's and TS alone and discourage armies from mass psykers as after X amount you get a massive diminishing return. 



#48
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,732 posts
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Faction: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
I’ve watch an Eldar player with 7-8 Pyskers and played vs them too. Major thing? About the only thing that happen. Is no super smite. Is about all the nerf achieved due to +1 on Pyskers. I expect knights to be similar in that regard.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#49
arigatous

arigatous

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 143 posts

I would agree on Mortal Wounds - that's not something which could be spammed, so nothing you can spam should be able to do mortal wounds. I would suggest to change the profile of Smite to standard high-strengh wounds with decent AP and ignoring IS.



#50
Death and Gravity

Death and Gravity

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 173 posts
I think Mortal Wounds are good. They're a useful tool to deal with units that are otherwise very hard to kill, like some Custodes and Death Guard units. Smite is good both as a way to deal out Mortal Wounds and as a way to ensure psykers have something to do when more specialized powers might not be useful.

I do think psyker spam needed to be curbed in some way. The beta rule does help with that. I also think that the design team may have underestimated the value of psychic abilities, and some psykers may need points adjusted upward to reflect that.

My problem with the beta rule is that a couple of armies seemed specifically designed around having lots of psykers, namely the Grey Knights and Thousand Sons. These armies even have rules already to reduce the effectiveness of their Smite casts. The nerf to these armies appears to be an unintended consequence of the beta rule. I think an exception to the rule should be made to account for this.

I would propose an addendum to the rule, something like this:

"If a psyker is attempting to manifest Smite that automatically deals 1 Mortal Wound rather than D3 Mortal Wounds, then the psyker does not suffer the penalty, nor does it count as a attempt to manifest Smite when calculating the penalty."
  • Paladin777 likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beta Rules

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users