Feel free to bitch and moan all you want here in order to keep it to a minimum in other threads. Positivity is neither encouraged or required.

I'm honestly surprised at how little they actually changed. I didn't expect much but I was still underwhelmed. At THE VERY LEAST I expected some GK buffs and some nod towards Lictors.

I think maybe some FAQs aren't posted yet? DA, BA, AC, and GK are absent, which seems odd.

Infantry Squads did not not up in points.
LOS weapons didn't get nerfed.

An IG player can have 9 Russes in their heavy slot but Ad Mech can only have 3 onagers. GW needs to either give all heavy vehicles the squadron rule or take them away from everyone.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
An IG player can have 9 Russes in their heavy slot but Ad Mech can only have 3 onagers. GW needs to either give all heavy vehicles the squadron rule or take them away from everyone.

You can soup in for Russes (and you'll end up with more CP for doing so).

Soup them in, convert them out. Easy.

fe40k wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
An IG player can have 9 Russes in their heavy slot but Ad Mech can only have 3 onagers. GW needs to either give all heavy vehicles the squadron rule or take them away from everyone.

You can soup in for Russes (and you'll end up with more CP for doing so).

Soup them in, convert them out. Easy.

That's not the point and you know it.

Also Iron Hands literally lost the only thing that made them worth anything, which was better Ven Dreads. So who cares, right?

Yeah they mentioned in the livestream that this was part 1 of the big FAQ, so there's more to come

FunJohn wrote:
Yeah they mentioned in the livestream that this was part 1 of the big FAQ, so there's more to come

Huh?

I think they meant the later FAQ like in September. I'll go re-listen when i get a chance.

Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

The trouble with balancing stuff based on tournament results is that there is a whole lot of stuff that people simply don't take to tournaments.

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

The trouble with balancing stuff based on tournament results is that there is a whole lot of stuff that people simply don't take to tournaments.

Wait how did it do that?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Feel free to bitch and moan all you want here in order to keep it to a minimum in other threads. Positivity is neither encouraged or required.

I'm honestly surprised at how little they actually changed. I didn't expect much but I was still underwhelmed. At THE VERY LEAST I expected some GK buffs and some nod towards Lictors.

Same here. Considering we had to wait a few extra weeks, so little seems changed. It looks like they did minimal actual balancing of units and took the "let's just do macro things" path.

My grey Knights aren’t even playable as allies now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

Wait how did it do that?

No more than 3 of any datasheet. So three units max under 2000pts, or one and a half rhinos worth.

Looking through the rules the assassins have taken it in the neck. They either need to be taken alone with a -1CP penalty now or three at a time with no CPs generated.

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

Wait how did it do that?

No more than 3 of any datasheet. So three units max under 2000pts, or one and a half rhinos worth.

Looking through the rules the assassins have taken it in the neck. They either need to be taken alone with a -1CP penalty now or three at a time with no CPs generated.

Oh right, the share-a-ride Dominions are limited to 3. I was fixated on the Repressor, which is a DT, and that completely slipped my mind.

OTOH my foot-brigade Sororitas is just fine, haha.

Rust Stalkers could have used some help in the pts balancing, or a buff to thier weapons (which currently require fishing for 6s).

The increase in CP is a boost overall to the faction though, bc they are very CP dependent. Also as a gunline army, the nerf to turn 1 deepstrike farming benefits them.

Unless I missed it, why didn’t they take some opportunity to lower some points on some the stuff that is overpoint cost for what it does? A good faq should buff and nerf working towards the middle path…

Reemule wrote:
Unless I missed it, why didn’t they take some opportunity to lower some points on some the stuff that is overpoint cost for what it does? A good faq should buff and nerf working towards the middle path…

Depends on what it is. Sliding some things up might make those other things more valuable in relation to the nerfed units.

 Valentine009 wrote:
Rust Stalkers could have used some help in the pts balancing, or a buff to thier weapons (which currently require fishing for 6s).

The increase in CP is a boost overall to the faction though, bc they are very CP dependent. Also as a gunline army, the nerf to turn 1 deepstrike farming benefits them.

God forbid they got advance and charge or emp grenades

The only thing about this FAQ that really affects me is that I want to rework my list to be a battalion instead of three outriders now, which I guess is mission accomplished for GW.

Is it 100% certain that the datasheet limitation doesn't affect the squadron rules of leman russes, and carnifexes I suppose? I don't own the books, don't know the wording of the rules.

Marines needed a buff, and got a Nerf lol

torblind wrote:
Is it 100% certain that the datasheet limitation doesn't affect the squadron rules of leman russes, and carnifexes I suppose? I don't own the books, don't know the wording of the rules.

It's a "datasheet" limitation, not a "unit" limitation. So if the datasheet says "1-3 Leman Russes" than you can take 3 datasheets, each of 1-3 Leman Russes. That's the same for Carnifexes, etc.

I'm curious how it plays out with Forge World stuff, since the Stygies Vanquisher, Leman Russ Annihilator, and Leman Russ Conqueror are their own "datasheets"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

torblind wrote:
Is it 100% certain that the datasheet limitation doesn't affect the squadron rules of leman russes, and carnifexes I suppose? I don't own the books, don't know the wording of the rules.

It's a "datasheet" limitation, not a "unit" limitation. So if the datasheet says "1-3 Leman Russes" than you can take 3 datasheets, each of 1-3 Leman Russes. That's the same for Carnifexes, etc.

I'm curious how it plays out with Forge World stuff, since the Stygies Vanquisher, Leman Russ Annihilator, and Leman Russ Conqueror are their own "datasheets"

RAW - I would say exactly like that for now - separate datasheets.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

torblind wrote:
Is it 100% certain that the datasheet limitation doesn't affect the squadron rules of leman russes, and carnifexes I suppose? I don't own the books, don't know the wording of the rules.

It's a "datasheet" limitation, not a "unit" limitation. So if the datasheet says "1-3 Leman Russes" than you can take 3 datasheets, each of 1-3 Leman Russes. That's the same for Carnifexes, etc.

I'm curious how it plays out with Forge World stuff, since the Stygies Vanquisher, Leman Russ Annihilator, and Leman Russ Conqueror are their own "datasheets"

RAW - I would say exactly like that for now - separate datasheets.

Yes, that's not wrong. I meant "see how it plays out" as in "wonder if it'll ever be addressed" or the like.

Wow, this is the most overhyped garbage ive seen from GW in a while... This is just meta shifting back and forth.. What a dissapointment.

Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the datasheet for say a LRBT say that you can take it in squadrons of 1-3? If so how is that different from the datasheet of a hellblaster unit saying you can take up to 5 additional models? I think vehicles in squadrons could have up to 9 of the same thing if you take 3 in each squadron.

Teschio wrote:
Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

It was necessary considering immutable morale with Abaddon and two massive blocks of them would be unshiftable by almost any list.

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

The trouble with balancing stuff based on tournament results is that there is a whole lot of stuff that people simply don't take to tournaments.

Then don’t use the organized play rules in non-tournament games. The 0-3 restriction is literally in rules for organized play.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the datasheet for say a LRBT say that you can take it in squadrons of 1-3? If so how is that different from the datasheet of a hellblaster unit saying you can take up to 5 additional models? I think vehicles in squadrons could have up to 9 of the same thing if you take 3 in each squadron.

Yes. The fluffy IG Tank Company is still playable: 3 Squadrons of 3 Russes and a Tank Commander. It's good that they didn't hurt any fluff with this restriction that I have yet found.

I raised so many faqs on the FW indexs and not one was answered.
Ragequit implode lol.

Love the FAQ, the rules make so much sense and help alleviate much of the spam.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Feel free to bitch and moan all you want here in order to keep it to a minimum in other threads. Positivity is neither encouraged or required.

I'm honestly surprised at how little they actually changed. I didn't expect much but I was still underwhelmed. At THE VERY LEAST I expected some GK buffs and some nod towards Lictors.

What you wanted is admirable. What actually happened is that you've stopped zero salt threads from being created, and created one more than there would have been previously.

As far as the faq goes? I called it.

I just read through the core rule changes, the CSM FAQ and the Daemons FAQ and I cannot find anything about the FAQ that I support. I don't know what the hell they based it off of! Certainly doesn't nerf the problem armies and makes CC armies even worse than they already were.

I'm gonna try out my Khorne army with the new rules but I'm pretty sure they've killed my army with this FAQ; no turn 1 deepstrike means bubblewrap can't be cut away before my berzerkers roll up the field and it means I have no turn 1 distractions to protect my Berzerkers; the warptime nerf means my Terminators are once again unplayable; and the tide of traitors nerf is just silly.

I wouldn't call this salt, but seems like a place to mention it:

Admec FAQ: Page 99 – Forge World Warlord Traits,
Masterwork Bionics
Change the title of this Warlord Trait to
‘Superior Bionics’.

Why was this mentioned at all?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Teschio wrote:
Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

It was necessary considering immutable morale with Abaddon and two massive blocks of them would be unshiftable by almost any list.

Yeah, and die in 1 turn against many other lists (vertus praetors completely slaughter you, for instance). Plus, you get back on the table from a table edge, so even if you recycle them, you don't keep objectives with them. Considering the nerf to all decent chaos lists with the "max 3 per army" thing, I truly feel this was unnecessary.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I wouldn't call this salt, but seems like a place to mention it:

Admec FAQ: Page 99 – Forge World Warlord Traits,
Masterwork Bionics
Change the title of this Warlord Trait to
‘Superior Bionics’.

Why was this mentioned at all?

I am fairly certain it's because "masterwork bionics" was already a rule on a Mechanicum character. So you got +d3 wounds back from Masterwork Bionics, and +1 Invuln from Masterwork Bionics, but they were two separate rules and it was confusing. Better to say +d3 wounds back from Masterwork Bionics and then +1 Invuln from Superior Bionics.

 mrhappyface wrote:

I'm gonna try out my Khorne army with the new rules but I'm pretty sure they've killed my army with this FAQ; no turn 1 deepstrike means bubblewrap can't be cut away before my berzerkers roll up the field and it means I have no turn 1 distractions to protect my Berzerkers; the warptime nerf means my Terminators are once again unplayable; and the tide of traitors nerf is just silly.

I think I missed something, what Warptime nerf?

DecadentOne wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

I'm gonna try out my Khorne army with the new rules but I'm pretty sure they've killed my army with this FAQ; no turn 1 deepstrike means bubblewrap can't be cut away before my berzerkers roll up the field and it means I have no turn 1 distractions to protect my Berzerkers; the warptime nerf means my Terminators are once again unplayable; and the tide of traitors nerf is just silly.

I think I missed something, what Warptime nerf?

Page 5, main rulebook FAQ. Units are absolutely forbidden for moving after reinforcing/deep strike for any reason except to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

DecadentOne wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

I'm gonna try out my Khorne army with the new rules but I'm pretty sure they've killed my army with this FAQ; no turn 1 deepstrike means bubblewrap can't be cut away before my berzerkers roll up the field and it means I have no turn 1 distractions to protect my Berzerkers; the warptime nerf means my Terminators are once again unplayable; and the tide of traitors nerf is just silly.

I think I missed something, what Warptime nerf?

Page 5, main rulebook FAQ. Units are absolutely forbidden for moving after reinforcing/deep strike for any reason except to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

Yowza...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

DecadentOne wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

I'm gonna try out my Khorne army with the new rules but I'm pretty sure they've killed my army with this FAQ; no turn 1 deepstrike means bubblewrap can't be cut away before my berzerkers roll up the field and it means I have no turn 1 distractions to protect my Berzerkers; the warptime nerf means my Terminators are once again unplayable; and the tide of traitors nerf is just silly.

I think I missed something, what Warptime nerf?

Page 5, main rulebook FAQ. Units are absolutely forbidden for moving after reinforcing/deep strike for any reason except to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

Yowza...

Another terrible blow dealt to reinforcements/reserves...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Another terrible blow dealt to reinforcements/reserves...

In conjunction, yes, but I almost feel like this is a good change if we solve the other problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Another terrible blow dealt to reinforcements/reserves...

In conjunction, yes, but I almost feel like this is a good change if we solve the other problem.

To be fair, I'm not sure the other problem needs solving. I think it's a nerf to Scions and Slaanesh Terminators and Obliterators as much as it is Bloodletters.

What needs to happen, instead, is a buff to melee. I think actual terrain rules would work for a start, and we can always go up from there. That depends on GW's interpretation of the game though: do they really want "run across the board and hit people with a knife" to be a valid strategy? It seems they do, from books like Chaos Daemons, but then they do gak like this...

Wait they nerfed warp time? Is that in the big faq or in one of the dexs

GW.....BIG FAQ here we fix game.

ME....No No you didn't fix anything

Well you did at least fix the Fire Raptor.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Another terrible blow dealt to reinforcements/reserves...

In conjunction, yes, but I almost feel like this is a good change if we solve the other problem.

In what way is it a good change? CSM CC deepstriking units have gone from average to trash.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait they nerfed warp time? Is that in the big faq or in one of the dexs

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Page 5, main rulebook FAQ. Units are absolutely forbidden for moving after reinforcing/deep strike for any reason except to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait they nerfed warp time? Is that in the big faq or in one of the dexs

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Page 5, main rulebook FAQ. Units are absolutely forbidden for moving after reinforcing/deep strike for any reason except to charge, pile in, or consolidate.

Oh gotcha, I could.not find it. Man that is a big blow

A.T. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

Wait how did it do that?

No more than 3 of any datasheet. So three units max under 2000pts, or one and a half rhinos worth.

Looking through the rules the assassins have taken it in the neck. They either need to be taken alone with a -1CP penalty now or three at a time with no CPs generated.

All dominion lists were silly and lazy anyway....

Wow, assault lists are taking an absolute kicking, for no good reason that I can see. Why?

Because flyrants?

 mrhappyface wrote:

In what way is it a good change? CSM CC deepstriking units have gone from average to trash.

Less of a crutch. Place the melee specialists like BA to the front. Makes transports more viable. All this of course disregarding the beta reserves rule.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Teschio wrote:
Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

It was necessary considering immutable morale with Abaddon and two massive blocks of them would be unshiftable by almost any list.

I can confirm how OP this is. Have been winning a lot of games by using ToT in turn 4 to just walk onto objectives. When they are near Abaddon, there's nothing anyone can do.

I know y'all feel salty. Y'all were hurt worse than any other faction from the FAQ.

Whether it's Orkz, Marines, GK, DE, CWE, or Crons. You were nerfed so much harder than Orkz, Marines, GK, DE, CWE, or Crons were.

My Corsairs cannot be taken outside Aux FOCs anymore. Does any faction top that?

Bharring wrote:
I know y'all feel salty. Y'all were hurt worse than any other faction from the FAQ.

Whether it's Orkz, Marines, GK, DE, CWE, or Crons. You were nerfed so much harder than Orkz, Marines, GK, DE, CWE, or Crons were.

My Corsairs cannot be taken outside Aux FOCs anymore. Does any faction top that?

Is that an Eldar unit?

Hate dumb Warlock price increase. Crappy drain, enhance, lolo horrify - anyone used that? No? Now nobody would for sure.

Hail 3 Hemlocks with smites.

Corsairs are a *faction*.

That went from a dozen or so units to 2 with the introduction of 8th Ed.

 grouchoben wrote:
Wow, assault lists are taking an absolute kicking, for no good reason that I can see. Why?

Only deepstriking assault lists really. Transport based and running lists are still here.

(and neither unit are an HQ)

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
An IG player can have 9 Russes in their heavy slot but Ad Mech can only have 3 onagers. GW needs to either give all heavy vehicles the squadron rule or take them away from everyone.

Except... that's not actually good.

I at least never run my tanks in squadrons, I have enough slots I want filled that I'm not hurting for slots. At the same time, I also basically never have the tanks in the heavy slots, because all but one of them are really bad and they're considerably stronger for being Tank Commanders, who can't squadron, and fill HQ slots.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

In what way is it a good change? CSM CC deepstriking units have gone from average to trash.

Less of a crutch. Place the melee specialists like BA to the front. Makes transports more viable. All this of course disregarding the beta reserves rule.

And I suppose World Eaters aren't melee specialists?

Also, it doesn't make transports more viable it just makes deepstrike less viable. In fact, without deepstriking units to distract your opponent turn 1, transports have become even worse as they're more likely to be targeted and leave the occupants foot slogging.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Teschio wrote:
Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

It was necessary considering immutable morale with Abaddon and two massive blocks of them would be unshiftable by almost any list.

I can confirm how OP this is. Have been winning a lot of games by using ToT in turn 4 to just walk onto objectives. When they are near Abaddon, there's nothing anyone can do.

A friend of mine, frequent opponent, uses 9 vertus preators + captain on jetbike. They easily kill 2 40-men units a turn (with a lot to spare too). "Nothing anyone can do" just means you haven't faced hard counters (which are more than you think). Also, remember your cultists enter from a table edge, often that's enough to prevent them from getting to objectives (and if your opponent allows you to do that, even when he knows about that stratagem, it's his fault, honestly). You also need to re-enter within 12" of Abbadon or you're toast. Is tide of traitors a good stratagem? Sure, it's excellent. But since nerfing obliterators and PBCs was already a huge hit for Chaos lists, and Chaos isn't the strongest army out there to begin with, was nerfing it really a good idea?

A.T. wrote:
Well as a sisters player it's shot my ride-sharing dominions in the face and... that's about it really.

The trouble with balancing stuff based on tournament results is that there is a whole lot of stuff that people simply don't take to tournaments.

I'd have thought that part of balancing vs tournament lists would be going "oh, no-one ever uses these units...Maybe we should make them want to take these units?" so that they sell more of the models, and players have more useful variety.

Shinning spears not touched. LOL. How about those tournament results - they were supposedly analyzing?

Warlocks increased in price by 20 points - it was literally already the worst unit in the codex and they pushed it up 20 points LOL.

Command point generators got even stronger - no mention about CP's being limited to their host detachment (pretty much the going consensus about what should be done with everyone I've talked to about it.)

Guilliman up another 15 points? (wont affect anyone because Ultra marines are already on everyone shelves - this just goes to show you how feting disconnected this balance team is with reality)

All the bad units in the game are still bad. Only 3 OP units got nerfed. None of these rules add balance to the game in any way. Complete fail Faq.

Could literally have done a better job just by burping the 3 first things out of my mind than this bumbled mess of gak.

 mrhappyface wrote:

And I suppose World Eaters aren't melee specialists?

Also, it doesn't make transports more viable it just makes deepstrike less viable.

I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but it's what might be needed to get people using them more.

In fact, without deepstriking units to distract your opponent turn 1, transports have become even worse as they're more likely to be targeted and leave the occupants foot slogging.

Those anti-tank weapons weren't likely shooting the deepstrikers anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Shinning spears not touched. LOL. How about those tournament results - they were supposedly analyzing?

Warlocks increased in price by 20 points - it was literally already the worst unit in the codex and they pushed it up 20 points LOL.

Command point generators got even stronger - no mention about CP's being limited to their host detachment (pretty much the going consensus about what should be done with everyone I've talked to about it.)

Guilliman up another 15 points? (wont affect anyone because Ultra marines are already on everyone shelves - this just goes to show you how feting disconnected this balance team is with reality)

All the bad units in the game are still bad. Only 3 OP units got nerfed. None of these rules add balance to the game in any way. Complete fail Faq.

Could literally have done a better job just by burping the 3 most things out of my mind than this bumbled mess of gak.

SS can't DS and Quicken now. Their support is now more expensive.

pismakron wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Wow, assault lists are taking an absolute kicking, for no good reason that I can see. Why?

Only deepstriking assault lists really. Transport based and running lists are still here.

Transport based melee lists where never 'here' in this edition.
Running.. only very few units can do that with the help of some very special stratagems or psi powers. And that usually leaves them alone in theior charge, they typically require assistance from deepstrike.

Too bad they didn't nerf Shining Spears.

They could have done something to make Ynnari worse, that'd help.

Or maybe make it so they can't DS then Quicken?

Or maybe require that, if they DS on turn 1, perhaps they can only do so in their deployment zone?

Or maybe bump the points of the pyskers that buff them?

Hopefully, next set of nerfs will do one of those...

I am usually a pretty well-balanced, happy guy. It's usually all good, but usually I need to let out my anger, or else it bottles up. So I'm glad this thread exists. I play three different armies, and boy did this FAQ come as a blow. I mean, cutting down on smite spam, deep strike spam, soup spam, and unit spam! I mean, I play three different armies (CSM, DG, and Nids) and these changes don't effect me at all! I mean, how am I supposed to get my salt out when there are such reasonable changes which successfully navigate punishing cheesy WAAC strategies while leaving normal lists untouched. Obscene, I tell you! Obscene!

EDIT: I lied. My under-pointed flying Hive Tyrants went up a few points. I mean, what a world we live in! I'm literally going to die!

DS spears was just a defensive mechanic - it actually nerfed their offensive potential by making your first charge move more difficult - they move freaking 16 - quicken is all you need to charge their back line.

They did manage to nerf gardians though - which was totally warranted.

Well, there's one particular decisions that I have to question, and that's the "2-3-4" of a kind rule.

I'm not actually sure how to build an army that abides by that restriction, other than just bringing a pile of troops. There aren't that many different choices of unit available.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Well, there's one particular decisions that I have to question, and that's the "2-3-4" of a kind rule.

I'm not actually sure how to build an army that abides by that restriction, other than just bringing a pile of troops. There aren't that many different choices of unit available.

Every single one of my armies, including my Sororitas foot brigade, is completely unchanged by that restriction. In fact, my Sororitas foot brigade nets me 15CP now, which... I never really used before. I guess I can do it on imagifier re-rolls and make even more AOFs, lol.

 TonyH122 wrote:
I am usually a pretty well-balanced, happy guy. It's usually all good, but usually I need to let out my anger, or else it bottles up. So I'm glad this thread exists. I play three different armies, and boy did this FAQ come as a blow. I mean, cutting down on smite spam, deep strike spam, soup spam, and unit spam! I mean, I play three different armies (CSM, DG, and Nids) and these changes don't effect me at all! I mean, how am I supposed to get my salt out when there are such reasonable changes which successfully navigate punishing cheesy WAAC strategies while leaving normal lists untouched. Obscene, I tell you! Obscene!

EDIT: I lied. My under-pointed flying Hive Tyrants went up a few points. I mean, what a world we live in! I'm literally going to die!

I'm pretty sure deep striking a tyrgon with a CC unit inside is standard in 90% or more of all nids lists. It's now gone. Hive tyrants can no longer get into the fight turn 1 - the unit is basically useless now and costs more. DG are OP - they are still OP. CSM still suck - would have been nice if vehicles got their army traits like literally every other army right?

You mean figuratively.

Bharring wrote:
Too bad they didn't nerf Shining Spears.

They could have done something to make Ynnari worse, that'd help.

Or maybe make it so they can't DS then Quicken?

Or maybe require that, if they DS on turn 1, perhaps they can only do so in their deployment zone?

Or maybe bump the points of the pyskers that buff them?

Hopefully, next set of nerfs will do one of those...

Spears did get nerfed, look at page 5 you cannot move a unit that has been deepstruck with any spell or stratagem. So soulbursting that spear unit to move won't work.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

APPARENTLY IT WAS SARCASM

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I see spears as nerfed. Nerfed enough? We'll see. I'm not sure Reapers were nerfed enough either, but they were more dependent on Ynnari than Spears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question: what other models in the game can only be fielded by Aux detatchments?

(It's going to be really weird using Aux detatchements to bring Troops...)

 Crastok wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Too bad they didn't nerf Shining Spears.

They could have done something to make Ynnari worse, that'd help.

Or maybe make it so they can't DS then Quicken?

Or maybe require that, if they DS on turn 1, perhaps they can only do so in their deployment zone?

Or maybe bump the points of the pyskers that buff them?

Hopefully, next set of nerfs will do one of those...

Spears did get nerfed, look at page 5 you cannot move a unit that has been deepstruck with any spell or stratagem. So soulbursting that spear unit to move won't work.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

Also to your point "Or maybe require that, if they DS on turn 1, perhaps they can only do so in their deployment zone?" .... They did you can only deepstrike in your deployment zone on turn 1. did you even read all the FAQ changes lol

They'll just have to start on the table now and quicken into the fight. 32" move with quicken - they never needed the deep strike to get into action - it was just defensive. The same 3 command points eldar were using to deepstrike a gardian and spear unit can just be used to make aliotic spears -2 to hit on turn 1 - screen by 2 units on rangers so you can't get within 12". The only meaningful nerf eldar got was the spirit seer going up 20 points (which was warranted).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
I am usually a pretty well-balanced, happy guy. It's usually all good, but usually I need to let out my anger, or else it bottles up. So I'm glad this thread exists. I play three different armies, and boy did this FAQ come as a blow. I mean, cutting down on smite spam, deep strike spam, soup spam, and unit spam! I mean, I play three different armies (CSM, DG, and Nids) and these changes don't effect me at all! I mean, how am I supposed to get my salt out when there are such reasonable changes which successfully navigate punishing cheesy WAAC strategies while leaving normal lists untouched. Obscene, I tell you! Obscene!

EDIT: I lied. My under-pointed flying Hive Tyrants went up a few points. I mean, what a world we live in! I'm literally going to die!

I'm pretty sure deep striking a tyrgon with a CC unit inside is standard in 90% or more of all nids lists. It's now gone. Hive tyrants can no longer get into the fight turn 1 - the unit is basically useless now and costs more. DG are OP - they are still OP. CSM still suck - would have been nice if vehicles got their army traits like literally every other army right?

Well, unless I deploy the Trygon turn 2.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They'll just have to start on the table now and quicken into the fight. 32" move with quicken - they never needed the deep strike to get into action - it was just defensive. The same 3 command points eldar were using to deepstrike a gardian and spear unit can just be used to make aliotic spears -2 to hit on turn 1 - screen by 2 units on rangers so you can't get within 12". The only meaningful nerf eldar got was the spirit seer going up 20 points (which was warranted).

IOW:
"Shining spears are totally the same now, honest. Just use this Rube Goldberg machine to replace what was stupidly simple and easy earlier, and you'll be fine!"

Plus, having them on the board Turn 1 means they get shot Turn 1. Having them in deep strike does not. Getting shot with a -2 after paying a bunch of CP is completely different from getting shot never.

I dunno, I'm super salty about my corsairs requiring an Aux detatchment *PER TROOPS CHOICE*.

Sure, I can give them a DT now. I think - is their an Aux Transport detatchement?

Bharring wrote:
Yeah, that was sarcasm.

I see spears as nerfed. Nerfed enough? We'll see. I'm not sure Reapers were nerfed enough either, but they were more dependent on Ynnari than Spears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question: what other models in the game can only be fielded by Aux detatchments?

(It's going to be really weird using Aux detatchements to bring Troops...)

Think bigger - ynnari reapers are only a little bit better than aloitoc reapers. Now your 10 man is -1 to be hit - and will be guided every turn rerolling all hits. Plus no need to Yvrain tax or anything ynnari now - the 200ish points you save from not having to take that crap is 6 more reapers. Negligible nerf. Every 20 reapers will only cost an addition 100 points.

Teschio wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Teschio wrote:
Did they really need to nerf tide of traitors? Chaos is not the best army out there (especially now that you can't spam obliterators or PBCs anymore), it already took a hit with nerfing soup lists, I really think this nerf was unnecessary.

It was necessary considering immutable morale with Abaddon and two massive blocks of them would be unshiftable by almost any list.

I can confirm how OP this is. Have been winning a lot of games by using ToT in turn 4 to just walk onto objectives. When they are near Abaddon, there's nothing anyone can do.

A friend of mine, frequent opponent, uses 9 vertus preators + captain on jetbike. They easily kill 2 40-men units a turn (with a lot to spare too). "Nothing anyone can do" just means you haven't faced hard counters (which are more than you think). Also, remember your cultists enter from a table edge, often that's enough to prevent them from getting to objectives (and if your opponent allows you to do that, even when he knows about that stratagem, it's his fault, honestly). You also need to re-enter within 12" of Abbadon or you're toast. Is tide of traitors a good stratagem? Sure, it's excellent. But since nerfing obliterators and PBCs was already a huge hit for Chaos lists, and Chaos isn't the strongest army out there to begin with, was nerfing it really a good idea?

I usually go second. If your friend can ignore everything else on the board at the bottom of turn 5 to go after one unit of cultists, good for him.

Most players cannot, usually I don't lose more than 20 before the game ends and the 20 that are left are enough to hold the point. Not to mention, I'm doing this on turn 3 too, unless said Cultists are already in an optimal spot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excited about nerfing CSMs. I'm just saying I have won a lot of games by walking rejuvenated Cultist squads onto objectives. I'm not sure I can think of a realistic hard counter to that tactic.

I think Eldar as a whole took a decent nerf. Points up on supporting characters and reapers as well as soup nerf (not huge but no more DE troops). Each reaper up 7 points so if you take 20, that is an extra 140 points, so with support you are probably looking at 1800 points in your list if you using the old points. Then spears losing movement. It almost makes it worth gambling by starting them on the table.

Bharring wrote:
I dunno, I'm super salty about my corsairs requiring an Aux detatchment *PER TROOPS CHOICE*.

Sure, I can give them a DT now. I think - is their an Aux Transport detatchement?

Eventually they will get a codex man. They are just not on the radar right now.

Oh and powers going up in WC.

Breng77 wrote:
Oh and powers going up in WC.

Where are those listed? I don't see them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

And I suppose World Eaters aren't melee specialists?

Also, it doesn't make transports more viable it just makes deepstrike less viable.

I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but it's what might be needed to get people using them more.

I don't see anyone using them more, just because a good option has become worse doesn't mean the bad option suddenly becomes better. If they wanted to make transports more viable they should have buffed transports instead of killing deepstrike.

In fact, without deepstriking units to distract your opponent turn 1, transports have become even worse as they're more likely to be targeted and leave the occupants foot slogging.

Those anti-tank weapons weren't likely shooting the deepstrikers anyway.

And what of weapons with two fire options? Those rocket Devs and those Dark Reapers that originally were going to blow away the deepstriking units have now turned on the transports.

It would be nice if they put all the FAQ changes in this page called...FAQ summary. Idk...maybe I'm just picky. Wait no...GW is just very bad at this.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It would be nice if they put all the FAQ changes in this page called...FAQ summary. Idk...maybe I'm just picky. Wait no...GW is just very bad at this.

I too would like a system built around keeping a separate FAQ per book to suddenly abandon that premise and instead bundle all the FAQs together in a single unreadable mess, and then label it a "summary" as if to imply there was more substance elsewhere.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Oh and powers going up in WC.

Where are those listed? I don't see them.

In the summary it lists Word of the Pheonix going up to WC 8 in the Xenos 2 index

Bharring wrote:
Too bad they didn't nerf Shining Spears.

They could have done something to make Ynnari worse, that'd help.

Or maybe make it so they can't DS then Quicken?

Or maybe require that, if they DS on turn 1, perhaps they can only do so in their deployment zone?

Or maybe bump the points of the pyskers that buff them?

Hopefully, next set of nerfs will do one of those...

Misread your post. Never mind.

 mrhappyface wrote:

I don't see anyone using them more, just because a good option has become worse doesn't mean the bad option suddenly becomes better. If they wanted to make transports more viable they should have buffed transports instead of killing deepstrike.

Again I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that needs to come incrementally. Otherwise dakka rhinos would proliferate.

And what of weapons with two fire options? Those rocket Devs and those Dark Reapers that originally were going to blow away the deepstriking units have now turned on the transports.

Sure, fair point though the former is rare and the latter took a solid point increase.

@babel,
That's the second post missing the sarcasm.

Once could be the reader, twice is probably the writer.

Sorry for the lack of /s tags.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It would be nice if they put all the FAQ changes in this page called...FAQ summary. Idk...maybe I'm just picky. Wait no...GW is just very bad at this.

I too would like a system built around keeping a separate FAQ per book to suddenly abandon that premise and instead bundle all the FAQs together in a single unreadable mess, and then label it a "summary" as if to imply there was more substance elsewhere.

No one can understand your dang satire - just say what you mean. You don't want to view all the changes on a single document? You'd prefer to look at every FAQ individually and see if they are any changes that way? OFC they should retroactive go back and make those changes to. Come on man. You expect so little from life.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I raised so many faqs on the FW indexs and not one was answered.
Ragequit implode lol.

That's a shame. They answered my question using my example (and probably many others) regarding the embarked units & reserves and embarked units for sudden death.

Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade.

My biggest gripe is that their "fix" to soup doesn't fix the main issue: People taking like an IG battalion and a BA Vanguard and something else in the same list. Hardly anybody was taking a single detachment with multiple factions in it since you lost the faction-specific bonuses for doing so.

 skchsan wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I raised so many faqs on the FW indexs and not one was answered.
Ragequit implode lol.

That's a shame. They answered my question using my example (and probably many others) regarding the embarked units & reserves and embarked units for sudden death.

Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade.

"Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade."
In the live reveal they literally said - AM has so many command points already it doesn't matter if they get more. LOLOLOLOLOL

 TonyH122 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
I am usually a pretty well-balanced, happy guy. It's usually all good, but usually I need to let out my anger, or else it bottles up. So I'm glad this thread exists. I play three different armies, and boy did this FAQ come as a blow. I mean, cutting down on smite spam, deep strike spam, soup spam, and unit spam! I mean, I play three different armies (CSM, DG, and Nids) and these changes don't effect me at all! I mean, how am I supposed to get my salt out when there are such reasonable changes which successfully navigate punishing cheesy WAAC strategies while leaving normal lists untouched. Obscene, I tell you! Obscene!

EDIT: I lied. My under-pointed flying Hive Tyrants went up a few points. I mean, what a world we live in! I'm literally going to die!

I'm pretty sure deep striking a tyrgon with a CC unit inside is standard in 90% or more of all nids lists. It's now gone. Hive tyrants can no longer get into the fight turn 1 - the unit is basically useless now and costs more. DG are OP - they are still OP. CSM still suck - would have been nice if vehicles got their army traits like literally every other army right?

Well, unless I deploy the Trygon turn 2.

Well, the Swarmlord bonus movement doesn't work on them the turn they land any more, so your back on 9" dice instead of 8+d6+2d6".

Wayniac wrote:
My biggest gripe is that their "fix" to soup doesn't fix the main issue: People taking like an IG battalion and a BA Vanguard and something else in the same list. Hardly anybody was taking a single detachment with multiple factions in it since you lost the faction-specific bonuses for doing so.

DING DING DING! Exactly man.

 Xenomancers wrote:

"Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade."
In the live reveal they literally said - AM has so many command points already it doesn't matter if they get more. LOLOLOLOLOL

They're not exactly wrong on that. I'd still prefer brigades to stay at 9, I think.

It fixes Ynnari soup a bit, and soup using index stuff that was not giving up much. But overall does not solve the larger issues with soup.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I raised so many faqs on the FW indexs and not one was answered.
Ragequit implode lol.

That's a shame. They answered my question using my example (and probably many others) regarding the embarked units & reserves and embarked units for sudden death.

Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade.

"Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade."
In the live reveal they literally said - AM has so many command points already it doesn't matter if they get more. LOLOLOLOLOL

Lol might as well have just said "well, because SM has such gak troops, they'll never buy our intercessors unless it gave them totally huge advantage!"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

"Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade."
In the live reveal they literally said - AM has so many command points already it doesn't matter if they get more. LOLOLOLOLOL

They're not exactly wrong on that. I'd still prefer brigades to stay at 9, I think.

yes but the logic behind it - I find it hilarious. I agree +9 brigade was fine. Also I think it's clear here - the winner of this FAQ is tau.

If Battalions are +5, who would take a Brigade at +9 over 2xBattalions?

 skchsan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I raised so many faqs on the FW indexs and not one was answered.
Ragequit implode lol.

That's a shame. They answered my question using my example (and probably many others) regarding the embarked units & reserves and embarked units for sudden death.

Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade.

"Still don't understand what warranted the buffs on the battalion and brigade."
In the live reveal they literally said - AM has so many command points already it doesn't matter if they get more. LOLOLOLOLOL

Lol might as well have just said "well, because SM has such gak troops, they'll never buy our intercessors unless it gave them totally huge advantage!"

Yes but still the issue of marines having nothing to spend them on. lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
If Battalions are +5, who would take a Brigade at +9 over 2xBattalions?

3 HQ tax instead of 4...IDK - good point.

Brigades give 12 CP, not 9. So 2 battalions is still less CP than 1 brigade.

Bharring wrote:
If Battalions are +5, who would take a Brigade at +9 over 2xBattalions?

Brigades are +12

Not sure marines have nothing to spend CP on. Ravenguard strike from the shadows is quite good. The fight again strat is more attractive if you have more CP available.

I guess SM players will be switching to raven guard now. They can still alpha strike and have decent gunlines. Even as a gunline player, I think they were too harsh on alpha strike lists. This FAQ makes most close combat lists unable to compete and be outright obliterated.

I need to work on my clarity. Someone was saying they wouldn't mind if the Brigades stayed at +9. I was pointing out that buffing the Battalion and not the Brigade would be silly.

Breng77 wrote:
It fixes Ynnari soup a bit, and soup using index stuff that was not giving up much. But overall does not solve the larger issues with soup.

What are these "larger issues" with soup? I've been playing a "soup" army off and on since, like, 4th Edition thanks to Codex DH and WH. I don't see the big deal at all - in fact I quite like the dynamism you get from mixing and matching different factions. Makes things less boring

EDIT: lol spam is gone huehuehue

EDIT2: lol flyrants are now 190pts base huehuehue

How much are reapers per model now? Because it should be like 45 or 50 to be fair.

So after 2 series of FAQ, Rubric marines STILL have 2 different valid datasheets in two different codexes at the same time.


Nice job.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
An IG player can have 9 Russes in their heavy slot but Ad Mech can only have 3 onagers. GW needs to either give all heavy vehicles the squadron rule or take them away from everyone.

Yeah well. GW doesn't even pretend that change was for balance. Those blanket balances never have resulted in more balanced game AS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE has shown repeatedly over the years.

Strong armies like IG and eldar shrugs this off. Meanwhile such a tournament dominating armies armies like deathwing and orks are hurt badly. This is EXACTLY as blanket statements are intended to work. They are by definition always hurting weaker armies more than more powerful ones.

 Thrst77 wrote:
I guess SM players will be switching to raven guard now. They can still alpha strike and have decent gunlines. Even as a gunline player, I think they were too harsh on alpha strike lists. This FAQ makes most close combat lists unable to compete and be outright obliterated.

They are becoming the top marine chapter with every nerf to guilliman. They took a big hit to issodan though - has to wait till turn 2 to come out. They will be getting a lot more command points to use the only stratagem any good in the marine arsenal though. Time will tell. I predict marines are still trash tier.

Bharring wrote:
If Battalions are +5, who would take a Brigade at +9 over 2xBattalions?

People who don't want to spend points on a fourth HQ. Probably inconsequential for IG anyway.

Breng77 wrote:
It fixes Ynnari soup a bit, and soup using index stuff that was not giving up much. But overall does not solve the larger issues with soup.

It slightly nerfs competitive Ynnari soup, as you can't fill your detachment with kabalites when your goal is to take Ynnari DR and SS, you now have to use guardians. Not a big deal.

However, it completely kills fluffy Ynnari lists. That rule goes against the core concept of the faction (which is to mix Eldars from all factions), it's ridiculous.
Making Ynnari army-wide instead of the weak thing they did would have completely fixed the cheese, while preserving the fluffy lists.

I'm salty as all hell. Thank god the deep strike stuff is just a beta rule so we can spam them with 'you guys are stupid' until they decide to scrap it. And I don't play or have intention of playing tournaments so the only 3 per detachment rule doesn't affect me. As for the rest it's just pretty stupid.

Martel732 wrote:
How much are reapers per model now? Because it should be like 45 or 50 to be fair.

They went up 7 points. It's on the lower end of what I expected. They almost have no need for screen now though so a net win for the eldar.

 BBAP wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It fixes Ynnari soup a bit, and soup using index stuff that was not giving up much. But overall does not solve the larger issues with soup.

What are these "larger issues" with soup? I've been playing a "soup" army off and on since, like, 4th Edition thanks to Codex DH and WH. I don't see the big deal at all - in fact I quite like the dynamism you get from mixing and matching different factions. Makes things less boring

EDIT: lol spam is gone huehuehue

EDIT2: lol flyrants are now 190pts base huehuehue

It's not gone, per se. It's a suggestion, not a rule. It honestly depends on community reaction. I do know that if it does go down to 3 of the same datasheet I have to soup my lists way harder now.

fresus wrote:
However, it completely kills fluffy Ynnari lists.

... in Matched Play. You can do as you please in Open and Narrative.

 BBAP wrote:

fresus wrote:
However, it completely kills fluffy Ynnari lists.

... in Matched Play. You can do as you please in Open and Narrative.

That is true - most people see that as playing in the kiddy pool - or sitting at the kids table at thanksgiving.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How much are reapers per model now? Because it should be like 45 or 50 to be fair.

They went up 7 points. It's on the lower end of what I expected. They almost have no need for screen now though so a net win for the eldar.

There are still plenty of armies that can be in your face turn 1. I'd even be willing to pop a heldrake into my list if it went that direction.

I appreciate the clarification on first turn 'boots on the ground', but how did they leave out the question of transports? Even ITC has declared that they need guidance from GW on the matter.

And power level? Really? If I'm playing with points, why can't I use points?

Dark Talons were nerfed into the ground hard. +40 pts for something that was only slightly 'better' than the 175 pt Nephilim fighter.

 BBAP wrote:

fresus wrote:
However, it completely kills fluffy Ynnari lists.

... in Matched Play. You can do as you please in Open and Narrative.

Which means in practice fluffy unnari lists are dead.

Tournament rules are de facto standard for every game. Certainly spending any money on anything not legal in tournament game is fool's errand as you are going to be forced to beg for excemption for every game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How much are reapers per model now? Because it should be like 45 or 50 to be fair.

They went up 7 points. It's on the lower end of what I expected. They almost have no need for screen now though so a net win for the eldar.

There are still plenty of armies that can be in your face turn 1. I'd even be willing to pop a heldrake into my list if it went that direction.

Then bring a hell drake - I'm sure eldar can handle that without a screen.

ERJAK wrote:
It's not gone, per se. It's a suggestion, not a rule. It honestly depends on community reaction. I do know that if it does go down to 3 of the same datasheet I have to soup my lists way harder now.

Adoption by events depends on community reaction, which is to say whatever's most conducive to the continued profitability of the event - which makes me wonder, who's the majority here? Is it spammers, or is it people who pay dollaru to attend events only to come a cropper against spammers?

Also Troops and Transports are exempt from the restriction, so more Repressors and Battle Sisters wouldn't hurt. As far as souping harder goes I honestly don't see why people would have a problem with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament rules are de facto standard for every game.

Says who?

 BBAP wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It's not gone, per se. It's a suggestion, not a rule. It honestly depends on community reaction. I do know that if it does go down to 3 of the same datasheet I have to soup my lists way harder now.

Adoption by events depends on community reaction, which is to say whatever's most conducive to the continued profitability of the event - which makes me wonder, who's the majority here? Is it spammers, or is it people who pay dollaru to attend events only to come a cropper against spammers?

Also Troops and Transports are exempt from the restriction, so more Repressors and Battle Sisters wouldn't hurt. As far as souping harder goes I honestly don't see why people would have a problem with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament rules are de facto standard for every game.

Says who?

It absolutely would hurt. There are better options in every other imperium army available than wasting points on battle sisters inside transports. A supreme command of custodes jetbikes is a more points efficient replacement. I wanted to play sisters of battle as purely as possible, but this change makes that non-viable, so soup it is. I mean...foot sisters are little bit better, but that was never a very good list to begin with.

And if GW would make more than 2 units useful in any codex, they'd get less spam.

Thankfully squadrons are not effected by the anti spam rule. I would have hated a limitation of only three dudes on ork buggies, artillery, kanz or drukhari talos.

I cannot spam min squads of reavers now, but that's not too bad since I'm enjoying fielding 2x3 and 1x12 squads.

I don't have to sell models because the new rules made them too many in regular games, that's all that matters.

Soups and deep strike are nerfed? Good. Those nerfs are basically the only things I wanted, other than a price hike for some undercosted units.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Then bring a hell drake - I'm sure eldar can handle that without a screen.

I'm sure they can, too, but not the subsequent ripple effect of losing shooting from two or three units turn 1 and possibly turn 2.

 Blackie wrote:
Thankfully squadrons are not effected by the anti spam rule. I would have hated a limitation of only three dudes on ork buggies, artillery, kanz or drukhari talos.

I cannot spam min squads of reavers now, but that's not too bad since I'm enjoying fielding 2x3 and 1x12 squads.

I don't have to sell models because the new rules made them too many in regular games, that's all that matters.

Soups and deep strike are nerfed? Good. Those nerfs are basically the only things I wanted, other than a price hike for some undercosted units.

Soups aren't really nerfed tho. Most Soup lists were run detachment by detachment anyway. Ynnari got a little worse but imperium and chaos are largely unnaffected. And the squadron rule bypassing the unit restriction means that guard weren't touched either.

 BBAP wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Tournament rules are de facto standard for every game.

Says who?

Matched play rules are indeed the standard where I play. Narrative/open play do exist, but are always planned in advance, and most people aren't interested in anything but matched play (even the ones who play non competitive lists).
So at least for me, it will be much more difficult to play Ynnari.

It's also that with each consecutive FAQ, Ynnari gets stripped of everything it has in an attempt to balance the broken combos that can be done with its rules. Now the army is all but dead in matched play (what's the point if you can't combine Aeldari units?), expect for the good old Yvraine + DR/SS combo which is still pretty good, so nothing has been fixed.
GW really doesn't know what to do with Ynnari.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Then bring a hell drake - I'm sure eldar can handle that without a screen.

I'm sure they can, too, but not the subsequent ripple effect of losing shooting from two or three units turn 1 and possibly turn 2.

That would be a poorly deployed eldar to allow 2-3 units to get assaulted by a single flyer.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That would be a poorly deployed eldar to allow 2-3 units to get assaulted by a single flyer.

As you said - they have no screen. A couple wave serpents aren't blocking that much space.

 Xenomancers wrote:
DS spears was just a defensive mechanic - it actually nerfed their offensive potential by making your first charge move more difficult - they move freaking 16 - quicken is all you need to charge their back line.

They did manage to nerf gardians though - which was totally warranted.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it, how were guardians nerfed?

PiñaColada wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
DS spears was just a defensive mechanic - it actually nerfed their offensive potential by making your first charge move more difficult - they move freaking 16 - quicken is all you need to charge their back line.

They did manage to nerf gardians though - which was totally warranted.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it, how were guardians nerfed?

Their guns are 12 inch range and they can't deepstrike out of their deployment zone until turn 2. Huge nerf.

Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That would be a poorly deployed eldar to allow 2-3 units to get assaulted by a single flyer.

As you said - they have no screen. A couple wave serpents aren't blocking that much space.

We are only talking about a few ranger units - I don't think it was preventing your hell drake from getting in there in the first place. I'm just saying - if they are deploying that close together it's their own fault for 1 unit assaulting more than 1 unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

Ofc you like the FAQ - tau and AM are the most benifited by it. Floating in command points like crazy and most things can't even get into assault with you turn 1 anymore. Most importantly - you can still alpha strike hard with Russ/manticores/bassalisk/ect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
DS spears was just a defensive mechanic - it actually nerfed their offensive potential by making your first charge move more difficult - they move freaking 16 - quicken is all you need to charge their back line.

They did manage to nerf gardians though - which was totally warranted.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it, how were guardians nerfed?

Their guns are 12 inch range and they can't deepstrike out of their deployment zone until turn 2. Huge nerf.

Oh, yeah. Duh. I feel dumb now haha

 BBAP wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It fixes Ynnari soup a bit, and soup using index stuff that was not giving up much. But overall does not solve the larger issues with soup.

What are these "larger issues" with soup? I've been playing a "soup" army off and on since, like, 4th Edition thanks to Codex DH and WH. I don't see the big deal at all - in fact I quite like the dynamism you get from mixing and matching different factions. Makes things less boring

EDIT: lol spam is gone huehuehue

EDIT2: lol flyrants are now 190pts base huehuehue

The fact that there is no downside to using it. Mono-faction is a self nerf in armies that can soup.
The use of IG as a CP battery for elite factions powerful stratagems.

ERJAK wrote:
It absolutely would hurt. There are better options in every other imperium army available

The same could be said of, like, every slot in the SoB index though. Sisters are cheap compared to other PA Troops, even if you tool them up for bear and give them bawkses to ride around in. They also get an extra action every turn, plus a couple more if you suicide your Characters. 30pt Hospitallers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag can run into a unit of Berzerkers and win you an extra shooting phase.

A supreme command of custodes jetbikes is a more points efficient replacement.

Don't have the Custodes Codex, but considering how hard Custodes players complain about their army (and how few Custodes players there seem to be) I'm not sure if I believe this.

I wanted to play sisters of battle as purely as possible, but this change makes that non-viable, so soup it is. I mean...foot sisters are little bit better, but that was never a very good list to begin with.

Foot Sisters aren't really buffed by this FAQ in any appreciable way, as far as I can see. You can cram in a few more ComPoints with Battalions but that's about it. No Foot Sisters army is going to be packing 12 Heavy Bolters in their Troops slots all of a sudden.

As for soup being the best way to play Sisters... ever has it been thus, right? In 5th everyone had IST Melta death-rides or Plasma-donkeys in their Troops slots, or maybe an HQ and a unit of Seraphim in their Guard army or something.

And if GW would make more than 2 units useful in any codex, they'd get less spam.

There are plenty of perfectly serviceable units in the Nids Codex, yet people spam Flyrants because it's an easy way to put pressure on an opponent with minimal effort. Crumby units aren't the reason for spam (although a few less in each book wouldn't hurt) - the lack of comp-restrictions on stuff that really should be comp-restricted is the reason for spam.

 BBAP wrote:

There are plenty of perfectly serviceable units in the Nids Codex, yet people spam Flyrants because it's an easy way to put pressure on an opponent with minimal effort. Crumby units aren't the reason for spam (although a few less in each book wouldn't hurt) - the lack of comp-restrictions on stuff that really should be comp-restricted is the reason for spam.

Reason to spam is because GW can't make units balanced to save their lives. If GW made rules like professionals these restrictions wouldn't be needed. As it is GW only managed to make balance worse increasing gap between top and bottom armies. GJ.

fresus wrote:
Matched play rules are indeed the standard where I play. Narrative/open play do exist, but are always planned in advance, and most people aren't interested in anything but matched play (even the ones who play non competitive lists).
So at least for me, it will be much more difficult to play Ynnari.

So organise some games in advance, then. If your list is "follows the lore" fluffy, and not "7th Edition Taudar best buds 4 lyf" fluffy I can't imagine it'd be that hard. Unless your group are jerks or something, in which case... commiserat.

It's also that with each consecutive FAQ, Ynnari gets stripped of everything it has in an attempt to balance the broken combos that can be done with its rules. Now the army is all but dead in matched play (what's the point if you can't combine Aeldari units?), expect for the good old Yvraine + DR/SS combo which is still pretty good, so nothing has been fixed.
GW really doesn't know what to do with Ynnari.

The point is you can't just cram a bunch of off-faction units into a single Detachment and get free actions anymore, nor can you pick'n'mix whatever Aeldari crap you feel like taking. Now you have to pay a tax, which is either a Detachment and 1 CP, or 3 HQs of points, just to get the keyword, plus another tax on whatever units you're bringing (Dark Reapers or whatever - y'know, for fluff!). Given how powerful extra actions are these restrictions seem fair, no?

I'll agree with that last bit, to be honest. Their biggest problem from where I'm sitting is that Ynnari were conceived as a total power-creep faction at the outset, and it's difficult to see what direction you develop such a faction in other than "down".

 BBAP wrote:


There are plenty of perfectly serviceable units in the Nids Codex, yet people spam Flyrants because it's an easy way to put pressure on an opponent with minimal effort. Crumby units aren't the reason for spam (although a few less in each book wouldn't hurt) - the lack of comp-restrictions on stuff that really should be comp-restricted is the reason for spam.

Hive Tyrant is spammed because the other HQs are overpriced (and/or bad). The 20 pts nerf to the flyrant doesn't change the fact they can be spammed, since the "sheet" limit are beta rules.

GW basically did what was expected of them : instead of trying to understand why the other nids HQs are barely used, they just added 20 points to the one that is the most effective.

At the same time, their "beta rules" are a flat mega buff to gunline armies (who didn't need it), and a mega-nerf to melee armies.

 BBAP wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It absolutely would hurt. There are better options in every other imperium army available

The same could be said of, like, every slot in the SoB index though. Sisters are cheap compared to other PA Troops, even if you tool them up for bear and give them bawkses to ride around in. They also get an extra action every turn, plus a couple more if you suicide your Characters. 30pt Hospitallers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag can run into a unit of Berzerkers and win you an extra shooting phase.

A supreme command of custodes jetbikes is a more points efficient replacement.

Don't have the Custodes Codex, but considering how hard Custodes players complain about their army (and how few Custodes players there seem to be) I'm not sure if I believe this.

I wanted to play sisters of battle as purely as possible, but this change makes that non-viable, so soup it is. I mean...foot sisters are little bit better, but that was never a very good list to begin with.

Foot Sisters aren't really buffed by this FAQ in any appreciable way, as far as I can see. You can cram in a few more ComPoints with Battalions but that's about it. No Foot Sisters army is going to be packing 12 Heavy Bolters in their Troops slots all of a sudden.

As for soup being the best way to play Sisters... ever has it been thus, right? In 5th everyone had IST Melta death-rides or Plasma-donkeys in their Troops slots, or maybe an HQ and a unit of Seraphim in their Guard army or something.

And if GW would make more than 2 units useful in any codex, they'd get less spam.

There are plenty of perfectly serviceable units in the Nids Codex, yet people spam Flyrants because it's an easy way to put pressure on an opponent with minimal effort. Crumby units aren't the reason for spam (although a few less in each book wouldn't hurt) - the lack of comp-restrictions on stuff that really should be comp-restricted is the reason for spam.

The custodes dawn-eagle jetbike captain is one of the best indvidual units in the game. They're ridiculously prevalent at the moment. The fact that you weren't aware of that makes a lot of your input seem...less credible.

As for the troops, I more meant that the transports are a waste, the battle sisters themselves are more or less fine with the battalion change. Ultimately you'll end up with a battalion, an outrider, and a soup detachment in SoB armies now, so it's not...like...grey knights level bad but pure SoB worked before(...more or less) and now it doesn't. It's a little sad, but not like...game quittingly so.

You're also missing the forests for the trees here, they spam flyrants because they're markedly better than everything else in the codex, it's not about it being 'easier' it's about them being point for point the best options. If you want to win 'serviceable' units get left at home. It's not Matt Root's fault that GW can't point cost things correctly.

Also the reason to use Hive Tyrant is because of Alpha Strike. The actual Alpha Strike, where whole army sits in base and shoots down half the opposing army without moving an inch.

Not the Alpha Strike that a few players try to use, that includes melee and is easily defeated by a few 100 points of guardsmen.

Tyrant is save from that.

ERJAK wrote:

The custodes dawn-eagle jetbike captain is one of the best indvidual units in the game. They're ridiculously prevalent at the moment. The fact that you weren't aware of that makes a lot of your input seem...less credible.

Personally, I'm not sold on captains on jetbikes. They cost almost as much as 2 bikes and they have almost twice the wounds, but they shoot as well as one of them and fight only marginally better. I think the best way to use custodes as an allied detachment is a captain and 3x3 bikes, rather than 3-5 captains. Sure, they can't be targeted, but jetbikes are tough as hell anyway. Plus, deepstriking a unit of bikes is amazing, as is counter-charging with 3 bikes instead of just one.

But yeah, I agree, if you don't know what every unit in the game does, the input you can give is hardly meaningful.

Teschio wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

The custodes dawn-eagle jetbike captain is one of the best indvidual units in the game. They're ridiculously prevalent at the moment. The fact that you weren't aware of that makes a lot of your input seem...less credible.

Personally, I'm not sold on captains on jetbikes. They cost almost as much as 2 bikes and they have almost twice the wounds, but they shoot as well as one of them and fight only marginally better. I think the best way to use custodes as an allied detachment is a captain and 3x3 bikes, rather than 3-5 captains. Sure, they can't be targeted, but jetbikes are tough as hell anyway. Plus, deepstriking a unit of bikes is amazing, as is counter-charging with 3 bikes instead of just one.

But yeah, I agree, if you don't know what every unit in the game does, the input you can give is hardly meaningful.

3x3 bikes and the captain you're taking for the rerolls is 1000+pts total. That's not an allied detachement, that's the army. Everything ELSE is an allied detachment

And not knowing what the top tier units do when you spend enough time on the game to bother posting here, and have apparently experienced players talking about the army enough to complain about their whining is suspect. Everyone else here knows about cultists, flyrants, reapers, dark talons, Custard bikes, when someone doesn't know these basic things and talks as definitively as he does, it raises suspicion

Oh, but I guess I should just take everyone as an expert mistah 'just run a 1000+pt ally detachment, because that makes sense!' lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

Ofc you like the FAQ - tau and AM are the most benifited by it. Floating in command points like crazy and most things can't even get into assault with you turn 1 anymore. Most importantly - you can still alpha strike hard with Russ/manticores/bassalisk/ect.

Tau also lost their ability to deep strike their best units (commanders) turn 1, not to mention the rest of their suits...If I played Tau, I'd definitely prefer pre-FAQ.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

Ofc you like the FAQ - tau and AM are the most benifited by it. Floating in command points like crazy and most things can't even get into assault with you turn 1 anymore. Most importantly - you can still alpha strike hard with Russ/manticores/bassalisk/ect.

Tau also lost their ability to deep strike their best units (commanders) turn 1, not to mention the rest of their suits...If I played Tau, I'd definitely prefer pre-FAQ.

Not to mention their codex FAQ makes some very troubling feth consistent rules FAQ calls.
Like a reroll strat that has to be used before you roll. What the feth?

It's ok. Xenomancers has been colossally and irrationally salty about guard for centuries now. It's kind of his thing.

Ice_can wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

Ofc you like the FAQ - tau and AM are the most benifited by it. Floating in command points like crazy and most things can't even get into assault with you turn 1 anymore. Most importantly - you can still alpha strike hard with Russ/manticores/bassalisk/ect.

Tau also lost their ability to deep strike their best units (commanders) turn 1, not to mention the rest of their suits...If I played Tau, I'd definitely prefer pre-FAQ.

Not to mention their codex FAQ makes some very troubling feth consistent rules FAQ calls.
Like a reroll strat that has to be used before you roll. What the feth?

That is 100% not troubling. It's reroll to wounds. Oh, I only got two hits? I won't use it. Everything hit? Definitely!

Even VotLW requires you use it before shooting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Pretty happy with the FAQs overall. Nerfed alpha strikes (which people complained about). Nerfed spam (which people complained about) while still retaining squadron rule to help fluffy lists, which is great. Nerfed smite spam (which people complained about) while excluding Grey Knights and Thousand Sons, which is great. Nerfed lots of the annoying spam lists you saw at tournaments like poxwalker spam, tide of traitors spam, dark reaper spam, hive tyrant spam. All great things.

From an IG perspective, commissar and lord commissar costs got cut in half and "summary execution" is finally an OPTION, not an obligation. Makes commissars playable. Exciting. Relic of Lost Cadia finally took that huge nerf. That's okay. Scions deep striking got a nerf, but that's okay too.

Ofc you like the FAQ - tau and AM are the most benifited by it. Floating in command points like crazy and most things can't even get into assault with you turn 1 anymore. Most importantly - you can still alpha strike hard with Russ/manticores/bassalisk/ect.

Tau also lost their ability to deep strike their best units (commanders) turn 1, not to mention the rest of their suits...If I played Tau, I'd definitely prefer pre-FAQ.

Not to mention their codex FAQ makes some very troubling feth consistent rules FAQ calls.
Like a reroll strat that has to be used before you roll. What the feth?

That is 100% not troubling. It's reroll to wounds. Oh, I only got two hits? I won't use it. Everything hit? Definitely!

Even VotLW requires you use it before shooting.

Its a re-roll a single dice for number of shots, but you can comand point reroll strategum the same dice after rolling.

But grey knights have a gak smite so it doesn't matter that GW decided not to kick them while they're down. Oh wait they did with the DS and faction rules.

So, does this mean I can't use Iron warriors or Renegades with my WE?

 chimeara wrote:
So, does this mean I can't use Iron warriors or Renegades with my WE?

You can because they have Chaos and Heretic Astartes Keywords in common.

So. 6 months of Ynnari domination?
The nerfs to the list are minor to irrelevant and everything that could put up a fight got nerfed by either the 3 limit or the DS nerf.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
So, does this mean I can't use Iron warriors or Renegades with my WE?

You can because they have Chaos and Heretic Astartes Keywords in common.

Here's the thing though, if it's in different detachments it's not even a concern. They didn't fix the problem, they just made celestine and GK not worth taking.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
So, does this mean I can't use Iron warriors or Renegades with my WE?

You can because they have Chaos and Heretic Astartes Keywords in common.

Here's the thing though, if it's in different detachments it's not even a concern. They didn't fix the problem, they just made celestine and GK not worth taking.

Celestine in a Patrol Detachment with 5 girls is still perfectly worth taking thank you very much.

Free sisters stratagems, and two acts of faith for the cost of a whole 45 points? Yes please.

Quick question, how do Custodes look under the new FAQ?

 mrhappyface wrote:
Quick question, how do Custodes look under the new FAQ?

Allarus Terminators got a lot more meh with the beta reserve rules. Everything else looks great!

Ice_can wrote:

Its a re-roll a single dice for number of shots, but you can comand point reroll strategum the same dice after rolling.

You've lost me. Are you talking about Breach and Clear or something else? Because that's the only reroll strat for Tau that changed that I can see.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Quick question, how do Custodes look under the new FAQ?

Exactly the same.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Its a re-roll a single dice for number of shots, but you can comand point reroll strategum the same dice after rolling.

You've lost me. Are you talking about Breach and Clear or something else? Because that's the only reroll strat for Tau that changed that I can see.

Experimental weaponry
Use the stratagem when a borkan sept unit etc etc.you can re-roll one of the dicd used to determine the number of attacks made.
But you now have to use it before you roll the dice first.

Well that's gak. Glad I don't play Borkan.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Its a re-roll a single dice for number of shots, but you can comand point reroll strategum the same dice after rolling.

You've lost me. Are you talking about Breach and Clear or something else? Because that's the only reroll strat for Tau that changed that I can see.

Experimental weaponry
Use the stratagem when a borkan sept unit etc etc.you can re-roll one of the dicd used to determine the number of attacks made.
But you now have to use it before you roll the dice first.

Ah, ok. I think it's set that way to prevent abusing cluster rockets. CP reroll one. Borkan the other. Not the best reason to do it though since that's the only multi-D6 weapon they have iirc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Its a re-roll a single dice for number of shots, but you can comand point reroll strategum the same dice after rolling.

You've lost me. Are you talking about Breach and Clear or something else? Because that's the only reroll strat for Tau that changed that I can see.

Experimental weaponry
Use the stratagem when a borkan sept unit etc etc.you can re-roll one of the dicd used to determine the number of attacks made.
But you now have to use it before you roll the dice first.

Ah, ok. I think it's set that way to prevent abusing cluster rockets. CP reroll one. Borkan the other. Not the best reason to do it though since that's the only multi-D6 weapon they have iirc.

Except thats the one thing it doesn't stop.
You can still do exactly what you said and in fact are more likely to do so as the only weapon its worth using on is cluster rockets now.
Atleast the oldway it made sence to use it on another suit/weapon now it may aswell be cold cluster rocket strategum.

Ice_can wrote:

Except thats the one thing it doesn't stop.
You can still do exactly what you said and in fact are more likely to do so as the only weapon its worth using on is cluster rockets now.
Atleast the oldway it made sence to use it on another suit/weapon now it may aswell be cold cluster rocket strategum.

Yea, i'm not saying it was a good idea. Only other thing I can think of is they didn't want two CP type rerolls easily accessible. It's certainly something i'd petition them on.

 Ordana wrote:
So. 6 months of Ynnari domination?
The nerfs to the list are minor to irrelevant and everything that could put up a fight got nerfed by either the 3 limit or the DS nerf.

9 more points for each dark reaper is irrelevant? The craftworlds guy I know had his list go up by like 250 points.

I think the big winners in this FAQ are Guard and Necrons. The former has been discussed at length, but the latter got buffed in ways people who don't play the army don't realize; the biggest weakness competitive Necrons have is the lack of any scout move to push out of the deployment zone. With turn 1 deep strikes no longer an issue scarabs will be able to do the job of screening just fine.

Y'know, in fairness I'm not at all a tournament player so this really doesn't affect me, but my biggest thing with the whole 3 uses of the same datasheet thing is if you don't like the rule, don't go to tournaments that use it

Seriously, that entire table is just guidelines. They aren't set rules, they certainly aren't matched play rules, they are tournament guidelines, and TOs are free to alter them or just bot use them, a fact GW has gone out of their way to stress over and over again. Tournaments rely on people coming to play for them to exist and make money. Don't like the rule, don't go to tournaments that use it. Enough people stop coming, tournaments will stop using it, and GW may well nix it when it comes time for another FAQ.

Ah, ok. I think it's set that way to prevent abusing cluster rockets. CP reroll one. Borkan the other. Not the best reason to do it though since that's the only multi-D6 weapon they have iirc.

Oddly, this is the third time I've seen cluster rockets referenced in regards to the Borkan strat nerf. Even at the peak of usefulness, I'm not sure I'd call adding 10 S5 shots (1s-->6s) abusive. Maybe they wanted to address Y'Vahras with their 3d6 flamer? I'm still not sure why the strat required any attention at all, much less a huge kick in the nuts in terms of effectiveness. It was already far more limited than the 1CP reroll everyone gets. Confusing.

9 more points for each dark reaper is irrelevant?

It's 7. So if you have 10 reapers you have to throw away 2 and you're ok.

I made a quick comic strip about the CSM Chosen losing the ability to have a pair of lighting claws.

MilkmanAl wrote:

Ah, ok. I think it's set that way to prevent abusing cluster rockets. CP reroll one. Borkan the other. Not the best reason to do it though since that's the only multi-D6 weapon they have iirc.

Oddly, this is the third time I've seen cluster rockets referenced in regards to the Borkan strat nerf. Even at the peak of usefulness, I'm not sure I'd call adding 10 S5 shots (1s-->6s) abusive. Maybe they wanted to address Y'Vahras with their 3d6 flamer? I'm still not sure why the strat required any attention at all, much less a huge kick in the nuts in terms of effectiveness. It was already far more limited than the 1CP reroll everyone gets. Confusing.

I think everyone missed the strategic importance of having a stratagem that lets you reroll your template dice and does not cost you the more generic and more powerful command reroll for the shooting phase.

So yeah... there's still a lot of strength to that stratagem as FAQ'd, but it is objectively weaker if you planned to use the command reroll specifically on that die to begin with. Not pointing at your post specifically, but more the conversation regarding how bad the Borkan strat after the FAQ. In the end, it becomes a second command reroll that you have to pay before you know. Still decent, just not an on-demand extra command reroll for a specific task.

 Shadenuat wrote:

9 more points for each dark reaper is irrelevant?

It's 7. So if you have 10 reapers you have to throw away 2 and you're ok.

And that's 20%. You can try to twist it how you want, but a 20% reduction in strength is no joke.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:

9 more points for each dark reaper is irrelevant?

It's 7. So if you have 10 reapers you have to throw away 2 and you're ok.

And that's 20%. You can try to twist it how you want, but a 20% reduction in strength is no joke.

It's a good start. They needed 50% cut in firepower. Although 20% cut in durability and firepower is closer than I originally though. I still think they are 45-50 ppm models as long as forewarned exists.

Honestly I thought the new rules were quite sensible, and it saddens me as a fan of the hobby to see so much vitriol hurled at a company which at the end of the day is just trying to make us all happy.

Elite armies were concerned about CP, so they got some extra. Some people were concerned with spam or soup, and GW came up with some evenhanded fixes.

Top tier competitive codexes may have to work a little harder to keep their position in the rankings, but at the end of the day that's what a good tactical experience is all about.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
So, does this mean I can't use Iron warriors or Renegades with my WE?

You can because they have Chaos and Heretic Astartes Keywords in common.

I see, so by that I can still use the Khorne daemons because they share the Khorne faction keyword with the WE.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Honestly I thought the new rules were quite sensible, and it saddens me as a fan of the hobby to see so much vitriol hurled at a company which at the end of the day is just trying to make us all happy.

Elite armies were concerned about CP, so they got some extra. Some people were concerned with spam or soup, and GW came up with some evenhanded fixes.

Top tier competitive codexes may have to work a little harder to keep their position in the rankings, but at the end of the day that's what a good tactical experience is all about.

They buffed Guard and nerfed space marine armies. Wtf are you on about?

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Honestly I thought the new rules were quite sensible, and it saddens me as a fan of the hobby to see so much vitriol hurled at a company which at the end of the day is just trying to make us all happy.

Elite armies were concerned about CP, so they got some extra. Some people were concerned with spam or soup, and GW came up with some evenhanded fixes.

Top tier competitive codexes may have to work a little harder to keep their position in the rankings, but at the end of the day that's what a good tactical experience is all about.

There are still a ton of units throwing way too much dakka for their price point and many other units that don't do nearly enough for their cost.

I think the FAQ makes it clear that GW has never seen a problem with soup armies, only soup detachments. So my army of Dark Angels Air Wing Detachment, Sisters Outrider Detachment, and Guard Spearhead Detachment is still perfectly legal. Everyone considers this list "soup" and it's untouched by the FAQ. I personally never ran a soup detachment before, I guess this was big with Celestine?

I also think the turn 1 deep strike change is going to be very good for the game, and I even have a very assulty BA army. For one it helps tanks that can't fall out of combat and shoot immensely, and they really needed that one turn to try and adjust. It allows armies with psykers who lose the first turn to buff up before the inevitable charge - yes this is a nerf of sorts to the charging unit, but honestly, getting lucky with getting the first turn and assaulting your opponents whole line, potentially shutting down multiple units before the player even gets a turn never felt like that fell within the spirit of the game. And finally the charging units themselves weren't nerfed directly, they're still as powerful as ever, and their turn 2 charge will have just as much oomph as their turn 1 would have. For me the biggest nerf is the power rating balance thing, it really takes away ones ability to have almost a full powerhouse assaulting army in deep strike with just enough cheap chaff units to meet the 50% requirement.

As an eldar player first and foremost I'm breathing a sigh of relief, with the exception of the basic warlock, that was just cruel. Yes farseers were too cheap and 10 points is a scratch, and the spiritseer has a full-powered smite and a relevant aura, 45 points was way too cheap. But the lowly warlock is 2 wounds, no relevant buff, and a baby smite, it didn't deserve the same 20 point hike. Oddly all the skyrunner variants are untouched, thankfully. I never spammed reapers, but I almost always run one full 10-man squad. The 70 point tax isn't nothing, but it isn't enough where I've abandoned the full 10, or abandoned any of my lists with them in it. I just had to make a few minor tweaks. Sorry Martel lol.

Yeah just connected the dots on deep striking guardian blob nerf, this is now my biggest complaint. Rangers are OK, but guardians are really where you want to be. I'm not sure the best way to run eldar troops now. Start looking at asurmen/DA foot slog? Or just hope battle focus gets the job done Lol? I mean shifting your deep strike to turn 2 isn't the end of the world for them I suppose. What it most affects are the other parts of the army, you'll need to design it in such a way to be able to defend for much longer before your hammer comes down.

lets see.. if the beta rules and the organized play suggestions catch on outside of tournaments and into general play in my region...

my Dedicated Tempestus list plan is dead in the water. glad i didn't purchase for that.

My inquisitorial plan is... welp, unchanged. its just even less viable now than it already was.

my flight of angels army list i picked up more Seraphim for would also have it's wings clipped and thats before the DS beta change without checking if it would have any effect on my playstyle...

And my general sisters list idea took the least panning, but considering i had planned for 4 squads of dominions at least with different weapon options and was thinking of setting up for more.. im still not happy, unless you count dodging the cost, but at least thst time i have a second string option.

at least they didn't touch my transport numbers, but really GW? and i have to ask, exactly who does this "battle Brother" beta rule even effect as a whole that was considered a problem? I just kind of figured that since there's detachment benefits abound by now, people would be shooting for those anyway, but i would like to know what lists forced this, that has also made it so piecemeal imperial factions now have to queue up as unique detachments should this go live.

so yeah, first pass on the beta rules and down, and i have Little nice to say about it, but im also inexperienced in general on this one.

Can I just say OP, although you didn't encourage positivity. I appreciate this threads intention.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I made a quick comic strip about the CSM Chosen losing the ability to have a pair of lighting claws.

Spoiler:

This was actually great! Exalted!

 peteralmo wrote:

I also think the turn 1 deep strike change is going to be very good for the game, and I even have a very assulty BA army. For one it helps tanks that can't fall out of combat and shoot immensely, and they really needed that one turn to try and adjust. It allows armies with psykers who lose the first turn to buff up before the inevitable charge - yes this is a nerf of sorts to the charging unit, but honestly, getting lucky with getting the first turn and assaulting your opponents whole line, potentially shutting down multiple units before the player even gets a turn never felt like that fell within the spirit of the game. And finally the charging units themselves weren't nerfed directly, they're still as powerful as ever, and their turn 2 charge will have just as much oomph as their turn 1 would have. For me the biggest nerf is the power rating balance thing, it really takes away ones ability to have almost a full powerhouse assaulting army in deep strike with just enough cheap chaff units to meet the 50% requirement.

I'm going to pick your brain, because you're the first person to put up a full throated defense of the deepstriking change.

Let's say Eldar vs BA.

If Eldar goes first they let loose with the Reapers. Then BA doesn't DS. Next turn Eldar goes Reaper happy again. Then BA uses DS and gets hit by forewarned.
The net result is BA get shoot an extra round.

Now, if I were making a BA list i'd be sure everything I have on the table is premium anti-infantry Dakka so that the Reapers die, but the back line needs to be able to deal with SS as well.

It seems...rough...

Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And that's 20%. You can try to twist it how you want, but a 20% reduction in strength is no joke.

I would have agreed 20% is a lot especially since against say 1W cheap blobs or T8 Reapers are not as scary, but with Ynnari&Alaitoc it's not that simple.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:

I also think the turn 1 deep strike change is going to be very good for the game, and I even have a very assulty BA army. For one it helps tanks that can't fall out of combat and shoot immensely, and they really needed that one turn to try and adjust. It allows armies with psykers who lose the first turn to buff up before the inevitable charge - yes this is a nerf of sorts to the charging unit, but honestly, getting lucky with getting the first turn and assaulting your opponents whole line, potentially shutting down multiple units before the player even gets a turn never felt like that fell within the spirit of the game. And finally the charging units themselves weren't nerfed directly, they're still as powerful as ever, and their turn 2 charge will have just as much oomph as their turn 1 would have. For me the biggest nerf is the power rating balance thing, it really takes away ones ability to have almost a full powerhouse assaulting army in deep strike with just enough cheap chaff units to meet the 50% requirement.

I'm going to pick your brain, because you're the first person to put up a full throated defense of the deepstriking change.

Let's say Eldar vs BA.

If Eldar goes first they let loose with the Reapers. Then BA doesn't DS. Next turn Eldar goes Reaper happy again. Then BA uses DS and gets hit by forewarned.
The net result is BA get shoot an extra round.

Now, if I were making a BA list i'd be sure everything I have on the table is premium anti-infantry Dakka so that the Reapers die, but the back line needs to be able to deal with SS as well.

It seems...rough...

You're coming up with singular examples to counter an overall discussion. Of course some armies will get hit harder than others by this rule, are you expecting to be unable to find a scenario where a rule change does not hurt anyone?
I play an obliterator heavy chaos soup with deepstriking DPs and trees. And it sucks that I now have to wait a turn to gain a vantage point. But my games were very dependent on turn 1, because obliterator 24" range can be negated well if I go second, because my opponents screens can move forward and limit my range to juicy targets. But if I go first I can shoot whatever I want. There's no strategy in that, its a coin-flip as to whether I dominate a game or not. The changes now are making me reconsider my list, as I will certainly lose ground by turn 2, but not against everyone if I bring the right anti-horde guns for my turn 1 shooting phase. These changes substantially impact the swingy-ness of my list, yes it makes my list worse, but now maybe my games wont be decided by who goes first.

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

How many armies could actually shut down someone else's army through deep strike though? Shooting armies have either bubblewrap or forward operators that deny deepstrike against the most valuable units. And how many assaulting armies can actually shut down your whole army on the charge, if for some reason the shooting army has decided to place all their key shooting units on the edge of their deployment in convenient charging range? Bloodletter bombs come the closest but they're 300+pts and cost 4CP.

Deepstriking bombs were the response to impregnable gunlines and now there is no good response. Fail to go first as a CC army and you're looking at 2 turns of shooting that you can't do anything about, a turn of shooting after your Deepstriking units have come down and cut through the chaff and by that point you may as well concede. And this isn't over-reacting, this is what fielding a Khorne Daemons army was like before we got the ability to get a turn 1 charge off in the Codex.

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

So you feel that we need to remove Turn1 shooting as well?

Because more-so than T1 charging, there's absolutely zero counter-play to enemy shooting; the reason Deep Strike was so valuable was because it protected your units - AND allowed them to actually get in range, especially if they were melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

How many armies could actually shut down someone else's army through deep strike though? Shooting armies have either bubblewrap or forward operators that deny deepstrike against the most valuable units. And how many assaulting armies can actually shut down your whole army on the charge, if for some reason the shooting army has decided to place all their key shooting units on the edge of their deployment in convenient charging range? Bloodletter bombs come the closest but they're 300+pts and cost 4CP.

Deepstriking bombs were the response to impregnable gunlines and now there is no good response. Fail to go first as a CC army and you're looking at 2 turns of shooting that you can't do anything about, a turn of shooting after your Deepstriking units have come down and cut through the chaff and by that point you may as well concede. And this isn't over-reacting, this is what fielding a Khorne Daemons army was like before we got the ability to get a turn 1 charge off in the Codex.

Something that someone else pointed out that I didn't think about - the gunline army now has an additional round to move its screens into place; which means your assault armies are that much further from making it into combat.

Hell, move6"+advance3" from chaff coupled with the 9"+ deep strike restriction means : you won't make it into melee with the gunline, even if you can clear 100% of the chaff with your deepstrike.

1-2-3 turns of shooting for the gunline, and no ability for the CC army to use its units. CC is dead; it was barely functional as it was, and now...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:

I also think the turn 1 deep strike change is going to be very good for the game, and I even have a very assulty BA army. For one it helps tanks that can't fall out of combat and shoot immensely, and they really needed that one turn to try and adjust. It allows armies with psykers who lose the first turn to buff up before the inevitable charge - yes this is a nerf of sorts to the charging unit, but honestly, getting lucky with getting the first turn and assaulting your opponents whole line, potentially shutting down multiple units before the player even gets a turn never felt like that fell within the spirit of the game. And finally the charging units themselves weren't nerfed directly, they're still as powerful as ever, and their turn 2 charge will have just as much oomph as their turn 1 would have. For me the biggest nerf is the power rating balance thing, it really takes away ones ability to have almost a full powerhouse assaulting army in deep strike with just enough cheap chaff units to meet the 50% requirement.

I'm going to pick your brain, because you're the first person to put up a full throated defense of the deepstriking change.

Let's say Eldar vs BA.

If Eldar goes first they let loose with the Reapers. Then BA doesn't DS. Next turn Eldar goes Reaper happy again. Then BA uses DS and gets hit by forewarned.
The net result is BA get shoot an extra round.

Now, if I were making a BA list i'd be sure everything I have on the table is premium anti-infantry Dakka so that the Reapers die, but the back line needs to be able to deal with SS as well.

It seems...rough...

It absolutely is rough, but also remember Eldar are a shooty army and they're probably still the strongest army available, they have the tools to deal with anything, so they might not have been the best example. I think there are opportunities to get creative in some of the assaulty dexes to still get turn 1 action. Let's continue with BA for a moment, yes, descent of angels strategies (easy mode) were hurt, but we still have forlorn fury and upon wings of fire, that's two stratagems that allow two premier units to start on the board and possibly get a turn 1 charge off. Now this is slightly grasping at straws because the stratagems only affect a single unit and BA murder units are built around multiple character buffs, in said scenario the character would be stranded somewhere else. Problematic to be sure. Again I think the biggest change will be how we build the non-assaulty parts of the list, they have to be built for extreme durability now, as they may have to withstand two turns of shooting before you get to strike. So maybe I'm paying extra points for camo cloaks now, etc. I think I'm OK with the change, but I'm not going to sugar coat it, assault based armies are extremely nerfed now. Understand I play BA as my third army, I consider them my fun army that I have fun with, but if they were my main force, and I was hoping to play tournaments with them I'd be completely despondent right now. GW saw that alpha striking deep striking armies were crushing the competitive scene, and I think they thought they were taking them from a 70% win rate to something like a 50% win rate, well it just ain't so. Against a good gunline, especially if they go first, those assault lists are going to have like a 10% win rate.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Honestly I thought the new rules were quite sensible, and it saddens me as a fan of the hobby to see so much vitriol hurled at a company which at the end of the day is just trying to make us all happy.

Elite armies were concerned about CP, so they got some extra. Some people were concerned with spam or soup, and GW came up with some evenhanded fixes.

Top tier competitive codexes may have to work a little harder to keep their position in the rankings, but at the end of the day that's what a good tactical experience is all about.

They mostly ignored or nerfed the weakest armies in the game, and gave a huge buff to what was already one of, if not the best army in the game in a way that encourages boring, immobile play. In an update meant to curb alpha-strike, they went on to buff one of the most toxic alpha-strike playstyle in the game.

I'm sad nothing was done to make Space Marines better. Tacticals are still not worth it, assault marines still suck royally, Terminators are still not T5, plasma is still not nurfed (admittedly this helps marines as they can use them, but also die to it just as much), Dreadnaughts will still die to a couple of heavy weapons, bolters are still useless.

I can only imagine how GK players feel as they're even worse off and didn't even get an FAQ.

 peteralmo wrote:

As an eldar player first and foremost I'm breathing a sigh of relief

Of course you are, your dark reapers get to shoot 3 times (Turn1, Turn 2 + forewarned) before the opponent can even get into charge distance of your SCREENING units.

So instead of winning 75% of your games, you will now win 100% of them. WHAT A RELIEF !

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

Ah yes kommandos and da jumping boyz needing 9" to charge were such a broooooooooken cheese right? Especially as any opponent worth anything has line of screens over real meat so first charge you'll be just wiping chaff and hope your kommandos and boyz survive the initial round.

Meanwhile IG got huge big boost by FAQ. Even Eldars were hit less than say orks were.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I'm sad nothing was done to make Space Marines better. Tacticals are still not worth it, assault marines still suck royally, Terminators are still not T5, plasma is still not nurfed (admittedly this helps marines as they can use them, but also die to it just as much), Dreadnaughts will still die to a couple of heavy weapons, bolters are still useless.

I can only imagine how GK players feel as they're even worse off and didn't even get an FAQ.

Did any individual unit get directly buffed other than commissars?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I'm sad nothing was done to make Space Marines better. Tacticals are still not worth it, assault marines still suck royally, Terminators are still not T5, plasma is still not nurfed (admittedly this helps marines as they can use them, but also die to it just as much), Dreadnaughts will still die to a couple of heavy weapons, bolters are still useless.

I can only imagine how GK players feel as they're even worse off and didn't even get an FAQ.

Did any individual unit get directly buffed other than commissars?

Chinork. One of the few bright spots for orks in the overall nerfbat of a FAQ(funny. Hadn't been hearing orks being overpowered)

I must concur that this is overhyped piece of gak. They didn't change anything really.

CC is still mostly crap, shooting is still king. I hate playing a gunline but it's the only way to roll really.

The Fall Back rule needs a big overhaul and CC needs to do way more damage to make CC even remotely comparable to shooting.

Still waiting for two of my codexes so my mind might still change based on what they're bringing to the table, but as it stands I am disappoint.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I'm sad nothing was done to make Space Marines better. Tacticals are still not worth it, assault marines still suck royally, Terminators are still not T5, plasma is still not nurfed (admittedly this helps marines as they can use them, but also die to it just as much), Dreadnaughts will still die to a couple of heavy weapons, bolters are still useless.

I can only imagine how GK players feel as they're even worse off and didn't even get an FAQ.

Did any individual unit get directly buffed other than commissars?

Well that’s one of the problems. Not exactly unexpected, it’s just an FAQ, and the things they have changed are good. But still doesn’t really help melee armies, who could do with proper cover rules, or marines who are severely lacking in some areas. GK’s especially. Glad some stuff like Pox/shield-captain/plagueburst crawler/etc. spam has been at least noticed. Whether the changes fix it for good or not will be interesting to see

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I'm sad nothing was done to make Space Marines better. Tacticals are still not worth it, assault marines still suck royally, Terminators are still not T5,

Well, terminators and assault marines were actually nerfed by the deep strike rule. They were obviously too good!

Perhaps counts as unit directly improved:

They clarified that the necron Catacomb Commandbarge does its Quantum shielding before warlord trait reducing damage by 1, that was nice.

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

I agree, and would not be salty at all about the DS rule IF they had done anything like that.

Instead, they did what they always do:

*something broken involving shooting*

GW: oh, we'd better take a measured response, nerf that specific thing, and ensure that we don't go too hard such that we make it unplayable. Our goal is balance after all!

*something broken involving melee*

GW: Oh, we'd better MAKE SURE NO ARMY CAN EVER DO ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING THIS EVER AGAIN, PURGE IT FROM THE GAME WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!

Half range on turn 1 might help out a lot... then artillary with a billion inch range can fire while units start firing at units they just saw.

With the new deep strike rules, should just make it that anything not deep striking has to move onto the table turn 1 from your board edge. Only infiltrators and the like start deployed.

Turn 1 alpha pretty much gone for shooting and assault; going second means you’ll get to ‘alpha’ better but the guy going first gets to pick where he’s putting his units to protect against it. Everything has to move on or DS so you’re counting as moving, only long ranged stuff is going to get range, etc. Makes infiltrators and scouts matter more by letting them secure key terrain before anybody moves on. Even makes later turns matter more since turn 1 is more of a wash.

GhostRecon wrote:
With the new deep strike rules, should just make it that anything not deep striking has to move onto the table turn 1 from your board edge. Only infiltrators and the like start deployed.

Turn 1 alpha pretty much gone for shooting and assault; going second means you’ll get to ‘alpha’ better but the guy going first gets to pick where he’s putting his units to protect against it. Everything has to move on or DS so you’re counting as moving, only long ranged stuff is going to get range, etc. Makes infiltrators and scouts matter more by letting them secure key terrain before anybody moves on. Even makes later turns matter more since turn 1 is more of a wash.

Would be a pain for armies (like DE) with no infiltrators or scouts at all.

So many pages for a compound FAQ.
But 90% is wasting time to read.

Half range turn 1 sounds ace, to nerf shooting.

Really? Reapers should have been 50% nerfed? 56ppm? I call BS.

Dev ML Marines are at about the same cost as Reapers. Reapers have better firepower, but the Marines are much more survivable.

In your same example, the Devs get 2 rounds of shooting + something Auspexes anything that comes in. Sure, the Auspex isn't as powerful, but you're also losing a lot fewer of the Devs for every shot at them.

Sure, reapers have Alaitoc. If only Devs had something like Raven Guard.

Reapers do have Ynnari. That certainly helps. But the Ynnari reapers do not get Alaitoc's trait - it's one or the other.

I just don't see how a Reaper would be worth 56ppm. Pairity with ML Devs - which nobody thinks is any good - seems about right.

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

There was a lot of counterplay in list building and deployment. Set up zone where they can not deepstrike.

Except the beta rules does not stop some form of first turn charges. (Raven guards, alpha legion).

I also do not see the semqntic difference between loosing to deep strikers turn 1, and lascannons turn 1.

 Niiai wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

There was a lot of counterplay in list building and deployment. Set up zone where they can not deepstrike.

Except the beta rules does not stop some form of first turn charges. (Raven guards, alpha legion).

I also do not see the semqntic difference between loosing to deep strikers turn 1, and lascannons turn 1.

In an ideal world, you would have good terrain rules so that lascannons couldn't see/hurt/target/whatever your units.
GW's ... questionably mediocre ... terrain rules in this case are making shooting a "point and click" that it really shouldn't be.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

There was a lot of counterplay in list building and deployment. Set up zone where they can not deepstrike.

Except the beta rules does not stop some form of first turn charges. (Raven guards, alpha legion).

I also do not see the semqntic difference between loosing to deep strikers turn 1, and lascannons turn 1.

In an ideal world, you would have good terrain rules so that lascannons couldn't see/hurt/target/whatever your units.
GW's ... questionably mediocre ... terrain rules in this case are making shooting a "point and click" that it really shouldn't be.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be playing on tables that consist of two ruins and a random 'tower' in the center.

In the grim dark future of the 41st millennium there are only flat, spherical planets with one lonely tower looming over the bleak vastness of nothing. No wonder there is an objective on that tower... only thing worth taking in those dumps!

Don't jump down my throat! I love playing on beautifully crafted tables with plenty of LOS blocking terrain (urban combat regiment).

But most people don't, and rather than trying to get them to change their ways, I just sigh and say "yep, lascannons are clearly a problem." It's literally easier to build the game around people who don't use terrain than it is to convince people to use good terrain, lol.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

There was a lot of counterplay in list building and deployment. Set up zone where they can not deepstrike.

Except the beta rules does not stop some form of first turn charges. (Raven guards, alpha legion).

I also do not see the semqntic difference between loosing to deep strikers turn 1, and lascannons turn 1.

In an ideal world, you would have good terrain rules so that lascannons couldn't see/hurt/target/whatever your units.
GW's ... questionably mediocre ... terrain rules in this case are making shooting a "point and click" that it really shouldn't be.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be playing on tables that consist of two ruins and a random 'tower' in the center.

This would be more of an argument if all the official ruins that GW sells had any game effect whatsoever with their basic terrain rules, other than to afford an additional advantage to shooting units that want to stand on top of them and give themselves total immunity to assault from non-infantry/fly models.

When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

Put spikes, exhaust pipes, random bits, or anything around the house on top of the problem places and declare them impassable terrain.

Ramps, maybe?

I can't imagine how you could make your unit immune to charge if there were a ramp up to it.

Or club rules that the ruins have only so many HP.

Ideally, if some Carnifex or something were rampaging through downtown, you might run up to the second(/third/fourth) floor of a sturdy building to try to escape it. It's little friends might come into the building to fight you, but "... I'm gonna hide here..." is a reasonable tactic for facing the big grounded stuff, fluff-wise.

Crunch-wise, tournies should be careful not to give infantry too much of an advantage in terrain. I miss building and floor rules from 6th E.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

Put spikes, exhaust pipes, random bits, or anything around the house on top of the problem places and declare them impassable terrain.

I am still left with a piece of terrain that either does A) nothing at all except look pretty (If I make the whole thing impassable on top) or B) affords a huge advantage to shooty infantry and Fly units that are the exact same units that have the most advantage when you aren't playing with any terrain at all.

The rules as they are written interact with the terrain the company sells as it comes out of the box in such a way that it gives a massive advantage to particular army builds. This means that the rules are broken and should be changed, this does not put the onus on the players to bend over backwards to houserule and modify the terrain they have to fit the game.

Bharring wrote:
Really? Reapers should have been 50% nerfed? 56ppm? I call BS.

Dev ML Marines are at about the same cost as Reapers. Reapers have better firepower, but the Marines are much more survivable.

In your same example, the Devs get 2 rounds of shooting + something Auspexes anything that comes in. Sure, the Auspex isn't as powerful, but you're also losing a lot fewer of the Devs for every shot at them.

Sure, reapers have Alaitoc. If only Devs had something like Raven Guard.

Reapers do have Ynnari. That certainly helps. But the Ynnari reapers do not get Alaitoc's trait - it's one or the other.

I just don't see how a Reaper would be worth 56ppm. Pairity with ML Devs - which nobody thinks is any good - seems about right.

I mean I agree with you on not making them 56 PPM but Marines as much more survivable is a bit of a stretch.

Both have a 3+ save, the only difference is toughness. Marines take 17% fewer wounds against S 3,4,6,7. Against anything else they are equally durable. So marines are slightly more durable against a majority of common anti-infantry guns. But neither is all that fragile against non-AP small arms fire. A squad of mortars kills on average 1.17 Dark Reapers and 0.875 Marines. So probably about 1 in both cases. If those units are in cover it is 0.58 Reapers, 0.43 marines. Throw in Fire and fade, and the ability to always hit on a 3+ and I would actually give the Nod to reapers as they can hide out of LOS and jump back into LOS to shoot. They can also deploy embarked to weather the turn 1 shooting and be no worse for it.

From a damage stand point the Krak missile is probably a little better than the S8 reaper shot if only because it has more upside, but it is unrealiable (averages 3.5 damage vs 3). The big win for the reapers is the lower strength fire mode is significantly better against most things being 2 damage, S 5 and AP -2. Vs D6 S4 Ap 0 1 damage shots. It is really only better against T3 with 4+ save or worse single wound models, and again not reliable. I would say Reapers should probably run about the same as a marine with ML which would be 38 points. So 11 points more than their pre-FAQ cost. But I'm ok with where they are now given the price bumps on their supporting models.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

You mean you can't use these to block LOS? The one painted white-ish in that picture looks to be about the size of a Rhino. And at my local GW, this terrain piece can block LOS to 50% of a Baneblade, meaning damn near anything else in the game barring a Land Raider can hide behind it. I've had Malcador tanks hide behind it, for example.

EDIT:
As for putting people on top: we usually network all the catwalks together from DZ to DZ, meaning both armies can deploy up there and have a neat infantry fight in the catwalks while the tanks and whatnot slug it out on the ground. It's been pretty awesome.

Breng - I'd agree. I'd be totally fine with 38 point Reapers. I'd see Devs and Reapers as about equal with Reapers maybe *slightly* better. Both have different upsides, but work out to be eerily close in value per model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

You mean you can't use these to block LOS? The one painted white-ish in that picture looks to be about the size of a Rhino. And at my local GW, this terrain piece can block LOS to 50% of a Baneblade, meaning damn near anything else in the game barring a Land Raider can hide behind it. I've had Malcador tanks hide behind it, for example.

you get ONE of either one or the other of those with the Sector Mechanicus set. You could conceivably hide a marine behind the former, but not a rhino. The latter is a bit more usable, but see my example here: https://imgur.com/gallery/3Omg1 (these are the pieces I have used as a visual aid, by the by).

When making the decision of what to purchase, I purposefully ordered only one kit that contained the small canister (for variety) and ordered four of the kits that contained the large canisters. I also included 2 sets of Armored Containers, 2 sets of Ryza Walls, and 1 set of Haemotrope reactors.

Even with the Ryza Walls ringing the base, Armored Containers under the areas where there is no central pillar, and central pillars under every piece, it is still laughably easy to see the tiny sliver of any medium-sized vehicle that wants to hide that it takes to fire ranged weapons at full effect. If you turn one of your baneblades sideways such that you can draw LOS from any point from the rear to the front of the hull, I would give you a hundred dollars if you could hide a rhino out of LOS at any point on my big franken-ruin assembly. That thing would be taking full fire at full effectiveness with no cover bonus from all the baneblades ranged weapons.

Simply put, that is a 100% broken ruleset for terrain. There's no way around it, no ifs ands or buts. it does not perform the basic function that scenery in 40k is supposed to perform.

the_scotsman wrote:

I am still left with a piece of terrain that either does A) nothing at all except look pretty (If I make the whole thing impassable on top) or B) affords a huge advantage to shooty infantry and Fly units that are the exact same units that have the most advantage when you aren't playing with any terrain at all.

The rules as they are written interact with the terrain the company sells as it comes out of the box in such a way that it gives a massive advantage to particular army builds. This means that the rules are broken and should be changed, this does not put the onus on the players to bend over backwards to houserule and modify the terrain they have to fit the game.

Mount each piece of terrain on a 3" tall plateau.

Alternatively, I bet you could make some really neat Infinity terrain out of that stuff.

I mean the big advantage reapers have is heavy weapon on each model, with how buffs generally work that is a big deal. Especially in the new 0-3 rule. Also the exarc weapon options are much better fit for the squad than anything the Space Marines get. But on a model per model basis they are fairly close in value. In reality I'd probably rather marine devs go down in price to 34 points per model than reapers go up.

the_scotsman wrote:
Simply put, that is a 100% broken ruleset for terrain. There's no way around it, no ifs ands or buts. it does not perform the basic function that scenery in 40k is supposed to perform.

Yes, RAW, the rules are broken for terrain.

However, leaving behind the broken mess that is RAW, literally no one I've ever played with, at NOVA (a tournament with prize money), local tournaments, or anywhere, has ever claimed you can shoot at a vehicle with as small a piece showing as that Deffdread's sawblade. What's more, I've only played against a few people who claim that the deff-dred could then shoot, in the same situation, and only in games where me and buddies were testing the 8th edition rules and decided RAW was broken.

But yes, RAW is broken. If only sense could prevail...

I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Bharring wrote:
Really? Reapers should have been 50% nerfed? 56ppm? I call BS.

Dev ML Marines are at about the same cost as Reapers. Reapers have better firepower, but the Marines are much more survivable.

In your same example, the Devs get 2 rounds of shooting + something Auspexes anything that comes in. Sure, the Auspex isn't as powerful, but you're also losing a lot fewer of the Devs for every shot at them.

Sure, reapers have Alaitoc. If only Devs had something like Raven Guard.

Reapers do have Ynnari. That certainly helps. But the Ynnari reapers do not get Alaitoc's trait - it's one or the other.

I just don't see how a Reaper would be worth 56ppm. Pairity with ML Devs - which nobody thinks is any good - seems about right.

This has already been exhaustively talked about. The Reaper is far superior to the marine with a missle. It should be more expensive not less. What's silly is even after a 7 point increase - IT IS STILL LESS. By far superior we mean far superior.

GhostRecon wrote:
With the new deep strike rules, should just make it that anything not deep striking has to move onto the table turn 1 from your board edge. Only infiltrators and the like start deployed.

Turn 1 alpha pretty much gone for shooting and assault; going second means you’ll get to ‘alpha’ better but the guy going first gets to pick where he’s putting his units to protect against it. Everything has to move on or DS so you’re counting as moving, only long ranged stuff is going to get range, etc. Makes infiltrators and scouts matter more by letting them secure key terrain before anybody moves on. Even makes later turns matter more since turn 1 is more of a wash.

How about everything counts as having moved for the purpose of shooting? Though I can see people skewing to guns than ignore move penalties...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
How about everything counts as having moved for the purpose of shooting? Though I can see people skewing to guns than ignore move penalties...

Those guns do tend to be more expensive though, so it would still be a firepower reduction. Basilisks hitting on 5s are bad, but swapping them to Leman Russes to hit on 4s is actually worse, imo.

Who's still moaning about Guilliman?

He's the one guy holding Marines up and now at 400 I think I just gotta play Raven Guard.

Far superior, until you get shot.

At 56ppm, each Reaper would cost more than a ML Dev + chump. That's 2 T4 bodies to 1 T3 body. That's an insane durability difference for not that much of a shooting difference.

Where the Reapers outperform Devs is against minuses-to-hit, and with their secondary fire option. Outside that, a Krak missile is quite a bit better than what Reapers shoot. D6 wounds is very nice.

Where ML Devs outperform Reapers is durability and versatility. Durability is a big one. You get:
S1: Same
S2: 2 dead reapers for every 1 dead Marines
S3: 3:2
S4: 4:3
S5: Same
S6: 5:4
S7: 5:4
S8+: Same

So for about the same firepower and about the same points, ML Devs survive ~20% better (varying from same to twice as durable).

It is a little silly that it's still less. It's also a little silly that we're talking about ML Devs vs Reapers instead of LC Devs.

However, all that said, they're now in the ballpark of Devestators, which are generally considered not competative.

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

True, but most people aren't bringing 6 bolter marines in their dev squads now maybe they should, but that is 65 points that adds basically no offense to your game.

And the game is too centered around offense.

When I think Devs, I think LCs and PCs. Maybe GCs. I'm certainly not thinking MLs, because it (and it's variants aside from Reaper Launchers) feel overcosted right now.

And we're back to my recurring theory: lethality is too high, offense is too good, and should be nerfed.

You can take a 4xLC Dev Squad with some chumps, or you can take a QuadLas Pred.

You can't really take a BL Falcon to replace Reapers, as they don't have the firepower/pt or firepower/slot like the QuadLas Pred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totally agree, Unit.

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Repeat after me:
Nobody. Will. Take. 10. Man. Squads. Of. Either. Because. Of. Morale. Being. A. Liability.

You've never seen a 10-man reaper squad?

I've never fielded one above 5, but I've certainly seen them. I've seen tourny lists with 10, too.

In MSU sqads, the variance of chumps vs non is much smaller, so reduces the consideration - doesn't exacerbate it.

10man Devs are rare though. 5man Devs are less rare, but still not common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, Marines can do chumps in MSU if they want.

(Also, if it were *just* morale, SM would take 10mans - because Combat Squads would negate morale. But there are so many other reasons why MSU is better...).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Repeat after me:
Nobody. Will. Take. 10. Man. Squads. Of. Either. Because. Of. Morale. Being. A. Liability.

A marine player would have to build around it to take that many useless guys