gendoikari87 wrote: 1. Lets start with what they’ve kept which is 0 they missed the first damn deadline
2. Yes here’s how you adjust “guys we are aware of the issue we’re going to take our time to get it right instead of rushing it, this will be addressed in September or in a stand alone faq if and when we feel it is perfect “
3. Maybe it’s one piece. Maybe it’s 90%. Honor your word take your time drop what is available on time
4. Let them bitch they’ll still buy instead of holding off
5. Because 6 months as opposed to 45 days is longer to work on it and not an unbearable amount of time for it not to be addressed
Is someone feeling a wee bit entitled? Things happen. Get over it and move on.
I have no expectations, really. I don't think points change until CA, which is the real fix. The FAQ is more like rearranging chairs on the Titanic without points changes.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
Ash87 wrote: Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.
I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.
That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"
Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.
Well it's obviously not stopping me from playing, but I always worry that I need to rejig my lists as Is, the added uncertainty of having to change them all because of FAQs is just that much more added in.
Martel732 wrote: I have no expectations, really. I don't think points change until CA, which is the real fix. The FAQ is more like rearranging chairs on the Titanic without points changes.
Meh rules changes are at least as effective as points changes in achieving balance. If you rules change dark reapers such that they don’t always hit on a 3+ and their weapon modes change to 1 shot S 8 D3, and 2 shots S 5 damage 1. You need them as much or more than any points. change. If flyrants are 0-3 and say no longer deepstrike then they largely don’t need a points change.
Now that may not happen, but the idea that without points changes any change is meaningless is silly.
The sad part is that's a little better IMO than what they have now. I'll take lesser damage to even be able to use the ability. It used to be 3" range with a Brother Captain the range can now be 12".
Leo_the_Rat wrote: The sad part is that's a little better IMO than what they have now. I'll take lesser damage to even be able to use the ability. It used to be 3" range with a Brother Captain the range can now be 12".
Right, which I think is the expectation. 12" is a decent reach. Now it comes down to how they handle smite degradation.
I agree with you premise, but we're back in a circle:
In order to convince me that "the game would be better if we did it your way" then you'll have to convince me and "my feels" aren't convincing. They may be for other people, and that's fine, but in order to be convinced by a position, I'd like to actually know what that position is supporting. Everyone wants the game to be "more fun" but what that means varies so widely that if I just said "sure, let's do it your way" to everyone, I'd find myself supporting directly contradictory views of how the game should be played.
"I feel it isn't fun, so let's make it fun" isn't ... really convincing to me. Give me what you intend to do to make it fun, and why that is good, and where it stops; in other words, tell me what you mean by "fun" according to your perspective.
I mean, first, it's pretty disingenuous to characterize my position as "we should adopt rules changes X, Y, and Z because I feel like it would be more fun that way" full stop. I give reasons for this stuff that someone might find convincing, I explain the ways in which I think the game would be more fun and why, etc. Second, I'm not trying to convince you, specifically. In general it's healthiest to approach discussions on a forum as being about (1) clarifying your own thinking and (2) persuading the people reading but not necessarily the people participating. You also learn pretty quickly that there are some people who are just kind of hopeless, and sometimes they're some of the most vocal on a forum. But in this case specifically maybe you're never going to be persuaded of the sort of thing I'm arguing. That's fine! Maybe we just have very different tastes and what I find fun is very different from what you find fun, and that's OK. But I don't need unanimity here. My sense is that, as a practical matter, you're the one who has to convince people like me that we shouldn't proceed with nerfing Hive Tyrants and Dark Reapers until we've got a really rigorous idea of where we're going. Because I think I'm clearly in the majority here and I think everyone has the sense that GW is likely to act on that.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
Ash87 wrote: Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.
I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.
That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"
Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.
Well it's obviously not stopping me from playing, but I always worry that I need to rejig my lists as Is, the added uncertainty of having to change them all because of FAQs is just that much more added in.
The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.
Cephalobeard wrote: I thought that was half the range. My reaction could be dramatic due to a lack of information on my end.
That's why it's always good to sit and discuss it through, which will be 100% the opposite of what happens when this thing drops.
It's going to be a fun few weeks sorting it out.
It does seem like credible info is being leaked by someone. I would expect if the tension on this continues too much longer the top might pop off. This may convince GW to do player involved testing in the future - they have already with beta rules, but something to a wider degree.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.
I might of been playing wrong, but I swore that the point at which you allocate the hit hadn't changed since the Xenos 2 FAQ, just the 2+ to allow drones to intercept was all I recalled being added in the Codex.
"Exceptionally broken"... I mean... Eh? It gives a lot of survivability to Suites and Infantry. If it was the full "Look out sir" rule I would say yes to it being broken, but I loose a lot of shield drones to little shots with that 5+.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.
I might of been playing wrong, but I swore that the point at which you allocate the hit hadn't changed since the Xenos 2 FAQ, just the 2+ to allow drones to intercept was all I recalled being added in the Codex.
"Exceptionally broken"... I mean... Eh? It gives a lot of survivability to Suites and Infantry. If it was the full "Look out sir" rule I would say yes to it being broken, but I loose a lot of shield drones to little shots with that 5+.
I've got the index on my phone - it says "you may chose to allocate wounds to the drones instead of the target unit" It was later errated to say that if they do it it counts as a mortal wound and people said...well why would I ever take a shield drone? Well that was true - there was no reason to - now there is.
I played against it and I've played with it. If there is anyplace that broadsides or riptides can set up with some LOS blocking terrain the can stand next to and peek out - but hide the drones - they are essentially at indestructible levels like squads were with a tank unit with look out sirs. They could fix it by changing the rule to state the drone must be visable to the firing unit in order to roll the 2+ - that would fix it. It is not broken when you can actually shoot the drone.
I'm a little dubious about the GK rumor simply due to the fact it doesn't address what happens when used vs Daemons. It could be just typical GW sloppiness but I don't get that vibe.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm a little dubious about the GK rumor simply due to the fact it doesn't address what happens when used vs Daemons. It could be just typical GW sloppiness but I don't get that vibe.
Current rule doesn't call out Daemons, does it? Rites of Banishment does, but that's different than what Purifiers has.
jcd386 wrote: The irony here is that when it does drop, the response by many is likely to be "we waited that long for THIS!?"
Yeah, there's people who earnestly expect half the units in their army to go down significantly in points, so I am certain people will be disappointed by the FAQ.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm a little dubious about the GK rumor simply due to the fact it doesn't address what happens when used vs Daemons. It could be just typical GW sloppiness but I don't get that vibe.
Current rule doesn't call out Daemons, does it? Rites of Banishment does, but that's different than what Purifiers has.
It really doesn't matter anyway. There's still no use for Purifiers if that's their only adjustment.
jcd386 wrote: The irony here is that when it does drop, the response by many is likely to be "we waited that long for THIS!?"
Yeah, there's people who earnestly expect half the units in their army to go down significantly in points, so I am certain people will be disappointed by the FAQ.
I'm not one of them. I just want to see what these FAQs are about. I'm aware CA is there for unit prices.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm a little dubious about the GK rumor simply due to the fact it doesn't address what happens when used vs Daemons. It could be just typical GW sloppiness but I don't get that vibe.
Current rule doesn't call out Daemons, does it? Rites of Banishment does, but that's different than what Purifiers has.
It really doesn't matter anyway. There's still no use for Purifiers if that's their only adjustment.
Debatable. The odds of getting a squad within 3" to 6" is much lower than 3 squads within 6" to 12". There are other things that have to happen to make that worthwhile, but we don't have that info yet. (If they don't do points in the FAQ then it may not be until CA)
Just saw this on 4chan. I think this means the brokenness of scryerskull is a thing of the past now. Hopefully more things that are broken will be fixed (looking at you, poxwalkers).
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
Ash87 wrote: Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.
I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.
That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"
Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.
Well it's obviously not stopping me from playing, but I always worry that I need to rejig my lists as Is, the added uncertainty of having to change them all because of FAQs is just that much more added in.
The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.
It used to guarantee the hit was intercepted AND allowed the drone to take its saving roll. This meant T'au could have their cake and eat it too. Offensive output with gun drones that were as resilient to anti-infantry weaponry as shield drones. That was a bit much.
Now, it's entirely guaranteed casualties on gun and marker drones, and a one third chance on shield drones. For an army that can't engage in the psychic or assault phases, that type of durability is necessary, and the counterplay of opponents targeting them is too.
CaptainBetts wrote: Just saw this on 4chan. I think this means the brokenness of scryerskull is a thing of the past now. Hopefully more things that are broken will be fixed (looking at you, poxwalkers).
Spoiler:
Why was that overpowered? I have never seen anyone have occasion to use it. I guess it depends on the missions you play.
I also can't tell how it's different?
Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following:
reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is
using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious
Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an
ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without
the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low
Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.
CaptainBetts wrote: Just saw this on 4chan. I think this means the brokenness of scryerskull is a thing of the past now. Hopefully more things that are broken will be fixed (looking at you, poxwalkers).
Spoiler:
Why was that overpowered? I have never seen anyone have occasion to use it. I guess it depends on the missions you play.
I also can't tell how it's different?
Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following:
reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is
using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious
Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an
ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without
the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low
Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.
It used to be worded to allow a shooting attack, or some argued.
CaptainBetts wrote: Just saw this on 4chan. I think this means the brokenness of scryerskull is a thing of the past now. Hopefully more things that are broken will be fixed (looking at you, poxwalkers).
Spoiler:
Why was that overpowered? I have never seen anyone have occasion to use it. I guess it depends on the missions you play.
I also can't tell how it's different?
Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following:
reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is
using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious
Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an
ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without
the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low
Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.
People were using it in stupid ways. They took it to mean:
"Spend 1CP to shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules."
i.e.
"Spend 1CP to shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army" (And ignore any hit penalties if you had them).
So people were shooting as many times as they had CP with dakkabots in the deploment phase or whatnot.
Stupid interpretation I know, but they had to cover it.
Finally some good news for Grey Knights (I think)!
Coming from 4chan.
Spoiler:
Grey Knight Paladins are now 50 points, down from like 60. (Grandmaster?) Nemesis Dreadknight is now (down to?) 210 points. Purifiers look to be 28 points each, I think they were 29 before.
Looks like there are some points changes in the FAQ, but we've seen that sort of thing before (for example, there were points changes in Index Xenos 2 FAQ):
My codex shows they are now 26 points and then a 2 point stormbolter, so the looks like it is either rolling the storm bolter into the price or they are increasing it by 2 points
Freezerassasin wrote: My codex shows they are now 26 points and then a 2 point stormbolter, so the looks like it is either rolling the storm bolter into the price or they are increasing it by 2 points
To roll in the weapon would require an explicit listing of that (like named characters are in a special section with (Wargear included)). So if its real its a point increase.
Freezerassasin wrote: My codex shows they are now 26 points and then a 2 point stormbolter, so the looks like it is either rolling the storm bolter into the price or they are increasing it by 2 points
To roll in the weapon would require an explicit listing of that (like named characters are in a special section with (Wargear included)). So if its real its a point increase.
I was more going for them adding the 2 points to the purifier and maybe making the storm bolter free, but the increase is the most likely outcome.
Sooo... the 4chan rumour of 0-3 for any given unit is... real?
Note that the rumours might not be from the same people. The FAQ screenshots might be real and the 0-3 thing false, for example.
It's sort of like saying "Sooo... the dakkadakka rumour of 10 point guardsmen is... real?" if there's another very plausible rumour on dakkadakka.
But it could be real :O
0-3 for any given unit... may be a nice change. It won't really effect troops much, other than spamming min units of guardsmen/cultists/whatever other cheap ass units ya want. Will cut down on MSU, and heavy spam of a single unit. Will definitely be.... interesting.... to see how it effects army compositions.
Freezerassasin wrote: My codex shows they are now 26 points and then a 2 point stormbolter, so the looks like it is either rolling the storm bolter into the price or they are increasing it by 2 points
To roll in the weapon would require an explicit listing of that (like named characters are in a special section with (Wargear included)). So if its real its a point increase.
I was more going for them adding the 2 points to the purifier and maybe making the storm bolter free, but the increase is the most likely outcome.
I don't see the Stormbolter becoming free because it's still a pintle-mount option for GK vehicles. Making vehicle upgrades zero points with no trade-offs doesn't seem their style.
Freezerassasin wrote: My codex shows they are now 26 points and then a 2 point stormbolter, so the looks like it is either rolling the storm bolter into the price or they are increasing it by 2 points
To roll in the weapon would require an explicit listing of that (like named characters are in a special section with (Wargear included)). So if its real its a point increase.
I was more going for them adding the 2 points to the purifier and maybe making the storm bolter free, but the increase is the most likely outcome.
Which would make no sense since other units have access to the SB. My bet is someone trying to troll GK players upset about the Purifier rumor.
Zid wrote: 0-3 for any given unit... may be a nice change. It won't really effect troops much, other than spamming min units of guardsmen/cultists/whatever other cheap ass units ya want. Will cut down on MSU, and heavy spam of a single unit. Will definitely be.... interesting.... to see how it effects army compositions.
Spamming Min Units of Guardsmen? Isn't that the same thing as Spamming Max Units of Guardsmen? Isn't that the entire purpose of Units of Guardsmen?
Cephalobeard wrote: Let's all hope these changes, and this one specifically, are fake.
Because if GW is nerfing GK of all people, then we're all destined for the garbage bin.
Well, they doubled the range, but cut the damage in half-ish. It really depends what else accompanies that change.
They doubled the fething range, really man? It is a nerf in every sense of the word still, because no one in their right mind would take Purifiers before and if the points cost went UP no one in their fething right mind will.
It went from D6 mortal wounds to 2. It fething insulting.
Yup, according to my Codex Purifiers were 26 points base so the range upgrade /damage downgrade was worth 2 more points. I don't know if I'm more disgusted or just infuriated. I wish I had a gauntlet to throw at the GW people who wrote that adjustment. I'm pretty sure they are insulting my intelligence.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Yup, according to my Codex Purifiers were 26 points base so the range upgrade /damage downgrade was worth 2 more points. I don't know if I'm more disgusted or just infuriated. I wish I had a gauntlet to throw at the GW people who wrote that adjustment. I'm pretty sure they are insulting my intelligence.
Before you get mad at GW lets wait for some actual confirmation that these are real.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Yup, according to my Codex Purifiers were 26 points base so the range upgrade /damage downgrade was worth 2 more points. I don't know if I'm more disgusted or just infuriated. I wish I had a gauntlet to throw at the GW people who wrote that adjustment. I'm pretty sure they are insulting my intelligence.
Before you get mad at GW lets wait for some actual confirmation that these are real.
No way! Rage! Rage on and cry tears of salt!
While I am a bit nervous to what the FAQ brings, it really doesn't matter in the long run if you play a balanced army.
They doubled the fething range, really man? It is a nerf in every sense of the word still, because no one in their right mind would take Purifiers before and if the points cost went UP no one in their fething right mind will.
It went from D6 mortal wounds to 2. It fething insulting.
Objectively is it not 'a nerf in every sense of the word'.
Paying for a 600+ points so that you could, once per game (before dying horribly), get within 3" and do 75% more damage - IF you cast the spell and IF you weren't denied was never a viable plan.
At least with this setup they have some flexibility. Under half the damage for twice the range should mean potentially more opportunities to use it.
Now IF the smite rule is as is for GK AND they go up in points all bets are off.
There is no opportunity to use it because Purifiers are not on the board to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crowe was the only Purifier to see the board and he objectively is bad, but the smite saw play with him because he was a character.
Quickjager wrote: There is no opportunity to use it because Purifiers are not on the board to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Crowe was the only Purifier to see the board and he objectively is bad, but the smite saw play with him because he was a character.
For sure - they're stupid points for what they do. I just see some potential light at the end of the tunnel if they sorted the other areas, too.
Sooo... the 4chan rumour of 0-3 for any given unit is... real?
Note that the rumours might not be from the same people. The FAQ screenshots might be real and the 0-3 thing false, for example.
It's sort of like saying "Sooo... the dakkadakka rumour of 10 point guardsmen is... real?" if there's another very plausible rumour on dakkadakka.
But it could be real :O
0-3 for any given unit... may be a nice change. It won't really effect troops much, other than spamming min units of guardsmen/cultists/whatever other cheap ass units ya want. Will cut down on MSU, and heavy spam of a single unit. Will definitely be.... interesting.... to see how it effects army compositions.
What it will change for army compositions is 'did you play an army that only really had 1 really good unit in the entire book like grey knights, Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle, or Space Marines? Well burn your army and then kill yourself because if you thought Tyranids, Guard, and Eldar were powerful when it was their best unit vs your best unit, wait until it becomes a match of their second best unit against whatever overpriced nonsense is left after your one broken gets comped! Even better, the change doesn't affect Alpha legion Cultists at all! So that list stays exactly as powerful while you're stuck trotting around 20-40% overpriced garbage!
BaconCatBug wrote: 0-3 is going to screw over a lot of armies with low troops choices, like Dark Eldar or Necrons
It'd kill tomb blade spam before it gets off the ground, I guess. Necrons have a wide enough variety of good units that I'm pretty sure you can build a great no-troops list even with this restriction, though.
There are other armies that are gutted pretty badly by the restriction for sure, but I don't think Necrons are one of them.
BaconCatBug wrote: 0-3 is going to screw over a lot of armies with low troops choices, like Dark Eldar or Necrons
It'd kill tomb blade spam before it gets off the ground, I guess. Necrons have a wide enough variety of good units that I'm pretty sure you can build a great no-troops list even with this restriction, though.
There are other armies that are gutted pretty badly by the restriction for sure, but I don't think Necrons are one of them.
The codexes that are currently top tier(and soup) are going to get a massive boost from this and the codexes that are mid-tier down might as well not even exist after.
BaconCatBug wrote: 0-3 is going to screw over a lot of armies with low troops choices, like Dark Eldar or Necrons
It'd kill tomb blade spam before it gets off the ground, I guess. Necrons have a wide enough variety of good units that I'm pretty sure you can build a great no-troops list even with this restriction, though.
There are other armies that are gutted pretty badly by the restriction for sure, but I don't think Necrons are one of them.
The codexes that are currently top tier(and soup) are going to get a massive boost from this and the codexes that are mid-tier down might as well not even exist after.
BaconCatBug wrote: 0-3 is going to screw over a lot of armies with low troops choices, like Dark Eldar or Necrons
It'd kill tomb blade spam before it gets off the ground, I guess. Necrons have a wide enough variety of good units that I'm pretty sure you can build a great no-troops list even with this restriction, though.
There are other armies that are gutted pretty badly by the restriction for sure, but I don't think Necrons are one of them.
The codexes that are currently top tier(and soup) are going to get a massive boost from this and the codexes that are mid-tier down might as well not even exist after.
What exactly is this rule change?
0-3 of any non-troop unit max per army.
Basically 'that's okay, I didn't even want to win against guard or chaos ever again anyway.'
Some high level competitive 40k players, one of which is a play tester, hinted at the FAQ being a possibility over the weekend, and revealed lists they're playing on Sunday.
Appears to be army wide. 3 total Daemon princes on the Chaos side, across two detachments. It could just be a coincidence, but it's there all the same.
BaconCatBug wrote: Oh the 0-3 doesn't apply to troops? Fair enough. Since it's per detachment I assume?
Why would you assume that? I think the 0-3 limit is per army total. It's questionable how this will apply to transports and to squadrons, but I'm mostly happy with this limitation. I assume squadrons will still count as 1 unit, and transports will be limited. Very few lists that weren't trying to abuse the gak out of spamming overpowered units will be effected. And fluffy lists like white scar bikers can still take 3 large squads of them. And guard armored companies can still take most of their vehicles in squadrons to circumvent this.
BaconCatBug wrote: If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.
feth. I just started an army. I mean, I haven't invested into too many raiders yet, but having a cap on three basically cripples them. Almost everything in the army needs a transport, and 3 raiders and 3 venoms is not nearly enough to do it.
BaconCatBug wrote: Oh the 0-3 doesn't apply to troops? Fair enough. Since it's per detachment I assume?
Why would you assume that? I think the 0-3 limit is per army total. It's questionable how this will apply to transports and to squadrons, but I'm mostly happy with this limitation. I assume squadrons will still count as 1 unit, and transports will be limited. Very few lists that weren't trying to abuse the gak out of spamming overpowered units will be effected. And fluffy lists like white scar bikers can still take 3 large squads of them. And guard armored companies can still take most of their vehicles in squadrons to circumvent this.
So White Scars can still take three large unweildy units of Bikes easily targetted and brought down by morale, and DEldar can't have their transports, but Guard can still spam their tanks just fine. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that's not entirely fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That restriction better have some text saying "Intended for organised play" so casual Matched Play doesn't get completely fethed.
Martel732 wrote: I have no expectations, really. I don't think points change until CA, which is the real fix. The FAQ is more like rearranging chairs on the Titanic without points changes.
Yes and no? Whilst individual unit imbalance needs points to compensate, broader things such as soup can be readjusted through changes to the rules.
Grey Knight Paladins are now 50 points, down from like 60.
(Grandmaster?) Nemesis Dreadknight is now (down to?) 210 points.
Purifiers look to be 28 points each, I think they were 29 before.
Looks like there are some points changes in the FAQ, but we've seen that sort of thing before (for example, there were points changes in Index Xenos 2 FAQ):
Spoiler:
Thoughts?
If point changes are coming in the FAQ, it really does beggar the question as to why we need to pay for Chapter Approved. Or why GW doesn't divorce the gaming supplement from the balance supplement.
I realise that there is the whole 'business wants to make money', it just would seem really inconsistent to have some points changes behind a paywall whilst others aren't.
Getting back to the original topic of the thread, what I would expect to see from the FAQ would be the following:
1. If your army is Battle Forged, only units of the same <Faction Keyword> as the Warlord benefit from the trait (Chapter Tactics, Craftworld Discipline, etc.) of the <Faction Keyword>
Idea is to weaken soup between different codices and soup between different factions in the same codex.
Soup is quite prevalent at the highest levels of play and a nerf to it is necessary.
Its a soft-ish nerf, as it still allows you to ally in your CP battery, your filler to the holes in your list and so on, it just makes that ally a little worse than it would be in a mono army of its own.
2. a) Strength from Death no longer replaces other army wide abilities.
b) Word of the Phoenix may only target units that have the Strength from Death Ability
c) Ynarri units in a detachment no longer stop the detachment from being a Craftworld/ Drukhari/ Harlequin detachment
Strength from Death is a crap rule and Word of the Phoenix is far too powerful of a buff on the units it can currently effect.
The current way to build a competitive Craftworld army is to have a Ynarri detachment and then pick the unit that benefits most from shooting twice, the unit that benefits most from moving after wiping something out in CC, Yvraine and chaff to fill out the detachment. Then fill out the rest of the army with Craftworld detachments.
I suspect the same will happen with Drukhari so long as SfD exists in its current state.
This change would turn the Ynarri part of the index into a special character addition to the other Eldar books. It is intended to isolate the faction until SfD gets a rewrite in the codex, or the codex has separate point values for Ynarri Dark Reapers, Ynarri Shining Spears, Ynarri Kabalite Trueborn and so on so that it can be balanced independently of the other Eldar books
The other option would be to price Yvraine (and probably the Yncarne) out of matched play to icebox the faction.
3. a) Dark Reaper unit size is 3-5
b) Dark Reapers no longer always hit on 3's*
c) Dark Reapers go up in price
d) Tempest launchers increase in price.
Somewhat self explanatory. Lowers buff efficiency, stops them from breaking some of the targeting rules, lowers the overall efficiency of the unit and hits the undercosted Exarch weapon.
*Whether or not the always hits on 3's is replaced with ignoring the -1 to hit from flyers or allows DR to move and fire Heavy weapons without the -1 to hit would depend on what the 3's to hit was meant to achieve and whether or not any buff is required in the first place
4. Shinning Spear unit size is 3-6
Cuts down on their buff efficiency and allows more opportunity for them to be hit by return attacks. This and the SfD change above should move SS back into being the flank controller and suicide unit they're designed to be.
Further changes that I'd really like to see would include:
> Falling Back:
Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you
choose to Fall Back, your opponent may choose to Pursue with a unit that would no longer have enemy models
within 1" after a Fall Back Move would have been made.
Compare the Move characteristic plus D6 of the Unit electing to Fall Back to the Move characteristic of the
Unit that is Pursuing.
If the value is greater than that of the Pursuing unit, then the Unit has Evaded Pursuit.
If not, they may not Fall Back and suffer Mortal Wounds equal to the value that they failed by.
If the Unit has Evaded Pursuit or the opponent did not or could not Pursue, then the Unit makes a Fall Back Move.
The unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it counts as having Advanced
unless it can Fly.
Idea is to help out assault and in particular combined assaults with fast and slow elements.
Close combat Jump Infantry and Bikes get a lot more value from their M characteristic and meched assault troops get a lot of value from having their transport in combat with them.
Its still possible to have a screen unit hold up the assault unit and let other elements disengage
The rule heavily rewards picking and choosing what your faster elements engage rather than just charging everything that you can survive the return hits of.
> Drop the price of most Aspect Warriors by 1 and make the Exarch a 5 point upgrade
Makes the choice of running minimum Aspect squads with Exarchs vs large ones/ no Exarch an actual choice.
> Swap the rules for War Shout and Mandiblasters. Give Scorpion Chainswords the chainsword rule where the weilder can make an extra attack with it. Make the Masters of Stealth deployment option a separate Exarch upgrade
Gives Banshees and Scorpions defined combat specialisations. Banshees hit the heavily armoured and are squishy as hell, Scorpions are the blender and can take a few hits.
Last thing makes the scorpions a valid choice for Line Infantry as opposed to pigeonholing them as scout elements.
> Power Armour
I'm going to preface this as I'm not a marine player and I'm not sure how well the following changes would work. Purpose is to give Tacticals a role other than 'less efficient Devastators'.
Anywho, changes:
Boltgun: Gain an extra shot in Rapid Fire range. (1 shot between 24" and above 12", 3 at 12" and below)
Tactical Doctrine: When a Tactical Squad fires Overwatch, they successfully hit on a 5 or a 6 when firing Boltguns. Furthermore, after a Tactical Squad has Charged or been Charged, they may make an extra attack in the following Fight Phase.
Tactical Experience: Models in a Tactical Squad ignore the -1 to hit penalty from moving and firing Heavy Weapons.
Pricing: 10 points if Guardsman are still 4 ppm, 12 if Guardsman move to 5 ppm.
Pricing was determined by comparing bolter marine output vs a Guardsman. Guard outshoot the nuTacs at 24", but get outshot by a larger margin within 12".
Melee wise, nuTacs outperform Guardsmen in the first round.
The changed Boltgun at 12" is as effective as a Shuriken Catapult vs. MeQ and more effective vs GeQ The improvements to overwatch and first round of combat is to help the Tacs be able to fight at 12" whilst not giving the same advantages to Devastators.
Move and Fire Heavy weapons is to solidify the Tacs tactical niche as the mobile and better defended shooty squad, whilst devastators are the more efficient and fragile shooty squad
BaconCatBug wrote: If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.
feth. I just started an army. I mean, I haven't invested into too many raiders yet, but having a cap on three basically cripples them. Almost everything in the army needs a transport, and 3 raiders and 3 venoms is not nearly enough to do it.
Hey at least you have raiders AND venoms. Poor orks have..trukks and then expensive in money and even worse chinork. Whee.
Then top of that this doesn't even fix brokeness and indeed makes it worse. Most broken armies always benefit most from these highlander esque units. That's been SHOWN on real tournaments over and over again. It's now suddenly going to magically work better if GW implements it? Same rule, different author, somehow different effect on balance? Yeah nope.
Cephalobeard wrote: And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.
Are they though?
Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:
Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70
Total - 1253 points
Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?
I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.
If they are gonna put a 0-3 max for any unit, can they remove the Tau commander limitation? So I can run a batallion with 2 Tau commander and a Vanguard with another one.
Cephalobeard wrote: And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.
Are they though?
Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:
Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70
Total - 1253 points
Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?
I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.
I think Cephalobeard's point is that that army would be absolutely terrible.
Yeah. Sure it might work(though scales horribly. Fine at 1500 pts. Whatabout 2500? 3000?). It would suck though. Meanwhile the truly broken armies just laugh at this.
For me my orks would get hurt by this. Meanwhile IG just shrugs it off. Now remind me. Which one was considered more powerful? IG or orks. Pretty sure IG so why is it orks would be getting bigger nerfbat here...
Highlanders have been tried in many tournaments. It has been shown over and over to create unbalance rather than fix it. That's the nature of beast when you apply silly blanket limitations without actually fixing problems.
Cephalobeard wrote: And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.
Are they though?
Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:
Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70
Total - 1253 points
Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?
I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.
Wow, I didn't realize just how screwed mono-slaanesh would be under the new system. Thanks for illustrating just how terrible they'd end up.
Your second point doesn't make any sense. No one is going to take large units that are susceptible to morale. What's more likely is that armies that have several different extremely strong MSU options (Eldar, Niids, Guard) or armies that are largely immune to morale anyway(Nids, Guard Chaos) are going to get a buff while any army that does get forced into taking larger units, simply stops being played altogether.
How would mono-Slaanesh be any worse off under the proposed 3 unit cap? What unit(s) are they taking more than 3 of that makes them significantly better than having to stick to max 3?
Or is mono-Slaanesh just boned either way? Because that’s a very different discussion.
IG would be impacted by a 0-3 limit actually, it would prevent plasma scion spam (they would have to take the troop version).
In any case, a 0-3 limit (if it is true) isn't aimed at stopping factions like IG that are good without going against the game's principles. A good IG list is made by a line of tanks and artillery screened by lots of expendable guys. Working as intended, that's how guard should work. Maybe working too much (recent results don't confirm this), but that would be another problem.
This change would be made to stop the silly lists (flyrants, Dark Talons, PCrawlers, assassins, enlightened and so on).
Yes IG loses some power builds but they have replacements available...Orks meanwhile struggle much more. At HS they have 1 viable unit. Ditto elite(well okay maybe 2 since you might want 1 painboy) and fast attack.
IG? They aren't short of good options. So while their best build might go away the replacements aren't nearly as bad as orks.
This limit just makes game balance WORSE. As is usual when applying blanket restrictions without actually fixing problem. Ie when you design game like GW does. Let's just hope for sake of game it's bogus rumour.
The Slaanesh list example is a bad joke, as ALL their units are overcosted at this point. Just compare Seekers to Reaver Jetbikes or the Chariots to Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers. Or Daemonettes to Bloodletters. And so on.
Cephalobeard wrote: And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.
Are they though?
Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:
Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70
Total - 1253 points
Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?
I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.
So not doing the thing two of the game's central mechanics strictly punish (Morale and Detachment building) is considered gaming the system? I'm guessing taking Troops to capture objectives and generate Command Points is gaming the system too, because the game actively encourages it?
tneva82 wrote: Yes IG loses some power builds but they have replacements available...Orks meanwhile struggle much more. At HS they have 1 viable unit. Ditto elite(well okay maybe 2 since you might want 1 painboy) and fast attack.
IG? They aren't short of good options. So while their best build might go away the replacements aren't nearly as bad as orks.
This limit just makes game balance WORSE. As is usual when applying blanket restrictions without actually fixing problem. Ie when you design game like GW does. Let's just hope for sake of game it's bogus rumour.
The issue is you are comparing a codex army to and Index army. We have no idea how orks will be impacted by their codex. As for being impacted now, I really don't see it competitively (unless this applies to troops). I guess they cannot run Storm Boy spam, or Kommando Spam (neither of which seem to have been performing on top tables), only 3 Weirdboyz? They can only take 9(?) Kustom Mega Cannons? But either way, they may change greatly with codex release and as such should not be the banner for stopping broken armies at the top.
You have no evidence that this limit actually makes the game worse, you keep comparing it to highlander, which it isn't. It is more akin to a less restrictive version of the old FOC which only let you take 3 of a slot other than troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Yeah. Sure it might work(though scales horribly. Fine at 1500 pts. Whatabout 2500? 3000?). It would suck though. Meanwhile the truly broken armies just laugh at this.
For me my orks would get hurt by this. Meanwhile IG just shrugs it off. Now remind me. Which one was considered more powerful? IG or orks. Pretty sure IG so why is it orks would be getting bigger nerfbat here...
Highlanders have been tried in many tournaments. It has been shown over and over to create unbalance rather than fix it. That's the nature of beast when you apply silly blanket limitations without actually fixing problems.
We don't know how it will be implemented maybe it is like the detachment "restriction" a suggestion for balance and they will scale it, and we hear 0-3 because that is what it will be at 2k.
I don't see truly broken armies laughing at this much, does it hurt IG not really, are they one of the truly broken armies, data doesn't back that up. My only issue with an army wide 0-3 is that it helps soup armies more than mono-faction.
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.
This. Also, please can we have Death Guard terminators remember how to use power fists, so my lovely FW Grave Warden models aren't just proxies?
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.
This. I never take a Chaos Lord for my DG, he simply feels wrong, I don't want an Alpha Legionary infiltrating my army comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.
Cephalobeard wrote: Some high level competitive 40k players, one of which is a play tester, hinted at the FAQ being a possibility over the weekend, and revealed lists they're playing on Sunday.
Surprise, no more than 3 of any non troop unit.
Have you got a source on this? From memory we've had quite a few similar rumours pointing to 'FAQ release tomorrow' and similar that turned out not to be true.
I don't want to get my hopes up of an FAQ this weekend if it's not going to come out then :/
With the 0-3 limitation IG can take 9 Leman Russ but Ad Mech can only take 3 Onagers? If they implement this rule they should adjust vehicle rules so that either each vehicle is a selection or all vehicles can be bought in squadrons of 3 and then played independently on the board.
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.
This. I never take a Chaos Lord for my DG, he simply feels wrong, I don't want an Alpha Legionary infiltrating my army comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.
The Plaguecaster also gets the Mortal Wound aura over the Sorcerer, so 10 points might be better. That's how much I've always paid for my lord after we agreed to up his stats with my regular opponent and it has always felt better that way. Chaos Lords might not be the thing that causes anyone too much headaches if it gets a bit more durable
Wow, I didn't realize just how screwed mono-slaanesh would be under the new system. Thanks for illustrating just how terrible they'd end up.
So New-GW(TM) is still not able to write proper army books or do care if something is playable
If mono Slaanesh only works if you spam a view units, not the restrictions are the problem but the rules for the units
Leo_the_Rat wrote: With the 0-3 limitation IG can take 9 Leman Russ but Ad Mech can only take 3 Onagers? If they implement this rule they should adjust vehicle rules so that either each vehicle is a selection or all vehicles can be bought in squadrons of 3 and then played independently on the board.
don’t forget tank commanders. That’s 11 in one detachment
Guys stfu on restrictions they will happen or not there’s people here who are staunchly for them and against them. And no ones changing anyone’s minds. Take the discussion elsewhere
I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.
I'm not sure if I expect a blanket change to how HQs are taken but due the nature of the delay (specifically being at adepticon when the Flyrantgate happened) it's going to be interesting to see how this turns out.
Cephalobeard wrote: I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.
yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject
Cephalobeard wrote: I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.
yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject
You aren't the arbiter of what people get to discuss.
Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.
I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.
Cinderspirit wrote: The Slaanesh list example is a bad joke, as ALL their units are overcosted at this point. Just compare Seekers to Reaver Jetbikes or the Chariots to Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers. Or Daemonettes to Bloodletters. And so on.
Then summon the units. They very likely wouldn't be subject to a restriction then.
I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.
There is an advantage to bringing in whatever you need. I often want to do it, but I haven't found the space in my list for it. With as fast as Slaanesh is there guys will be in combat and not moving much anyway.
Cephalobeard wrote: I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.
yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject
You aren't the arbiter of what people get to discuss.
no, but at this point your all just repeating yourselves and going in circles, it’s time to agree to disagree and change the stupid subject.
Cinderspirit wrote: The Slaanesh list example is a bad joke, as ALL their units are overcosted at this point. Just compare Seekers to Reaver Jetbikes or the Chariots to Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers. Or Daemonettes to Bloodletters. And so on.
Then summon the units. They very likely wouldn't be subject to a restriction then.
I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.
There is an advantage to bringing in whatever you need. I often want to do it, but I haven't found the space in my list for it. With as fast as Slaanesh is there guys will be in combat and not moving much anyway.
I'm sure you may have a use for the ability in your games. That, unfortunately, does not mean by and large that the ability is a good ability.
Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.
I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.
For context I play match play, Dominate and Destroy style missions (6 objectives, progressive scoring, kill points). I haven't attended a tournament in 8th. I get a game in once a week with the daemon codex. So if that invalidates my opinion for you that's fine.
But in my experience Summoning has loads of benefits, to list a few of them:
-Adapting to your opponents list.
-Adapting to the mission.
-Adapting to the current state of play.
-Recovering from the loss of key units, say loosing your fluxmaster to a lucky round of sniping early in the game. Just summon a new one.
-On the fly clutch psychic powers (like infernal gateway) that you might not want in your list all the time.
-Bringing on reserves turn 4, 5, 6, and 7.
-Not spending CP to deepstrike.
-Keeping your opponent on guard. Having 6 flamers in reserve (168pts, 1CP), is not the same as having: A daemon prince, or 20 pink horrors, or 6 flamers, or 5 screamers, or 10 brimstones, or two units of 10 blue horrors, or a changeling, or two units of 3 flamers, etc.
-Getting around the reserve restrictions.
-Keeping your first turn army footprint small for when you inevitably go second.
Pilau Rice wrote: Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please
I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.
The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.
This. I never take a Chaos Lord for my DG, he simply feels wrong, I don't want an Alpha Legionary infiltrating my army comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.
Same. I have a converted Chaos Lord and I hate using him because he feels like a poser and not a real Death Guard model simply because he lacks DR and T5.
Anyways, the 0-3 restriction I think will be okay, same if they restrict using <Imperium> and <Chaos> (maybe <Aeldari>?) keywords for Battle-forged. I'm curious if any of those changes are legit though or just typical 4chan trolling, since it's hard to tell when they are being serious and when they are trying to rile up the community for lulz.
Also, as a Death Guard player, I hope they nerf the Poxfarm and PBC spam lists into the ground, so a more balanced Death Guard force can be used.
What I would really like to see is them introduce "non-compulsory Troops" to things like ripper swarms, cultists, poxwalkers, etc. where they do not count as mandatory choices; the idea would be you can't fill a detachment with them as your only troops choice, you need "real" troops choices.
Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.
I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.
For context I play match play, Dominate and Destroy style missions (6 objectives, progressive scoring, kill points). I haven't attended a tournament in 8th. I get a game in once a week with the daemon codex. So if that invalidates my opinion for you that's fine.
But in my experience Summoning has loads of benefits, to list a few of them:
-Adapting to your opponents list.
-Adapting to the mission.
-Adapting to the current state of play.
-Recovering from the loss of key units, say loosing your fluxmaster to a lucky round of sniping early in the game. Just summon a new one.
-On the fly clutch psychic powers (like infernal gateway) that you might not want in your list all the time.
-Bringing on reserves turn 4, 5, 6, and 7.
-Not spending CP to deepstrike.
-Keeping your opponent on guard. Having 6 flamers in reserve (168pts, 1CP), is not the same as having: A daemon prince, or 20 pink horrors, or 6 flamers, or 5 screamers, or 10 brimstones, or two units of 10 blue horrors, or a changeling, or two units of 3 flamers, etc.
-Getting around the reserve restrictions.
-Keeping your first turn army footprint small for when you inevitably go second.
Just my opinion though.
Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC, and for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad. It's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.
gendoikari87 wrote: 45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants
Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now
Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.
I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.
I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.
Ash87 wrote: Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.
I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.
That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"
Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.
Well it's obviously not stopping me from playing, but I always worry that I need to rejig my lists as Is, the added uncertainty of having to change them all because of FAQs is just that much more added in.
The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.
It used to guarantee the hit was intercepted AND allowed the drone to take its saving roll. This meant T'au could have their cake and eat it too. Offensive output with gun drones that were as resilient to anti-infantry weaponry as shield drones. That was a bit much.
Now, it's entirely guaranteed casualties on gun and marker drones, and a one third chance on shield drones. For an army that can't engage in the psychic or assault phases, that type of durability is necessary, and the counterplay of opponents targeting them is too.
Before it intercepted wounds - not hits. It is a huge difference - game breakingly so.
I'd love to see a balance fix for Soup, but hope they don't make soup impossible.
Sometimes, Marines should be backing up IG. Sometimes Corsairs should be coming to the assistance of their brothers. Cultists should have their faiths and works 'rewarded' by a bloodthirster showing up to eat everything (enemies first, friends later).
It should just be that mono-IG should be more common than IoM Soup. Eldar of various walks of life should be seen most frequently with others of that walk of life. Soup shouldn't be so "free". Except for Chaos, to an extent.
Honestly, I think they need to gut soup not because it's the right choice, but because it's the only way to stop it being a problem in Matched Play. Otherwise, the comp players will abuse it just because they can.
The T'au change is one more thing about the game that says "Bringing the right weapon for the job was a mistake".
Prior to 8th, if you had a hard target to crack, Plas wasn't going to cut it - you needed Melta. If you were facing hordes, that PG wasn't going to do much for it's points. Now, between a number of different changes, Melta is one of the worse weapon types out there. The small volume uber-strong shots aren't necesssary, because the weaker shots aren't that much less effective.
Cephalobeard wrote: Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC...
I imagine ITC tournament games only going 3 turns probably limits the value of summoning.
Jokes aside, how many tournaments games have you used a summoning list in?
Cephalobeard wrote: ...for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying summoning couldn't use a boost. But saying "there is a near zero benefit to summoning" is not true, when there clearly are benefits. Sure in your experience they might not be worth the trade off and thats fine.
Cephalobeard wrote: it's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.
Yes summoning is better in AoS, 18" range, unit doesn't need to be entirely within those 18" either so plenty of daisy chaining, it can also be used after moving. It can also be denied though as a lot of summoning abilities are powers.
As I said I'm all for summoning getting a buff. But currently it still has uses. Restricting the number of duplicate units you can take adds another use.
So how close did the thousand son's codex come out to that one tournament?
Or whatever codex it was, I just remember a codex came out a little bit before a tournament and GW said "no you can't use it".
Trying to use past issues to try and figure out a closer time frame
IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.
Martel732 wrote: IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.
If they did that not even four predators would save you. Let's just process the whole thing when it comes, yea?
Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.
Ushtarador wrote: Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.
oh wait
We're a good distance from that false equivalence.
Martel732 wrote: IG can still bring triple manticore, triple basilisk, and many, many Russes in squadrons. Yeah, I'm gonna need it. Feth GW if they do this and Feth the IG.
Praise the glorious guard. I do love my triple Manticores
So, the 0-3 would have an effect on my lists for sure, inasmuch that I prefer Firesight marksmen over pathfinder squads... and take at least 4 marksmen in each army now. The change would force me into taking more pathfinders again (Which I'm not thrilled about).
But I can adapt to that. It will -Really- limit Dark Eldar by my understanding; as well as, any army with a reliance on transports... Any army with mono tank squads (Again, Tau), and any army with a limited number of available models for a slot (You don't have that many types of Elites? Well You better not take more than 3 of each).
What really bothers me is when you start getting into 3000 or 4000 point games, then the 0-3 becomes extremely problematic because it amplifies the already mentioned problems.
This just seems like a -Very- heavy handed way to try and solve the problem.
Alternatives: You could boost the cost for units if you take more than 3 of them. This would be a more complicated rule to consider when list building though. You could tie it to detachment, but that'd overtly favor some armies again (Dark eldar taking 6 patrols would be effectively immune to this rule) and it wouldn't solve anything because you'd be talking about having a hard cap of 6 units of one type per army... which is already in the Spam Territory we're worried about here. You could make it tied to characters... "Every detachment can have 1 of every type of unit, + however many of X kind of commander you have", but we run into the same problems with hard caps on amount of units you bring per detachment again.
At 3000 or 4000 point games the lack of scaling in matched play (psychic powers and strategems) means a lot of lists become unviable.
I don't think you can fix 8th issues on a macro lvl that needs to happen on an individual codex and unit level. I do believe Allies/soup needs limitations for that to work tough.
One thing that we're trying in our local tournament group is playing the 3 units max but without it applying to Troops or DTs. Seems to be going down well.
I, personally, would like to see Smite hardcapped in the same manner as all other psychic powers. Not sure how viable this would be however, I know a lot of armies rely on Smite to bust down big uglies but even the beta "-1 per successful cast" rule doesn't seem super effective at preventing Smite spam.
Personally I'm not keen on games which are bigger than 2000pts. I feel like when you start hitting 3-4k limits which take most of an evening to play you're probably better off just house-ruling things and not worrying about arbitrary limits intended for 1500-2000pt games.
A 0-3 cap would end DE Court of the Archon. All individual models, already capped at 4 per detachment and requiring an Archon to unlock. I have a couple of 'squads' of them (about 20 models total from back in the day) cut down to using only 8 is a pain. Only 3? I'll just shelve them. Would also make playing pure Kabal/Cult or Coven difficult as they have very limited options. 1 HQ each is a problem for starters.
Cult
1 HQ 1 Troop
1 Elite
2 Fast Attack
2 Flier
Coven
1 HQ 1 Troop
1 Elite
2 Heavy Support
Kabal
1 HQ 1 Troop
1 Heavy Support
2 Flier
Factionless (can be taken by anyone)
2 Elite
1 Fast Attack
2 Heavy Support (Forgeworld)
2 Dedicated Transport
So mono faction you are pretty much boned, even multifaction you run out of transports fast.
So... about that FAQ... only 11.5 months to go, eh?
Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:
Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.
Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.
Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.
Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.
Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.
Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:
Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.
Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.
Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.
Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.
Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.
There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.
Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:
Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.
Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.
Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.
Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.
Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.
There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.
See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.
See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.
Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.
See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.
Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.
Am I a terrible person for longing for the return of mono-book armies?
A fleeting dream I realise, but a dream nonetheless.
See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.
Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.
See, There is the old thing about "GW Leaks information to see reactions" and that does make some sense. But we also have a lot of leaks coming out that are questionable at best. Fait had screens from 4chan yesterday, where the one shown as potentially being FAQ leaks, but it was the Xenos 2 FAQ instead. I'm also, yet to see any piece of paper leaks for the Soup Restrictions and 0-3 restructions. I think the 0-3 is more possible than the soup cut, because that does solve A problem... I'd find it much more likely, that it be a Beta rule though, while they work out kinks.
The Soup though... They can't drop that before GL, as it'd invalidate what... every list? Even if they don't force the FAQ to be used during GL, that's nuts.
...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.
Also: limiting stuff to 0-3 doesn't fix the biggest problem in the environment... instead it aggravates it:
Soup armies get even more powerful under these draconian limitations.
Oh, you locked out Devastators? Well, just use Long Fangs instead.
Locked out dreadnoughts? Not need to fear, like every faction as a similar model that is named subtlety different, but different enough to be a distinction. Baal Predator vs Predator comes to mind.
Meanwhile, the Necron player is making sad faces because no such advantage of that variety exists for him to 1) cover his weaknesses, and 2) creatively skate around the 0-3 crap that seems to be bandwagoned around here.
Congratulations, Soup reigns until November at which point we'll take another draconian chop at the problem.
There was another part to the rumor - no soup allowed. No sure how plausible that is given the design of Custodes unless they get a special exception.
Our draconian attempt to fix the game yields more ham-handed attempts to fix our first attempt
Well: Gray Knights, Ynnari, Sisters, Custodes, Daemons, Chaos, Ultramarines, Harlequins, Imperial Knights (and maybe AdMech since they lose access to that codex)... nice knowing you guys! Enjoy your borked books and coaster models you bought over the past few years during the age of allied forces.
I mean, really, there are so many simpler solutions to these problems:
1) Fix the imbalanced models that need a little adjusting (FHT) - it won't every prevent spam, but the spam won't be so overtly overbearing that the game becomes a non-contest. Spam will exist no matter how hard you attempt to curb it. Just make the advantage marginal instead of overwhelming.
2) You only generate stratagems, CP, Warlord traits, Warlords, and relics from detachments that share more than 2-3 keywords. Codices usually share a bulk of their alignment tags and have 1 flexible tag (which can actually be referenced by that custom tag). For example:
You choose to bring an eldar detachment as your primary detachment, all Codex Craftworlds units share Asuryani and Aeldari, and many also have the <Craftworld> tag (hi Phoenix Lords)... sounds like an easy 2, even 3 tags you can target. Drukhari would only share 1 tag with them. So you cannot generate their stratagems nor gain CP from their detachments.
Soup CP batteries solved. I'd say roll them up into their own separate CP counts, but that leaves room for sleazing and cheating, so just slam the door all the way shut.
If they kill soup, then I assume they will introduce some ally-rules for factions like Custodes, GK and SoB and the like.
Also, if there's truth to the 0-3 rumors, I also assume that's 0-3 non troop choices, not units. Otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
So a Guard Army could get 3 squadrons of Leman Russ' (well, that's still potentially 9 tanks), or 3 batteries of Basilisks, or Manticores or whatever, or any combination of those as long as the army does not have more than 3 heavy support choices in total. Almost like the old FOC.
That would mean I, as a Guard player who likes tanks, could still field a tank company of 9 tanks + tank commanders, but I wouldn't have any HS slots left for heavy weapon squads or Basilisks. An infantry-heavy Guard Army with 3 heavy weapon squads wouldn't have any HS slots left for tanks.
Not 3x3 Leman Russ, + 3x3 Basilisks + 3 Manticores, + 3 heavy weapon squads etc., at that point the "0-3 units" limitation would be irrelevant.
And not 3 squads of Devastators + 3 squads of Long Fangs, as they'd both be HS.
And if we assume they make it almost like the old FOC, then the old 3rd ed rules, before Apocalypse, stated that at 2000pts or more, you could bring several detachments (or armies as the rumor refers to - detachments are something else now), which could include super heavies.
If they do that, limit army composition at <2k points, but allow multiple armies at >2k points, then I'm 100% on board with this change.
Now if it's actually 0-3 units, then yeah, that's kinda silly.
Panzergraf wrote: If they kill soup, then I assume they will introduce some ally-rules for factions like Custodes, GK and SoB and the like.
Also, if there's truth to the 0-3 rumors, I also assume that's 0-3 non troop choices, not units. Otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
So a Guard Army could get 3 squadrons of Leman Russ' (well, that's still potentially 9 tanks), or 3 batteries of Basilisks, or Manticores or whatever, or any combination of those as long as the army does not have more than 3 heavy support choices in total. Almost like the old FOC.
That would mean I, as a Guard player who likes tanks, could still field a tank company of 9 tanks + tank commanders, but I wouldn't have any HS slots left for heavy weapon squads or Basilisks. An infantry-heavy Guard Army with 3 heavy weapon squads wouldn't have any HS slots left for tanks.
Not 3x3 Leman Russ, + 3x3 Basilisks + 3 Manticores, + 3 heavy weapon squads etc., at that point the "0-3 units" limitation would be irrelevant.
And not 3 squads of Devastators + 3 squads of Long Fangs, as they'd both be HS.
And if we assume they make it almost like the old FOC, then the old 3rd ed rules, before Apocalypse, stated that at 2000pts or more, you could bring several detachments (or armies as the rumor refers to - detachments are something else now), which could include super heavies.
If they do that, limit army composition at <2k points, but allow multiple armies at >2k points, then I'm 100% on board with this change.
Now if it's actually 0-3 units, then yeah, that's kinda silly.
I rather wondered if it'd be tied to Infantry Keyword myself. Limit monsters and whatnot, but don't touch guys on the ground that die due to a strong breeze.
...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.
Anger over incomplete and potentially incorrect information based on the assumption that GW leaked us the rule.
If GW wanted to gauge a proper reaction wouldn't they leak the whole rule with some clarity like the purifier screenshot? Occam's Razor my friend.
Assuming the Purifier screenshot is real...
But honestly, I'd say Yes still. Lets say it's -Not- something they are considering. It's sensible to assume that GW's FAQ team reviews forums to get people's opinions on balance, that's a Huge well of personal opinion data to draw form. So true or false, expressing an opinion pro or con puts information out there for them.
See, Soup being cut would kneecap so many armies. I have a Lot of trouble believing that one.
Yea anything is possible at this point. It could be armies who don't have allies are as deeply restricted. Interesting times lay ahead as well as lots and lots of angry posts.
See, There is the old thing about "GW Leaks information to see reactions" and that does make some sense. But we also have a lot of leaks coming out that are questionable at best. Fait had screens from 4chan yesterday, where the one shown as potentially being FAQ leaks, but it was the Xenos 2 FAQ instead. I'm also, yet to see any piece of paper leaks for the Soup Restrictions and 0-3 restructions. I think the 0-3 is more possible than the soup cut, because that does solve A problem... I'd find it much more likely, that it be a Beta rule though, while they work out kinks.
The Soup though... They can't drop that before GL, as it'd invalidate what... every list? Even if they don't force the FAQ to be used during GL, that's nuts.
...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.
Fait did post a rumoured leak about the FAQ with the Purifier change. The Xenos 2 FAQ he posted was in response to people saying GW wouldn't change points in an FAQ.
But honestly, I'd say Yes still. Lets say it's -Not- something they are considering. It's sensible to assume that GW's FAQ team reviews forums to get people's opinions on balance, that's a Huge well of personal opinion data to draw form. So true or false, expressing an opinion pro or con puts information out there for them.
There's a whole range from ""that would be terrible" to "this is bad, but what if..." to "lolGW is stupid and I have all the perfect fixes with no unintended consequences".
Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC, and for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad. It's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.
It varies depending on the faction, but the new summoning methods are pretty great. Nurgle gets contagion points over the course of the game based on areas of the board that they control that can be exchanged for summons. No rolling, no denial, you just plop the model down within range of a hero and you're good to go. Thematic too. Khorne gets something similar.
Ushtarador wrote: Remember 5th edition? It was the best edition ever I heard. Everybody had to take 1 HQ and 2 troops, and there were only 3 slots for Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support. No spamming was possible, best edition ever I'm telling you.
oh wait
5th edition also allowed you to heavily modify your FoC based on your HQ choices, turning plenty of non-troop unit choices into troops. Spam was very possible, and very potent, even back then. Less models usually made their way to the table in 5th, meaning the restrictions themselves also mattered less.
5th (pre-flyers) was the best edition, but it also had a lot of problems as well, and it is also essentially an entirely different game at this point.
gendoikari87 wrote: Killing soup would in one move make sisters of silence unplayable literally as they’d have no hq
Automatically Appended Next Post: And assassins
They do. Primaris Pskyers are HQs and share the "Astra Telepathica" faction keyword with Sisters of Silence, so you can still take Vanguard detachments of them if the rumored restriction on not being able to use "Imperium" as a common keyword is true.
techsoldaten wrote: Did GW release a statement saying the March FAQ is now the Summer FAQ, and will be released after another tournament?
I thought I saw this, but can't seem to find where it's mentioned.
Because it was a troll and a photoshop...
And not after another tournament. I believe GW actually said it will be out in time for their own GT Finals (12-13 may)
I still want to know if the nerf is going to be tied to keyword or not. The current rumors are kind of pointless against lots of armies with nearly identical units that have different datasheets. Eldar could make a Supreme Command Detachment with an Autarch, an Autarch Skyrunner, Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings and Autarch with Warp Jump Generator. Marines can do all 5 spots. Captain, captain in cataphractii, captain in gravis, captain in terminator, captain on bike. Both of those without using any named characters. Despite space marine players claiming it is one per game, they can actually fill a supreme command detachment with grandmasters as long as they are all different chapters. For example, Generic CM, Marneus, Pedro, and Kayvaan. Chaos can have 3 winged demon princes, and 3 regular since they use different sheets. Tyranids cannot have 6 Hive Tyrants because they use the same sheet. The list goes on, but I think you get the point.
techsoldaten wrote: Did GW release a statement saying the March FAQ is now the Summer FAQ, and will be released after another tournament?
I thought I saw this, but can't seem to find where it's mentioned.
Because it was a troll and a photoshop...
And not after another tournament. I believe GW actually said it will be out in time for their own GT Finals (12-13 may)
"On time" should be with a month of lead-up so people can actually adjust their lists to accommodate the new rules. Adding new units or expanding existing ones in a army can take a great deal of time, and if these changes are as sweeping as what is being rumoured, we could see entire armies invalidated. GW needs to get this out quickly if they intend on using it for their tournament.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
We can postulate over if the rule change would have the intended effect at the top level or not all we want... but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Again, if a rule comes with this many sub rules to make it work right... the original rule is probably really bad and there should be a lot of consideration given to alternatives instead.
Kinda like every piece of legislation passed anymore: they need so much more legislation to work correctly that it just begs the question: what was the function of this rule to begin with? To create more bad rules?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
SOB get Ordo Hereticus
Grey Knights get Ordo Malleus
Deathwatch get Ordo Xenos
Then you give Assassins, SoS the (Ordo) keyword.
Possibly Astra Telepathica should get (Ordo), and Custodes could get Ordo Specialist.
That makes it so that you can take assassins or SoS with Grey Knights, SoB, DW, or Inquisition, and more or less cleans up the hanging chad factions.
It's fluffy, functional, and easy.
So they would ally under "Ordo"?
Not exactly. (Ordo) is the Inquisition Equivalent of (Chapter) or (Regiment). There are 4 Ordo's explicitly mentioned in the index. Ordo Hereticus hunts rogue psychers. Ordo Xenos hunts Xenos. Ordo Malleus hunts Chaos, and Ordo Specialist which is essentially a catch-all for all of the smaller ordos. So my solution wouldn't allow Grey Knights to share a keyword with SoB beyond Imperium. But it would allow them to share a keyword with Inquisition, Assassins, and SoS which generally have the generic (ordo) that allows you to pick a specific Ordo you align with.
It doesn't rebuild soup. Just lets you take Assassins, Inquisition, and SoS as part of either Grey Knights, Deathwatch, or SoB.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
We can postulate over if the rule change would have the intended effect at the top level or not all we want... but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Again, if a rule comes with this many sub rules to make it work right... the original rule is probably really bad and there should be a lot of consideration given to alternatives instead.
Kinda like every piece of legislation passed anymore: they need so much more legislation to work correctly that it just begs the question: what was the function of this rule to begin with? To create more bad rules?
^This. The solution also is painfully limited to Imperial only. It also raises the question of how an army qualifies for exemption. Why do Grey Knights get soup, but not admech? What about Eldar? Why can't deathwatch marines work with other chapters despite being made of other chapters? Why are only Tau limited by the Commander keyword, and yet 3 of each daemon prince is legal? What about celestine which has the Astra Militarum keyword, but would never be allowed with Guard under this fix? If it is keywords, how similiar to things have to be to count? Tank Commanders have to fight with plain Leman Russes for a spot? Are rhinos the same as a razorback? Which transports if any are limited? Do transports have to start out with a unit in them to not be restricted? Does summoning count towards your limit? If Imperium is going away as a keyword, what about smaller keywords that are still bigger than 1 Codex like "Adeptus Astartes"? The list goes on....
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
Spoiler:
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
Currently the rule is: bring what you want. There is no limitation, and things more-or-less work. Of course, models who are not balanced properly ruins this by it allowing you to stack those models to multiply the advantage across a bigger percentage of your army. But is that a problem with the ruleset or a model? Spam has been around since people found out that you can stack certain models to gain advantage, and since people discovered that not all models are made equal. So long as models are not equal (same stat lines equal), there will always be spam... whether it is infantry spam which invalidates heavy weapons, or vehicle spam which invalidates light weapons... on and on into the rock-paper-scissor of concepts game.
Now, there are a FEW exceptions to that rule made.
Named characters have a line in their dataslate that says 1 per army.
Tau Commanders have a limitation.
But so far, that's really the only limits. 2 exemptions to the global rule of "bring what you want".
In order to implement the heavy-handed 3/unit... now you have to ask all of those questions you asked me... and more. And now you have to ask them from the prism of EVERY faction that has a ruleset and ask: is this fair for them, or do we exempt them? You generate a huge list of restrictions, caveats, sub-bullets, and work-arounds that the solution becomes WORSE than the ailment it was made to address.
Some armies only have limited selections per slot. Are Sororitas players going to be penalized for really only having Fast Attack units? Oh, we're killing soup, AND you can only bring 1x of each HQ type and 3 of each non-troop selection... RIP that army. I mean, they're winning so many tournaments, definitely gotta keep our eyes on Dominion and Seraphim spam... they can kill models and stuff with that much melta. They can bring in some Retributors, too, but many Sororitas lists bring in those Rets and transports, and can still pack 4+ Fast Attacks... because that's what they have to work with.
Then consider vehicle squadrons... how do you fix those? Do we allow all vehicles to squad, or none? If I only have 3 Heavy Supports for my army... does that mean I have to actively choose between Killshot (lol), Linebreaker Bombardment, and having a squad of lascannon Havocs? None of that is particularly overpowered, even when spammed... so why is this a concern that needs to be addressed?
Did ANY of that actually address the problems with 40K, currently?
- Scenarios reward playstyle (ITC vs Adepticon scenarios artificially empowering/depowering units/codices)
- Terrain being garbage, hence leading to the above point
- Flying Hive Tyrants may be overpowered for their cost level, compared to the competition in their codex for the slots, thus deforming the environment when taken in mass
- Soup being really powerful and setting the tone for the entire edition (yeah, don't limit troops... that fixes IGCP batteries, fixes it right up)
You cannot remove spam from the game. If Leman Russ models are busted, but I can only take 3... guess what? I'm taking 3 Leman Russes because they're busted. Then the standard for "spam" becomes maxing out your FOC with "busted" units. And every high level tournament player will find the right combination of "busted" units that exploit the scenario to skew the advantage to their direction. That's why this rule will not work. If you force me to take Fast Attacks because you banhammered stacking Heavy Supports and HQs... that's fine, I'll just go and get Dominions in Immolators or Seraphim, drop in Celestine... look, Outrider of good Fast Attack. If I want to saturate you with vehicles, that's cool too... Hellhounds are REALLY good.
Let's stop swinging at everything. Most of the models did nothing wrong.
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
.
My post appears to have gone right over your head.
Those are speculated/rumored variants of this rule all with varying degrees of effect and consequence. None of which can be appropriately addressed without the context in which they are surrounded.
I can't tell you if they address the problems, because I don't know the rules. We've already discussed the "whack-a-mole" issue over several pages so i'm not going to go over that again. The same problem exists when you adjust points BTW.
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
Where was last weeks 500+ participant tournament?
Where is this weeks?
Where is next weeks?
Its 1.5 months from Adepticon to the next big tournament (Warhammer Fest and the week after London GT).
The 20 people in the back of your FLG doesn't provide the data GW is looking for.
gendoikari87 wrote: Wow didn’t notice that ... so 1 man in charge of a bunch of women.... because that’s not terribly sexist in 2018
Actually the weirder quirk there is that you have a pysker in charge of a bunch of people who's whole role and purpose is shutting pyskers down and killing them.
I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
WindstormSCR wrote: I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
That was always going to be the case. There was always going to be vast amounts of salt regardless of what was in it.
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
Spoiler:
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
Currently the rule is: bring what you want. There is no limitation, and things more-or-less work. Of course, models who are not balanced properly ruins this by it allowing you to stack those models to multiply the advantage across a bigger percentage of your army. But is that a problem with the ruleset or a model? Spam has been around since people found out that you can stack certain models to gain advantage, and since people discovered that not all models are made equal. So long as models are not equal (same stat lines equal), there will always be spam... whether it is infantry spam which invalidates heavy weapons, or vehicle spam which invalidates light weapons... on and on into the rock-paper-scissor of concepts game.
Now, there are a FEW exceptions to that rule made.
Named characters have a line in their dataslate that says 1 per army.
Tau Commanders have a limitation.
But so far, that's really the only limits. 2 exemptions to the global rule of "bring what you want".
In order to implement the heavy-handed 3/unit... now you have to ask all of those questions you asked me... and more. And now you have to ask them from the prism of EVERY faction that has a ruleset and ask: is this fair for them, or do we exempt them? You generate a huge list of restrictions, caveats, sub-bullets, and work-arounds that the solution becomes WORSE than the ailment it was made to address.
Some armies only have limited selections per slot. Are Sororitas players going to be penalized for really only having Fast Attack units? Oh, we're killing soup, AND you can only bring 1x of each HQ type and 3 of each non-troop selection... RIP that army. I mean, they're winning so many tournaments, definitely gotta keep our eyes on Dominion and Seraphim spam... they can kill models and stuff with that much melta. They can bring in some Retributors, too, but many Sororitas lists bring in those Rets and transports, and can still pack 4+ Fast Attacks... because that's what they have to work with.
Then consider vehicle squadrons... how do you fix those? Do we allow all vehicles to squad, or none? If I only have 3 Heavy Supports for my army... does that mean I have to actively choose between Killshot (lol), Linebreaker Bombardment, and having a squad of lascannon Havocs? None of that is particularly overpowered, even when spammed... so why is this a concern that needs to be addressed?
Did ANY of that actually address the problems with 40K, currently?
- Scenarios reward playstyle (ITC vs Adepticon scenarios artificially empowering/depowering units/codices)
- Terrain being garbage, hence leading to the above point
- Flying Hive Tyrants may be overpowered for their cost level, compared to the competition in their codex for the slots, thus deforming the environment when taken in mass
- Soup being really powerful and setting the tone for the entire edition (yeah, don't limit troops... that fixes IGCP batteries, fixes it right up)
You cannot remove spam from the game. If Leman Russ models are busted, but I can only take 3... guess what? I'm taking 3 Leman Russes because they're busted. Then the standard for "spam" becomes maxing out your FOC with "busted" units. And every high level tournament player will find the right combination of "busted" units that exploit the scenario to skew the advantage to their direction. That's why this rule will not work. If you force me to take Fast Attacks because you banhammered stacking Heavy Supports and HQs... that's fine, I'll just go and get Dominions in Immolators or Seraphim, drop in Celestine... look, Outrider of good Fast Attack. If I want to saturate you with vehicles, that's cool too... Hellhounds are REALLY good.
Let's stop swinging at everything. Most of the models did nothing wrong.
3 exceptions, custodes special contemptors are 0-1 per detachment too, which is rather odd if you ask me.
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
.
My post appears to have gone right over your head.
Those are speculated/rumored variants of this rule all with varying degrees of effect and consequence. None of which can be appropriately addressed without the context in which they are surrounded.
I can't tell you if they address the problems, because I don't know the rules. We've already discussed the "whack-a-mole" issue over several pages so i'm not going to go over that again. The same problem exists when you adjust points BTW.
Dude - why can't you answer my question...seems pretty simple. Why have a release schedule if you aren't going to follow it?
WindstormSCR wrote: I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
This is what happens when incompetent people are allowed to make decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Plans are worthless. Planning is everything."
If it means anything the GW Facebook team is continuing to post lists that exceed this new 0-3 limit. I'd like to think this is indicative of the rumour being false but knowing GW it probably just means they're throwing the poor community team up gak creek without a paddle.
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
My guess is the tournament turned over some unexpected issues that ended up needing a larger fix then they had originally intended. Still would rather have them delay a release then rush one out for some arbitrary date and then have to fix it again soon after.
Edit:
seen some of your other posts now that seem to be really focused on why they would ever have a release schedule. Every company has a schedule to allow customers an idea of new products/rules/whatever. sometimes these get pushed back.... its really not a big deal. Think of it as a contractor that tells you he can replace a fixture in your house in a day. He then opens up the wall and finds you also have termites. Would you rather he seal it up and be "done" in a day just so he can then reopen it next week because of the termites or take 3 days and do it properly? The contractor simply gave you an estimated finish time if he hadn't found a much larger issue.
WindstormSCR wrote: I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
That's the community eating itself. They were going to freak out about it regardless.
think this delay was based primarily on three factors:
A ) Tournament Results
B ) Gap in 40k Codex Release Schedule
C ) Recently released codex FAQ's 2 week schedule falling within big FAQ period
This big FAQ schedule was probably more intended for the future. The current year release schedule is abnormal, and therefore likely FAQs are more adaptive or reactive, where it'll allow them to plan their product release schedule around set dates in the future.
Dude - why can't you answer my question...seems pretty simple. Why have a release schedule if you aren't going to follow it?
Because it's an intellectually dishonest question, but let's unpack it anyway...
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
You're insinuating that the ongoing delays have been a result of "other weekly tournaments" when they've clearly stated they're processing the info they gleaned from Adepticon.
If you can't handle that it might take longer than a day for them to process that info I don't know what to tell you. e.g. If you meet all your deadlines at work you're either doing a poor job, your job is way too easy, or you're not pushing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Plans are worthless. Planning is everything."
Yea, because when you plan to launch a new product and the Nazis suddenly launch a counter offensive and it just screws it all up.
Here's the full quote:
I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of "emergency" is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.
Zodd1888 wrote: think this delay was based primarily on three factors:
A ) Tournament Results
B ) Gap in 40k Codex Release Schedule
C ) Recently released codex FAQ's 2 week schedule falling within big FAQ period
This big FAQ schedule was probably more intended for the future. The current year release schedule is abnormal, and therefore likely FAQs are more adaptive or reactive, where it'll allow them to plan their product release schedule around set dates in the future.
Th delay is based on them picking a month, more or less at random and then later discovering it coincides with Adepticon and then indeed noticing something pretty big during said tournament.
Dude - why can't you answer my question...seems pretty simple. Why have a release schedule if you aren't going to follow it?
Because it's an intellectually dishonest question, but let's unpack it anyway...
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
You're insinuating that the ongoing delays have been a result of "other weekly tournaments" when they've clearly stated they're processing the info they gleaned from Adepticon.
If you can't handle that it might take longer than a day for them to process that info I don't know what to tell you. e.g. If you meet all your deadlines at work you're either doing a poor job, your job is way too easy, or you're not pushing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Plans are worthless. Planning is everything."
Yea, because when you plan to launch a new product and the Nazis suddenly launch a counter offensive and it just screws it all up.
Here's the full quote:
I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of "emergency" is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.
I'm not insinuating that at all. In fact quite the opposite. If you take all the "large scale" tournaments over the past year - the data from adepticon is just a drop in the bucket. Yet - this small amount of data is causing a sudden delay in their release schedule? Plus - since everyone is blaming this whole thing on tyrants - I'm sure the several thousand emails they got when the codex was released about the auto include nature of monstrous rending claws because being free they are actually better than the option that cost 20 points. Pretty big red flag there.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about expecting timelines to be met when multimillion dollar companies announce it world wide. Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me? It really seems so.
Dude - why can't you answer my question...seems pretty simple. Why have a release schedule if you aren't going to follow it?
Because it's an intellectually dishonest question, but let's unpack it anyway...
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
You're insinuating that the ongoing delays have been a result of "other weekly tournaments" when they've clearly stated they're processing the info they gleaned from Adepticon.
If you can't handle that it might take longer than a day for them to process that info I don't know what to tell you. e.g. If you meet all your deadlines at work you're either doing a poor job, your job is way too easy, or you're not pushing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Plans are worthless. Planning is everything."
Yea, because when you plan to launch a new product and the Nazis suddenly launch a counter offensive and it just screws it all up.
Here's the full quote:
I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of "emergency" is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.
I'm not insinuating that at all. In fact quite the opposite. If you take all the "large scale" tournaments over the past year - the data from adepticon is just a drop in the bucket. Yet - this small amount of data is causing a sudden delay in their release schedule? Plus - since everyone is blaming this whole thing on tyrants - I'm sure the several thousand emails they got when the codex was released about the auto include nature of monstrous rending claws because being free they are actually better than the option that cost 20 points. Pretty big red flag there.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest about expecting timelines to be met when multimillion dollar companies announce it world wide. Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me? It really seems so.
Adepticon is not a drop in the bucket when you consider the speed with which the meta changes at the moment thanks to the codex release schedule.
Getting even 2 big tournaments inside the same codex field is unlikely. Let alone an event of 500+
The meta changes with tournament house rules. Nids have been out quite a while. The same codex was out well before the LVO and tyrants did not dominate there. Everyone went into this next big tournament to have a lot of aliotoc eldar in it - so they specifically built a list to counter it and hoped that bringing 7 extremely underpriced tyrants to the table against anything else would be good enough to get past them.
4 Mawlocks are good at about only 1 thing- making sure a 5 man ranger unit can't screen you from tyrant deep strike. (they are actually a really terrible unit otherwise) really though they should look at the mawlock interaction with killing units in the moment phase - something like this is sure to cause shenanigans. It doesn't take an additional 2 weeks into April to figure that out though. Originally I was really confused about the mawlocks in the lists and then once I figured it out - I knew that was the source of the problem more than anything. There are lots of units in this game as equally under-pointed as tyrants and what do you want to bet the majority of them get ignored?
Also why are you so caught up on it being a 500 man tournament? The players play the same number of games. They are typically set up in groups - so it's even possible that many undefeated armies didn't advance to higher tiers because of a few objective points difference. It's not like these tyrant lists where the only armies that just decimated everything they went up against.
Ordana wrote: Bigger tournaments = more data points and more reliable data, assuming your looking at the entire field and not just who won.
Are you aware of any other points? The only thing I've heard about is tyrants. Also - because the players play the same number of games - I don't think the data is anymore reliable. None of this data is reliable at all without at least categorizing each game by how it went.
For example
Games that ended because time ran out should be thrown out - that is really unreliable data. That's 50% of your games right there pretty much.
Narrow victories
crushing victories
Ect...
It would be wonderful if they were actaully doing anyalisis like that but I assure you - they aren't. They can't even be bothered to pay edditors to edit their codexes...or realize that if you pay points for something - it should probably be better than something that is free (see tyrants)
I have a sneaking suspicion that AOS is to blame for the delay and they are straight lying to us about adepticon. AOS is getting new armies and models all the time - that is where they want our attention.
Are you aware of any other points? The only thing I've heard about is tyrants.
We have literally no idea what they saw or what data they are basis the changes on. They've told us nothing. The community has assumed it's all about tyrants.
Also - because the players play the same number of games - I don't think the data is anymore reliable.
Same number of games as what? As each other? Or other tournaments.
Games that ended because time ran out should be thrown out - that is really unreliable data. That's 50% of your games right there pretty much.
Narrow victories
crushing victories
So they should throw out just about everything?
I have a sneaking suspicion that AOS is to blame for the delay and they are straight lying to us about adepticon. AOS is getting new armies and models all the time - that is where they want our attention.
Lemondish wrote: I think the past two pages suggest that some people expect GW to hop in a time machine and release it last month.
It's not unreasonable to expect a company to stick to the timescale which they themselves advertised - especially since this is the first major release on said schedule.
Obviously they can't go back and meet their deadline now that's it has passed - but either they shouldn't have missed it in the first place, or they should have accounted for the fact that Adepticon was in March in their schedule.
As someone who has worked in a large game company for the past decades I find this perfectly normal.
This is the first time GW is using this schedule/methodology. This means that there are going to be issues while GW irons out the kinks. If you have worked in a software company when scrum took over you should be somewhat familiar with issues when people are being switched to a new mode of operation. If this was the 3rd or 4th year they were having issues I'd get some of the complaints, but as it stands I find this complaining to be pointless coming from people in ivory armchair towers.
Second, after Adepticon they got some huge data that they had to mull over, and hopefully test. I would surely hope they attempt to do some smoke testing of their changes before releasing it into the wild.
pismakron wrote: Schedules slip. Deadlines are missed. It happens all the time and everywhere. It's nothing to be up in arms about.
jfc I wish my boss was as understanding as you.
You have a terrible boss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: As someone who has worked in a large game company for the past decades I find this perfectly normal.
This is the first time GW is using this schedule/methodology. This means that there are going to be issues while GW irons out the kinks. If you have worked in a software company when scrum took over you should be somewhat familiar with issues when people are being switched to a new mode of operation. If this was the 3rd or 4th year they were having issues I'd get some of the complaints, but as it stands I find this complaining to be pointless coming from people in ivory armchair towers.
Second, after Adepticon they got some huge data that they had to mull over, and hopefully test. I would surely hope they attempt to do some smoke testing of their changes before releasing it into the wild.
Right. If my employees slip the first time they start a project, ok, let's adjust and move forward. If they keep slipping 3 or 4 times something is wrong that needs to be corrected.
This? People just want to grind their axes with their superiority complex.
Eldarsif wrote: As someone who has worked in a large game company for the past decades I find this perfectly normal.
This is the first time GW is using this schedule/methodology. This means that there are going to be issues while GW irons out the kinks. If you have worked in a software company when scrum took over you should be somewhat familiar with issues when people are being switched to a new mode of operation. If this was the 3rd or 4th year they were having issues I'd get some of the complaints, but as it stands I find this complaining to be pointless coming from people in ivory armchair towers.
Second, after Adepticon they got some huge data that they had to mull over, and hopefully test. I would surely hope they attempt to do some smoke testing of their changes before releasing it into the wild.
Eldarsif wrote: As someone who has worked in a large game company for the past decades I find this perfectly normal.
This is the first time GW is using this schedule/methodology. This means that there are going to be issues while GW irons out the kinks. If you have worked in a software company when scrum took over you should be somewhat familiar with issues when people are being switched to a new mode of operation. If this was the 3rd or 4th year they were having issues I'd get some of the complaints, but as it stands I find this complaining to be pointless coming from people in ivory armchair towers.
Second, after Adepticon they got some huge data that they had to mull over, and hopefully test. I would surely hope they attempt to do some smoke testing of their changes before releasing it into the wild.
yeah no in my field that excuse does not fly
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
Delays are a regular occurance in construction, transportation, education, goverment and hell even medicine sometimes.
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.
We play a miniature wargame of course we're perfectly able to run an international muti-million pound company.
Lemondish wrote: I think the past two pages suggest that some people expect GW to hop in a time machine and release it last month.
It's not unreasonable to expect a company to stick to the timescale which they themselves advertised - especially since this is the first major release on said schedule.
Obviously they can't go back and meet their deadline now that's it has passed - but either they shouldn't have missed it in the first place, or they should have accounted for the fact that Adepticon was in March in their schedule.
No, it's not unreasonable. It's also not unreasonable to accept that things change.
What's unreasonable about this is the nerd rage screaming crybaby response to the delay. What's unreasonable is some nobody with zero authority claiming what should or should not have happened.
My number 1 expectation - half the people in the thread will rage no matter what is in the FAQ and the other half will be sustained by the salty tears.
pismakron wrote: Schedules slip. Deadlines are missed. It happens all the time and everywhere. It's nothing to be up in arms about.
jfc I wish my boss was as understanding as you.
That'll always depend on who your boss is. At my last job I built steering columns and they wouldn't let you miss the quota even when their machines they're too cheap to fix are malfunctioning. At my current job, much different as I just do paperwork and I always have a couple of days with each new patient.
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
I feel like the people who think it's easy to balance something should go sign up to the Privateer Press CID forums and have a go at playtesting a game with a bunch of other people. Very rarely do people agree unanimously that things are balanced. It all depends on the players, lists and most of all the dice. The best game devs can do is find a middle ground.
Edit: I dunno why this site hates mobile posting and editing quotes but it's really annoying.
Do you happen to work in miniature fantasy wargame design?
I feel like this is the among the most relevant questions to ask of the community on this forum lately, many of whom are convinced not only that they can fix the game, but that they understand how and why GW makes their decisions.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
I feel like the people who think it's easy to balance something should go sign up to the Privateer Press CID forums and have a go at playtesting a game with a bunch of other people. Very rarely do people agree unanimously that things are balanced. It all depends on the players, lists and most of all the dice. The best game devs can do is find a middle ground.
Bingo. Even games that have been under a single system are still imbalanced in some way (example: World of Warcraft has ALWAYS had imbalanced builds, classes, races, etc.... its a constant battle). Even if they fix one balance issue, something else will pop up to take its place, or a balance here will cause another imbalance somewhere else. So it shall be, so it will always be. All you can do is do your best. The best we can hope for is patches to extremely broken things, and small incremental patches to less powerful stuff to try and bring them up to snuff.
While I don't think it's impossible to balance the game, it seems improbable that it will happen while GW is constantly coming out with new codexes and units. Every time a new book comes out the game is thrown into chaos.
Even if they did a freeze and didn't come out with anything new for a while, I imagine it would take a fair amount of trial and error FAQs and test changes to get the game to the theoretically possible place of perfect balance.
I'm hoping that is what will happen to some extent over the next year or so once everyone has a codex.
There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.
Its the nature of the game
Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.
roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.
its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems
Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".
Tau, Necron and DEFAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
I'm sure the impotent rage of a thousand TFGs are making them quake in their boots.
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
So the solution is do nothing. Got it.
There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.
leopard wrote: There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.
Its the nature of the game
Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.
roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.
its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems
I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.
leopard wrote: There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.
Its the nature of the game
Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.
roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.
its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems
I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.
Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.
Regardless of what they do, there is going to be 'net outrage.
I merely suggest there would've been more goodwill towards them if this FAQ had come out pre-Adepticon:
A, So the rest of the announce FAQ schedule wasn't derailed;
B, To set expectations of what this sort of Big Balance FAQ covers (are points rules?);
C, So that things that were seen to be out of whack within certain subsets of house rules - such as ITC - could've been addressed.
After all, prior to Adepticon things like Flying Hive Tyrants weren't said to be setting the tournament scene on fire, so it would be reasonable for them to say, post-Adepticon, that this was something they were looking into, and would be addressed in CA2018 or the "Autumn" Balance FAQ.
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.
I merely suggest there would've been more goodwill towards them if this FAQ had come out pre-Adepticon:
You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GWsome goodwill?
Dysartes wrote: You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GWsome goodwill?
No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.
Dysartes wrote: You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GWsome goodwill?
No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.
Oh! Someone who knows how people will react regardless That 'goodwill' will be nonvocal, and complainers going to complain because thats what their life like.
Dysartes wrote: You don't think that releasing the FAQ within the window they previously announced to great fanfare, and addressing some issues that had been raised pre-Adepticon, wouldn't've earned GWsome goodwill?
No. The normie players like me will go "cool, thanks", a certain section will complain because things changed, another will complain that it didn't change enough and the last will complain that the changes were wrong and made things worse.
Oh! Someone who knows how people will react regardless That 'goodwill' will be nonvocal, and complainers going to complain because thats what their life like.
Exactly. You don't email Sony and tell them that your TV is working great.
Dysartes wrote: Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".
Tau, Necron and DEFAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
The next big FAQ is CA2018. There was nothing promised or planned between now and then.
They promised minor FAQ/errata 2 weeks after every codex. So I believe they're running late on both Tau and necrons. to fold it into the big "march" FAQ.
Dysartes wrote: Ideal world - GW would have dropped the FAQ in the first week of March, and Adepticon would have had a rule in place saying "nothing released within 30 days of the event is in use at it".
Tau, Necron and DEFAQs then could drop as normal, and GW has a few months to work on the next big FAQ (and CA2018).
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
The next big FAQ is CA2018. There was nothing promised or planned between now and then.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.
There needs to be friggin' banner on dakka explaining this.
If the "OP" stuff is close enough to things considered decent, the average player won't be able to recognize the difference, they will only matter in top competitive environments.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
So the solution is do nothing. Got it.
There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.
leopard wrote: There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.
Its the nature of the game
Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.
roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.
its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems
I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.
Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?
Or like in stock car racing where every car is more or less the same and has to meet certain specifications. In in football everyone's ball has to have the correct pressure. At that point - the only way to gain an advantage is to cheat - and they do cheat.
Um, Deflategate got Tom Brady suspended. And literally every story about steroids involves an athlete cheating.
Since I’m guessing that you’re targeting the idea that competitive 40k players cheat though, anecdotally I have been to tournaments where players cheated.
But, no - instead, they wait for an event at the end of the month, and have to deal with a bunch of 'net outrage over missed deadlines (which may or may not be affecting sales to competitive gamers at present).
Or, get this, they did the "perfect thing" you suggest and listened to 'net outrage over things they didn't address for another 6 months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
So the solution is do nothing. Got it.
There's a big difference between the best list being 20-30% better and 3-5% better.
With that said, it really isn't IMPOSSIBLE to fix some of the balance mistakes in the game. Some of you act like it's too easy, but a lot of you also act like it's super hard.
Maybe, maybe not. Assuming that someone's armchair "fixes" will solve the game's problems while purely hypothetical doesn't hold a lot of water. Not worth the time and energy arguing over, more than anything else.
leopard wrote: There will always be overpowered combinations or combinations that become overpowered in certain situations you can force using a range of other models.
Its the nature of the game
Played "Scorched Earth" today, one of the newer missions.
roll off, the winner puts the first objective of six down - the player going second puts the next down, but also knows they are picking the deployment map and which side to deploy in - so can put three in what will be their area, or just outside it.
its simply stuff like that thats causing some of the problems
I think you might be playing that wrong... the deployment type is determined randomly, the player going second just gets to be the one to roll for it.
Edit, read the comment wrong, point was irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think nothing will change so long as the competitive crowd keeps moving from one OP thing to the next, no matter what GW tries to fix.
I gotta ask, do you know what the word 'competitive' means? Because...like...by the very nature of competition you move from one OP thing to another. Every competition in the history of everything that was actually about winning has been people killing themselves or each other for even tiny advantages. Just look at the winter olympics. Half of most of those competitions is based on who got a better read on which equipment would give them the biggest advantage. You don't see luge people wearing tennis shoes and parkas because windsuits are 'op' do you?
Or like in stock car racing where every car is more or less the same and has to meet certain specifications. In in football everyone's ball has to have the correct pressure. At that point - the only way to gain an advantage is to cheat - and they do cheat.
If you honestly think that having the same ball and cars are enough to actually 'balance' those competitions even BEFORE cheating then you're hopelessly naive.
Those teams, and the companies that make money off of them spend millions of dollars a year on things like player rehabilitation(ice baths/etc) supplementary equipment, information gathering, analytics, professional analyses, sports psychology. Even stock car racing; you put the emphasis on 'the same' when the emphasis is ACTUALLY on 'more or less'. Here's an excerpt about Nascar from 'how things work:
These rules are clearly spelled out in NASCAR guidelines, yet there are often disputes between teams and officials about their interpretation of these rules. Teams can become quite inventive in finding ways to bypass the limitations imposed by a rule, only to have NASCAR become more specific and stringent with its language to eliminate the advantage [source: Martin]. This is one reason why stock cars are so uniform in dimension. The bodies have similar shapes and aerodynamic properties because they must conform to certain templates, or patterns mandated by NASCAR to ensure a consistent car size and shape. NASCAR maintains an equally explicit list of interior features that cars must have for both safety and to promote a reasonably level playing field.
That sounds INCREDIBLY FAMILIAR doesn't it?(minus Nascar being quicker at closing rules gaps.)
Here's another one:
With NASCAR teams constantly pushing the boundaries of racing know-how, cars have progressively become faster and more powerful. In fact, they got so fast that NASCAR officials worried for the safety of drivers and fans.
This is how competition works. You spend time, energy, and usually quite a lot of money searching for any slight advantage you can. You don't even need to cheat to find something that can push you over the top. Why do you think jockey's are so small? What about boxers and wrestlers and the insane(but perfectly legal) lengths they go to to be able to fight in the lowest weight class possible?
Competition is the same everywhere. 6 Flying Hive Tyrants isn't just a 40k thing.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with missing a deadline, especially when breaking (for GW) new ground. However, purely from an expectation management point of view, they handled announcing the delay horribly.
If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
What GW has effectively done is knock on the door at the eleventh hour, announced ‘we didn’t realise the impact of x happening was going to be so big, so we’ll be late’ and spent the next two weeks dodging any questions for details or a perspective date. It’s understandable that this is going to upset people.
GW being late isn’t the issue; their lack of transparency is.
kombatwombat wrote: I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with missing a deadline, especially when breaking (for GW) new ground. However, purely from an expectation management point of view, they handled announcing the delay horribly.
If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
What GW has effectively done is knock on the door at the eleventh hour, announced ‘we didn’t realise the impact of x happening was going to be so big, so we’ll be late’ and spent the next two weeks dodging any questions for details or a perspective date. It’s understandable that this is going to upset people.
GW being late isn’t the issue; their lack of transparency is.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
kombatwombat wrote: I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with missing a deadline, especially when breaking (for GW) new ground. However, purely from an expectation management point of view, they handled announcing the delay horribly.
If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
What GW has effectively done is knock on the door at the eleventh hour, announced ‘we didn’t realise the impact of x happening was going to be so big, so we’ll be late’ and spent the next two weeks dodging any questions for details or a perspective date. It’s understandable that this is going to upset people.
GW being late isn’t the issue; their lack of transparency is.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
This can easily be avoided by not, you know, missing the second date.
Remember this FAQ was sheduled to come out right after Adeptacon. Now unless they were planning on popping home and writing it that evening [Suggesting it's hardly any work], they had it basically fully written as is.
It can't be that hard to decide how long it's going to take them to write the extra dozen lines of text to correct whatever it was at Adepticon that required fixing, and adding it. Otherwise they're going to delay into another major event, which will showcase more fixes, that require more work, that delay them into a codex release, which requires more work which overlays with another codex release, and then another major event, and hey now it's only a month till we do the September balence patch anyway, so...
kombatwombat wrote: If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
The GW designer can always say: Well, Boss, you only assigned this project to me last week. It will take 4 weeks of basic design, 4 for testing, and at least 2 for layout. That's ten weeks. You also know now when it will be done.
This can easily be avoided by not, you know, missing the second date.
Remember this FAQ was sheduled to come out right after Adeptacon. Now unless they were planning on popping home and writing it that evening [Suggesting it's hardly any work], they had it basically fully written as is.
Sure and the only way to guarantee that they don't miss it is to massively over estimate the time it will take to complete.
So, GW's first time coming out and they say something like "We need to delay until September". Commence posts about GW not having actually done the FAQ or similar such things.
It can't be that hard to decide how long it's going to take them to write the extra dozen lines of text to correct whatever it was at Adepticon that required fixing, and adding it.
Massive assumption in an attempt to make your position sound reasonable.
Otherwise they're going to delay into another major event, which will showcase more fixes, that require more work, that delay them into a codex release, which requires more work which overlays with another codex release, and then another major event, and hey now it's only a month till we do the September balence patch anyway, so...
What's it like there on Planet GW Sucks? If it gets delayed until September I'll eat my hat.
kombatwombat wrote: I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with missing a deadline, especially when breaking (for GW) new ground. However, purely from an expectation management point of view, they handled announcing the delay horribly.
If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
What GW has effectively done is knock on the door at the eleventh hour, announced ‘we didn’t realise the impact of x happening was going to be so big, so we’ll be late’ and spent the next two weeks dodging any questions for details or a perspective date. It’s understandable that this is going to upset people.
GW being late isn’t the issue; their lack of transparency is.
You might be on to something...
“To avoid whining, [pediatrician Laurel Schultz, MD] advises parents not to wait until children are in distress to acknowledge them. “It’s important to respond to that first bid for attention, if you can,” she says. “If you are on the phone or in the middle of a conversation, make eye contact with your child and put a finger up, so she knows you’ll be with her in a minute. Then give your child your attention as soon as you can politely do so.”
Replace child with this community and parent with GW.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
Common expectation management strategy: under promise, over deliver. If you anticipate it’ll take you two weeks to finish, announce it’ll be out in four. Then you either pleasantly surprise people by being earlier than your announced date or have two more weeks than you thought you’d need.
Saying ‘sorry, it’s late’ without giving an updated estimate of deadline leads people to think it’ll be there tomorrow. Tomorrow comes around, it isn’t ready, people are disappointed, they think it’ll come the next day. The next day comes, it’s not ready, people are disappointed, think it’ll be the day after, and so on. By saying it’s late but not giving an estimated completion date, every day of delay is seen as another missed deadline, because you’re letting people get their hopes up and then dashing them repeatedly. You either give people a new date and disappoint then once if you fail to achieve it, or you give no date and disappoint them every single day until it’s done.
Transparency is also key. I know GW likes to keep tight-lipped before release announcements (which I don’t understand in a modern age but still), but this isn’t a release they can make money off, so I can’t fathom what possible advantage there is to not giving out as much information as possible.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
Common expectation management strategy: under promise, over deliver. If you anticipate it’ll take you two weeks to finish, announce it’ll be out in four. Then you either pleasantly surprise people by being earlier than your announced date or have two more weeks than you thought you’d need.
Saying ‘sorry, it’s late’ without giving an updated estimate of deadline leads people to think it’ll be there tomorrow. Tomorrow comes around, it isn’t ready, people are disappointed, they think it’ll come the next day. The next day comes, it’s not ready, people are disappointed, think it’ll be the day after, and so on. By saying it’s late but not giving an estimated completion date, every day of delay is seen as another missed deadline, because you’re letting people get their hopes up and then dashing them repeatedly. You either give people a new date and disappoint then once if you fail to achieve it, or you give no date and disappoint them every single day until it’s done.
Transparency is also key. I know GW likes to keep tight-lipped before release announcements (which I don’t understand in a modern age but still), but this isn’t a release they can make money off, so I can’t fathom what possible advantage there is to not giving out as much information as possible.
For sure - i'm just saying they're in a no-win position with the community.
kombatwombat wrote: If I’m go tell my boss that I’m going to miss a deadline, he isn’t going to blow up and rage at me. But he will ask me two questions: why, and when I’m projecting to finish. I’d better have some damned good answers to those questions waiting before I even go to his office or he will rage at me.
The GW designer can always say: Well, Boss, you only assigned this project to me last week. It will take 4 weeks of basic design, 4 for testing, and at least 2 for layout. That's ten weeks. You also know now when it will be done.
That's a pretty good way to get yelled at by your boss in ten weeks for
a) not being done
b) delivering bad quality
In software development, you should never tell anybody when you are done. Studies have shown that less than 93% of all software projects do not finish on budget and/or time.
Writing rules is very close to writing software.
Considering that they most likely assumed to be mostly done by the time they traveled to adepticon, they probably can't estimate when they have fixes to all the issues they observed there.
It's certainly difficult/ nigh impossible for them to know ahead of time when the FAQ is going to be ready, especially if it's based around findings at adepticon (which may or may not be limited to flyrant spam). But at this point I'd be really surprised if it's not released at Warhammer Fest in may.
PiñaColada wrote: It's certainly difficult/ nigh impossible for them to know ahead of time when the FAQ is going to be ready, especially if it's based around findings at adepticon (which may or may not be limited to flyrant spam). But at this point I'd really be really surprised if it's not released at Warhammer Fest in may.
Hardly, they wouldn't have delayed T'au FAQs if so. I'm already surprised that they didn't release the big FAQ last week, and i would be even more surprised if it doesn't happen this week.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
Common expectation management strategy: under promise, over deliver. If you anticipate it’ll take you two weeks to finish, announce it’ll be out in four. Then you either pleasantly surprise people by being earlier than your announced date or have two more weeks than you thought you’d need.
Saying ‘sorry, it’s late’ without giving an updated estimate of deadline leads people to think it’ll be there tomorrow. Tomorrow comes around, it isn’t ready, people are disappointed, they think it’ll come the next day. The next day comes, it’s not ready, people are disappointed, think it’ll be the day after, and so on. By saying it’s late but not giving an estimated completion date, every day of delay is seen as another missed deadline, because you’re letting people get their hopes up and then dashing them repeatedly. You either give people a new date and disappoint then once if you fail to achieve it, or you give no date and disappoint them every single day until it’s done.
Transparency is also key. I know GW likes to keep tight-lipped before release announcements (which I don’t understand in a modern age but still), but this isn’t a release they can make money off, so I can’t fathom what possible advantage there is to not giving out as much information as possible.
This has always been a problem. Even with "new" GW. The community facebook dodges any question that isn't relevant to whatever they are shilling. Any legit question about potential future things get a "We haven't heard anything about that, keep checking our site for more info!" type of replies which, while in some cases the questions being asked are silly, gets old when you get no information other than what is already known.
This has always been a problem. Even with "new" GW. The community facebook dodges any question that isn't relevant to whatever they are shilling. Any legit question about potential future things get a "We haven't heard anything about that, keep checking our site for more info!" type of replies which, while in some cases the questions being asked are silly, gets old when you get no information other than what is already known.
Do you seriously expect to be able to go to their page and just expect them to hand over any information you want? Do you also believe that they're privy to anything beyond the content they're given? You're talking to social media grunts. Not rules writers.
GW is waiting for the next big tournament to push it off.
No, wait, they were waiting for the Idoneth pre-orders to be done.
No, wait, they are doing it just for sales.
No, wait...
Got ~ an hours drive to get home in 10 mins, so hopefully i'll be up by the time i get home, so i can either sit and smile while reading it, or cry, grab a beer and rock myself to sleep.
Yea, that's a fair point, but would it be worse to give a second date and miss that as well?
Common expectation management strategy: under promise, over deliver. If you anticipate it’ll take you two weeks to finish, announce it’ll be out in four. Then you either pleasantly surprise people by being earlier than your announced date or have two more weeks than you thought you’d need.
Saying ‘sorry, it’s late’ without giving an updated estimate of deadline leads people to think it’ll be there tomorrow. Tomorrow comes around, it isn’t ready, people are disappointed, they think it’ll come the next day. The next day comes, it’s not ready, people are disappointed, think it’ll be the day after, and so on. By saying it’s late but not giving an estimated completion date, every day of delay is seen as another missed deadline, because you’re letting people get their hopes up and then dashing them repeatedly. You either give people a new date and disappoint then once if you fail to achieve it, or you give no date and disappoint them every single day until it’s done.
Transparency is also key. I know GW likes to keep tight-lipped before release announcements (which I don’t understand in a modern age but still), but this isn’t a release they can make money off, so I can’t fathom what possible advantage there is to not giving out as much information as possible.
I'm a project manager. This is bread and butter. NEVER OVER PROMISE. and absolutely make sure you can make your dates or people will get fething pissed. this is business 101.
so to the people talking about how in their line of work 'oh it's okay if we're late we're just making it the best we can be" i call bs.
you give people a date (in this case march) and then you tell them you're going to miss it? I guarantee you it doesn't matter the reason a large number of people are going to get pissed. Why you made a promise and you fething broke it. More importantly in my line of work that means postponing grand openings, missing contract deadlines, ect. For GW it means people have to put off selling/Buying new models when there are tournaments at the FLGS to go to. You are actively screwing with peoples schedules because you failed to account for enough time.
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!
Earth127 wrote: They wanted to increase the number of CP avaible to armies that can't spam multiple detachments.
I totally understand that and agree it was needed... But... A brigade, Vanguard and Supreme command now gives me 17CP. That Custodes detachment is going to get 8? 9CP total, with their best stratagems costing 2 or 3CP? At least Grey Knights will be able to buff their shooting more than once a game though
That's the idea. They said on stream (tough the audio was of so I may have misunderstood) that armies that can already cheaply fill out stuff just end up not spending all their CP so it doesn't buff them (IG) as much as you might think.
Earth127 wrote: That's the idea. They said on stream (tough the audio was of so I may have misunderstood) that armies that can already cheaply fill out stuff just end up not spending all their CP so it doesn't buff them (IG) as much as you might think.
My 17CP list is T'au. I'd happily spend those 17CP in the first 1-3 turns, plus any additional ones gained from the CP farm relic... Sure, Guard might start to run out of ideas if they are double farming CP, but, still easy to burn through them - especially now you don't have to limit yourself as much!
My Raven Guard also, will now happily spend CP on 5 units to SftS with them, leaving me with another 5CP to spend on other things.
Earth127 wrote: That's the idea. They said on stream (tough the audio was of so I may have misunderstood) that armies that can already cheaply fill out stuff just end up not spending all their CP so it doesn't buff them (IG) as much as you might think.
1) Multiple FNP no longer stacks
2) The smite nerf is now official, but GK and TS mini-smite are excepted
3) Deep strike only in your own deployment zone in the first battle-round
4) Battalion +5CP, Brigade +12 CP 5) Dark Reapers got a point increase, Commissars got a decrease
6) No more Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari soup detachments. You can still soup up, but you will need separate detachments to do so.
7) Tide of Traitors can only be used once per battle
8) The same datasheet can only be included three times in a battleforged army, unless it is a troop or dedicated transport
Eh, once again they've missed something (unless the FW rumours are true...)
Elysian Lord Commisars still cost 61 points lol, but all the others dropped significantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, is it just me, or did the cost of the flyrant only go up by 20 points? (well 14 if you take 2 devourers and 2 rending claws)
People that were salty about GW continue to be salty about GW.
People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW.
People who want 40k to be something it isn't are continually disappointed.
People who are comfortable with 40k where its at are fine.
Kdash wrote: Eh, once again they've missed something (unless the FW rumours are true...)
Elysian Lord Commisars still cost 61 points lol, but all the others dropped significantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, is it just me, or did the cost of the flyrant only go up by 20 points? (well 14 if you take 2 devourers and 2 rending claws)
Its fine. 3 Flyrants isn't really the problem. 7 was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, is it just me, or did the cost of the flyrant only go up by 20 points? (well 14 if you take 2 devourers and 2 rending claws)
Flyrabt spam has been heavily nerfed by the nerf to deepstrike in the first Battle-round.
comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.
