Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:

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.

Earth shattering FAQ, that was.

Uhh - I don't think you are paying attention. If going backwards doesn't make you upset - there is just no saving you.

Q: When a Psyker in my army casts the Quicken psychic
power on one of my units, can that unit Advance when it makes
this move?
A: Yes.

Doesn't this go against the previous FAQ, stating if a unit advances in the movement phase, then gets to move again due to a power/ability/stratagem they use the same movement value as they used in the movement phase. This reads like you now choose to advance, then potentially roll another advance die instead?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

Do you know what a summary of changes is? It should include all the changes - otherwise it is not a summary.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

Do you know what a summary of changes is? It should include all the changes - otherwise it is not a summary.

Here was me thinking that summaries usually had less content than the things they summarized, rather than just being a copy & paste.

I think the changes to deepstrike and the 0-3 limit will shift the meta significantly, and probably in a good way.

I wanted more points changes, but I can understand not wanting to change too many things at once.

Hopefully these will be most of the major rules changes we need, and the focus in chapter approved can be on tweaking points to make the armies more balanced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW..

I'm disappointed in the lack of some changes. I'm just not making grand statements about how much I hate GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW..

I'm disappointed in the lack of some changes. I'm just not making grand statements about how much I hate GW.

I think some disappointment is fine. I'm a bit disappointed myself, as there are a few things I'd've liked to see that weren't addressed.

When I say "salty" I mean "irrationally upset" not merely disappointed.

About what I expected honestly. The CP increase surprises me, if only because it makes cheap guard battalion even more powerful.

the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

 Earth127 wrote:
the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

Yes. Baneblades used to be, RAW, able to overwatch even if an enemy was already standing within 1". Now, they can still shoot, but cannot overwatch, which is an excellent change. Even as someone who benefitted from the earlier RAW, being able to have essentially unstoppable overwatch was very much anti-fun, especially combined with Defensive Gunners stratagem, et al.

jcd386 wrote:
I think the changes to deepstrike and the 0-3 limit will shift the meta significantly, and probably in a good way.

I wanted more points changes, but I can understand not wanting to change too many things at once.

Hopefully these will be most of the major rules changes we need, and the focus in chapter approved can be on tweaking points to make the armies more balanced.

I totally agree and this makes me very optimistic about the direction of the game

Kdash wrote:
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?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
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?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
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?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

I still try to stick to the rule even when not at a tournament, because where and when I will be playing a given list is not always the same. Better to be more restrictive when it is unnecessary, than to learn of new restrictions after you've gotten accustomed to working without them.

Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
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?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

You mean the same suggestion that limits to 3 Detachments

Yeah, every game is free to play 0-10 datasheets with 10 detachments at 1000 points on a 12*8 table if they want to
the same as they may use the matched play rules

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

I think all the tournement rules will be the standard for matched play and pick up games in most areas. They are in mine, anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

Before anyone asks:

Custodes, BA, GK

Audustum wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

Before anyone asks:

Custodes, BA, GK

Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

Possibly but the changes to deep strike are a big screw you to BA, Guilliman gets another buff. Like at this point Marines are dead and people just need to accept that fact.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
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?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

I still try to stick to the rule even when not at a tournament, because where and when I will be playing a given list is not always the same. Better to be more restrictive when it is unnecessary, than to learn of new restrictions after you've gotten accustomed to working without them.

In answer to the original question - yes it does adhere to the rule of 3 rule. The HQs are essentially 1 commander, 3 fireblades and an etheral. Could prob swap things around to go 2 commanders and still have enough threat whilst keeping the brigade + battalion format. (still also contains drones, a riptide, ghostkeels, broadsides etc etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

Possibly but the changes to deep strike are a big screw you to BA, Guilliman gets another buff. Like at this point Marines are dead and people just need to accept that fact.

Raven Guard now become a premier assault army, either hitting all at once, or in a couple of waves. 14CP is now not really "unobtainable" for them, and gives them plenty of options to just use SftS instead of deepstriking. Also, with the deep strike change, you might see a drop off of certain screening units, meaning you're more likely to be able to get into the position you want.

Of course, you still get hammered if you lose the roll off to go first, but it's potentially survivable.

Yeah I was hoping for a sfts Nerf this FAQ

 Earth127 wrote:
the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

Yeah the issue is not a guard army it is say a custodes army that was running a guard CP factory just got 2 extra CP. So it helps elite armies by making a cheap guard battalion even more of an auto pick.

As expected by I think a lot of people they have gone for the simplistic solution, while not really adressing the underlying issue that was upsetting the player base.
They have also made any non codex faction eg assasins, sos, LOF fallen etc untenable in matched play

Ice_can wrote:
As expected by I think a lot of people they have gone for the simplistic solution, while not really adressing the underlying issue that was upsetting the player base.
They have also made any non codex faction eg assasins, sos, LOF fallen etc untenable in matched play

I take it you didn't read the FAQ then?

I did but who's going to give up a full detachment to field a minimum of 3 assasins? As you have yo make a legal vanguard detachment without an HQ. Such a bizarre way to solve the problem.

I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Ice_can wrote:
I did but who's going to give up a full detachment to field a minimum of 3 assasins? As you have yo make a legal vanguard detachment without an HQ. Such a bizarre way to solve the problem.

Two Eversors and a Callidus is a perfectly competative detachment, not needing to fork out for a HQ is a buff, and given the CP for a Brigade and a Batallion has gone up, you'll likely have more, not less command points afterwards.

Seems good to me?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it. Literally none of the core issues were addressed, instead they took nearly a month longer than promised to hand us half thought out bandaids that will do nothing but make the balance WORSE.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it.

Yes, guard are indisputably going to be better after this.

They totally needed that.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it.

OTOH mortar spam is limited. I'd like to see the lists shake out first.

Meanwhile i'm going ebay hunting tonight.

Honestly though mono guard was hardly great prior to this. I haven’t lost to guard since their CA time frame nerfs. There are still units that are a threat to guard, scout style moves got a “buff” due the this change, as did pregame “infiltrate” abilities”

Breng77 wrote:
Honestly though mono guard was hardly great prior to this. I haven’t lost to guard since their CA time frame nerfs. There are still units that are a threat to guard, scout style moves got a “buff” due the this change, as did pregame “infiltrate” abilities”

I just accept the IG hate and move on - engaging them is pointless...

Tzaangors got crushed by the change to warptime-type moves. On one hand the spiteful bitch in me is happy to see the birdgoatmen get their comeuppance but on the other hand it's kinda sad that Thousand Sons will be totally out of the meta after this.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Tzaangors got crushed by the change to warptime-type moves. On one hand the spiteful bitch in me is happy to see the birdgoatmen get their comeuppance but on the other hand it's kinda sad that Thousand Sons will be totally out of the meta after this.

We're not out at all. Tzaangor bombs were bs crutches that didn't actually win that many games.

Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

In general it was not in the ways we know it. You just can't take a mish mash detachment anymore, which makes it a little harder for some lists to get all the tools.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

In general it was not in the ways we know it. You just can't take a mish mash detachment anymore, which makes it a little harder for some lists to get all the tools.

RIP celestine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Tzaangors got crushed by the change to warptime-type moves. On one hand the spiteful bitch in me is happy to see the birdgoatmen get their comeuppance but on the other hand it's kinda sad that Thousand Sons will be totally out of the meta after this.

We're not out at all. Tzaangor bombs were bs crutches that didn't actually win that many games.

The only blip on the radar that Thousand Sons have made is the exact "Ahriman, DPoT, and some tzaangors" detachment in a Chaos Soup list that I predicted would be all the codex would amount to. I'll take results over your stubborn positivity any day, Daedalus.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

In general it was not in the ways we know it. You just can't take a mish mash detachment anymore, which makes it a little harder for some lists to get all the tools.

RIP celestine.

Use an Aux.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

In general it was not in the ways we know it. You just can't take a mish mash detachment anymore, which makes it a little harder for some lists to get all the tools.

RIP celestine.

Use an Aux.

Oh, right, yes, I'm sure people will be perfectly happy compressing their existing 3 detachments into 2, just so they can keep using Celestine. At least they got more CP to offset having to pay one.

Or take her with some actual sisters, but yeah we’ll see less Celestine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Having a hard time understanding how soup was fixed. maybe I just don't understand fully the difference between Soup and Battery armies.

In general it was not in the ways we know it. You just can't take a mish mash detachment anymore, which makes it a little harder for some lists to get all the tools.

RIP celestine.

Use an Aux.

See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

So you're saying it's not a problem whatsoever - great- let's move on then.

Look its not going to fix everything, or even most of everything, but its something. I think it is hard to argue that these changes are going to make things worse (though several have tried already), and it has clearly forced a fairly significant meta shift, at least in some ways. Can see why people are disappointed, but it made things better however nominally, and progress is progress. Even if it brought the top tier to average list differential from 35% to 30 or 25% we will start to feel it in the meta. And hopefully they will build on this with CA2018.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it. Literally none of the core issues were addressed, instead they took nearly a month longer than promised to hand us half thought out bandaids that will do nothing but make the balance WORSE.

Because Guard, as a whole, hasn't been "overpowered" since the Conscripts nerf... they have been good, but are usually relegated to a detachment for Command Points for things like Custodes.

We'll have to see, I don't think this will break much TBH. Just have to see how it shakes out. I don't see people complaining Tau are OP, and they have a much more diverse dex than AM.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

Why are you losing the 3 CP? If you have 3 detachments that have imperium in their key words you're still good to go. All the new rule did, is in effect, limit players to 3 Codices max (counting FW as the same codex as its base).

 Zid wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it. Literally none of the core issues were addressed, instead they took nearly a month longer than promised to hand us half thought out bandaids that will do nothing but make the balance WORSE.

Because Guard, as a whole, hasn't been "overpowered" since the Conscripts nerf... they have been good, but are usually relegated to a detachment for Command Points for things like Custodes.

We'll have to see, I don't think this will break much TBH. Just have to see how it shakes out. I don't see people complaining Tau are OP, and they have a much more diverse dex than AM.

Not realy index TAU was overcosted and while a lot got cheaper going to codex, it was only enough to balance them. Not drop them down to undercosted, they also lack all the ignore line of sight shenanigans that Guard can pull. They are also extermely vulnerable as to MW spam.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

Why are you losing the 3 CP? If you have 3 detachments that have imperium in their key words you're still good to go. All the new rule did, is in effect, limit players to 3 Codices max (counting FW as the same codex as its base).

Most "game breaking" or "Overpowered" strategems are limited as it is... are there any specific strategems that now will break the game so hard with that many CP? Most armies will just be using these to reroll a dice a phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Zid wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
I like the FAQ's.

Lots of hyperbole and whining on here, but really overall they're good. Sorry to you folks who purchased a billion of a single large model.... hopefully ya'll borrowed most of em.

Even with 0-3 you can still take 12 Leman russes and 9 Bassilisks and a slew of other things

While technically correct, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone take this many. Usually it's ~5 or 6 LRBTs or the like, and one tank commander.

Hence why the limits are a bad idea. the ENTIRE faq left guard untouched and hamped ways to counter it. Literally none of the core issues were addressed, instead they took nearly a month longer than promised to hand us half thought out bandaids that will do nothing but make the balance WORSE.

Because Guard, as a whole, hasn't been "overpowered" since the Conscripts nerf... they have been good, but are usually relegated to a detachment for Command Points for things like Custodes.

We'll have to see, I don't think this will break much TBH. Just have to see how it shakes out. I don't see people complaining Tau are OP, and they have a much more diverse dex than AM.

Not realy index TAU was overcosted and while a lot got cheaper going to codex, it was only enough to balance them. Not drop them down to undercosted, they also lack all the ignore line of sight shenanigans that Guard can pull. They are also vulnerable as hell to MW spam.

Which the Smite beta limited greatly, only a few armies can apply a lot of mortal wounds (generally Nurgle). Guard have a few guns that can shoot ignoring LOS, as do Death Guard, and a few other armies (Nids). But really, how are they now overpowered compared to others? This is what I fail to see.

 Zid wrote:
Most "game breaking" or "Overpowered" strategems are limited as it is... are there any specific strategems that now will break the game so hard with that many CP? Most armies will just be using these to reroll a dice a phase.

Endless Cacophony on my Slaanesh Obliterators. They will be arriving from reserves turn 2 and firing twice. Then again on turn 3. Then again on turn 4.

Seriously, my main Chaos list now has 20 CPs. With the ToT nerf, not sure what else I would use the points for.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

Why are you losing the 3 CP? If you have 3 detachments that have imperium in their key words you're still good to go. All the new rule did, is in effect, limit players to 3 Codices max (counting FW as the same codex as its base).

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium. But as stated it doesn’t matter, you gain an additional 3 for brigade, and 2 for Battalion. Meaning nothing is lost to the top tier lists.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
See that's what I'm not understanding with +12 CP for a Brigade and 2 detachments to add whatever you like you can still abuse the game with 17 CP easily. So what if you don't get +3 for battle forged. Please find the fault in my logic.

Why are you losing the 3 CP? If you have 3 detachments that have imperium in their key words you're still good to go. All the new rule did, is in effect, limit players to 3 Codices max (counting FW as the same codex as its base).

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium. But as stated it doesn’t matter, you gain an additional 3 for brigade, and 2 for Battalion. Meaning nothing is lost to the top tier lists.

What? No, it doesn't say you lose 3 CP for Imperium. The restriction has nothing to do with armies - it's merely detachments that cannot mix units now. Armies can still freely mix detachments.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Imperium keyword is banned within a detachment. I am not certain the stream indicated that it was banned in the whole army.

what's the point of that? guard detatchments are a dime a dozen.

It was more for the Ynnari problem.

It does not effect Ynnari since the Ynnari keyword is already limited to pure Ynnari detachments.

Ynnari does not replace the other keywords so it still has a minor effect. The only change is detachments that want to use the Ynnari keyword must include a member of the Triumvirate and must all use the same craftworld/cult/coven trait. This means no mixing kabalites with dark reaprers or Eldrad with Saim-Hann shining spears.

Kdash wrote:
Slight nerf to the Eldar CP farm as well. Autarchs can no longer roll for CP when your opponent spends them.

Never could.

 kodos wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

Correct, and with the Battalion and Brigade getting more CPs, you have to make harder choices for mixing those factions.
Is it worth taking all the units needed for a Battalion just to get some units from Faction X when the rest of my army is Faction Y?
In general, armies that stick to the same faction should get more CPs, or have to make more of a commitment to the Faction that they only wanted to add a unit or 2 of.

-

Audustum wrote:
Before anyone asks:

Custodes, BA, GK

DA also didn't get a specific FAQ

 Galef wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

Correct, and with the Battalion and Brigade getting more CPs, you have to make harder choices for mixing those factions.
Is it worth taking all the units needed for a Battalion just to get some units from Faction X when the rest of my army is Faction Y?
In general, armies that stick to the same faction should get more CPs, or have to make more of a commitment to the Faction that they only wanted to add a unit or 2 of.

-

This is laughably false. Soup armies are exactly the same except now that get more CP for their guard CP farm than they did before.

ERJAK wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

Correct, and with the Battalion and Brigade getting more CPs, you have to make harder choices for mixing those factions.
Is it worth taking all the units needed for a Battalion just to get some units from Faction X when the rest of my army is Faction Y?
In general, armies that stick to the same faction should get more CPs, or have to make more of a commitment to the Faction that they only wanted to add a unit or 2 of.

-

This is laughably false. Soup armies are exactly the same except now that get more CP for their guard CP farm than they did before.

of course soup is the same
or did you really think that the soup GW was talking regarding nerfs about is the same that is played outside the GW HQ

So no one is now going to play the overpowered Chaos Brigade Detachment soup, all the people were complaining about any more

the same way as GW said they removed Deathstars from the game, but were talking about something different and now we just call them bubblewrap instead

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Most "game breaking" or "Overpowered" strategems are limited as it is... are there any specific strategems that now will break the game so hard with that many CP? Most armies will just be using these to reroll a dice a phase.

Endless Cacophony on my Slaanesh Obliterators. They will be arriving from reserves turn 2 and firing twice. Then again on turn 3. Then again on turn 4.

Seriously, my main Chaos list now has 20 CPs. With the ToT nerf, not sure what else I would use the points for.

Right, but thats one squad per turn shooting twice. Its not THAT game breaking. Still great, but not OP. Plus many other armies can do that too... its not a special case.

ERJAK wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

Correct, and with the Battalion and Brigade getting more CPs, you have to make harder choices for mixing those factions.
Is it worth taking all the units needed for a Battalion just to get some units from Faction X when the rest of my army is Faction Y?
In general, armies that stick to the same faction should get more CPs, or have to make more of a commitment to the Faction that they only wanted to add a unit or 2 of.

-

This is laughably false. Soup armies are exactly the same except now that get more CP for their guard CP farm than they did before.

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

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

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

Here are some observations:

1) Plasma not nerfed
2) Apparently GW love CP and want us to have more
3) Commander nerf = everything

 peteralmo wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

In the Beta rules you would lose battle-forged for Imperium.

No, Imperium still counts for the army, so a Space Marine Detachment, Guard Detachment and SoB Detachment is still a Battle Forged army

Correct, and with the Battalion and Brigade getting more CPs, you have to make harder choices for mixing those factions.
Is it worth taking all the units needed for a Battalion just to get some units from Faction X when the rest of my army is Faction Y?
In general, armies that stick to the same faction should get more CPs, or have to make more of a commitment to the Faction that they only wanted to add a unit or 2 of.

-

This is laughably false. Soup armies are exactly the same except now that get more CP for their guard CP farm than they did before.

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

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

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

Thanks guys this is the type of commentary I needed. Thought I missed something when I read the FAQ the first go.

Most Celestine list Ive seen, she is taken as an Aux detachment for -1 CP.

Poor admech only have 2 hq choices. They might not be able to brigade any more.... or double brigade at least

gendoikari87 wrote:
Poor admech only have 2 hq choices. They might not be able to brigade any more.... or double brigade at least

Who needs 33 27 command points?
Brigades are already rarely worth the tax. Why would anyone want 2 Oo

Becomes more important at 3k, 4k etc games.

Well assuming they can burn that many CP. But Brigade+other detachments becomes also issue.

BTW wouldn't that be 27 anyway? 12 per brigade+3

tneva82 wrote:
Becomes more important at 3k, 4k etc games.

Well assuming they can burn that many CP. But Brigade+other detachments becomes also issue.

BTW wouldn't that be 27 anyway? 12 per brigade+3

The 0-3 limit is higher at higher points.
And Brigades are now +15 (and +5 for Battalions).

Don't forget that a 3k game let you have 4 of each data sheet. This also bring the minor question of what GW's intentions are for games over 3k points. Do they want trend on the chart to continue? Or do the floodgates open up at 3001 points?

I would assume that they don't intend you to use the organized play rules for games that large. I mean seriously is anyone running a tournament with 4k per army? Or a league?

It would seem they intend for you to use the Apoc rules from CA, which use PL and not matched play rules.

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Becomes more important at 3k, 4k etc games.

Well assuming they can burn that many CP. But Brigade+other detachments becomes also issue.

BTW wouldn't that be 27 anyway? 12 per brigade+3

The 0-3 limit is higher at higher points.
And Brigades are now +15 (and +5 for Battalions).

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

That claims it went from 9 to 12

The 0-3 limit is higher at higher points.
And Brigades are now +15 (and +5 for Battalions).

Brigades went from +9 to +12, not +12 to +15.

Woops my bad, the point still stands 27 CP is more then you can ever usefully spend.