Galas wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

or you know, Marines get 2+ Terminators get 1+ armor...... solves both problems

In Age of Sigmar nearly all Seraphon (Lizardmen) have the rule to ignore the rend (AP) of weapons unless is -2 Rend or better. They could give the same rule to Terminator armour. Or the reducing ap 1 point with a minimun of 0. That works too.

Thats a good idea.

@Spoletta: Giving Marines a 2+ against basic shooting though isn't really a great idea... I mean, you could lower Terminators to a 1+, but I wouldn't touch basic marines.

Or you could you know fix the problem of plasma being OP as hell instead of tinkering with the symptoms.
Are Terminators are over cost, yes
Would allowing them to ignore -1ap weapons help, not realy its mostly -3ap to take them to a 5+save weapons they die to especially when its 2D per shot. Even worse when that weapon is wounding on 2+ (death guard and custodes at t5 are insanely more durable than marines, t4 helps agains S6 S7 weapons only.(i know technically it also helps S3 S4 but who is shooting terminators with s3/4 shooting)

Do terminators do enough damage? Shooting terminators definataly do not their points, assualt terminators with the right target can but its a real edge case. They either need more damage output or they need to be given a skill buff shooting terminators being BS2+ and assualts at WS2+ would realy make them a lot better.

I'd like to be able to give my chaos terminators dual close combat weapons.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

or you know, Marines get 2+ Terminators get 1+ armor...... solves both problems

In Age of Sigmar nearly all Seraphon (Lizardmen) have the rule to ignore the rend (AP) of weapons unless is -2 Rend or better. They could give the same rule to Terminator armour. Or the reducing ap 1 point with a minimun of 0. That works too.

How do you do this without making Custodes even more OP?

Well, Custodes Terminators wear special Allarus cathapractii armour that already has a 5++ instead of a 4++ base, so they can not have that special rule. Or just make them more expensive.

 Marmatag wrote:

How do you do this without making Custodes even more OP?

I'd suggested something like this before and said it should be tied to having an all Marine Detachment. Call it "Armour of Contempt" or something fluffy-ish like that and have it so that anything with the "Terminator" keyword got to roll to potentially ignore wounds from anything that didn't have an AP of at least -1.

I personally think a good fix might be to make normal Terminator armor reduce wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1.

This way, 1D guns are still just as good as now, 3D kills them outright, but 2D takes 2 shots to kill them.

I can't really think of any downsides. You'd probably want to not give this ability to paladins and custodes, which feels weird, but the difference (termies having my rule vs having 3W--which is better vs 1D guns--on custodes and paladins) could just be said to be sightly different kinds of armor.

Why? Paladins are overcosted garbage. Custodes gak on Paladins.

But they are durable enough, I think. You at least need to direct heavy guns at them. If they are still bad with their current stat line I'd just ajdust their points values.

jcd386 wrote:
I personally think a good fix might be to make normal Terminator armor reduce wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1.

This way, 1D guns are still just as good as now, 3D kills them outright, but 2D takes 2 shots to kill them.

That is a really neat idea. I like it. Probably limit it to shooting only. Power Fists / Power Klaws are already kinda ineffective for what they should do.

Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

why should admech be exempted?

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Well some factions don't have much choices when it comes to HQ, so I doubt they will make it a general rule. If anything some HQ's will get a special rule for it.
Then again, as long as they're matched-play-only rules I'm fine with whatever.

 carldooley wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

why should admech be exempted?

Would make brigades kinda hard to play seeing they are required then to field Cawl. Would be kinda weird idea that NO BRIGADE WHATSOEVER ever is fielded without Cawl. And isn't his forge set in stone as well? So no other forges ever would field brigade

Yeah, it'd be impossible to field a non-Mars admech brigade since there's only two other HQ choices. Farsight Enclaves would have a similar problem I think

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

Any faction with limited HQs will hurt like Tau do now. Any sept besides T'au basically adds 1 Commander and then flips a coin to see if they add an ethereal or fireblade cause those are the only two options left. I really hope they remove the limitation since most armies can shrug it off like nothing.

 admironheart wrote:
Remove Custodes and their flying hippo models from the game would be a nice start.

Better to have a Rogue Trader army with a Navigator, mercs and other imperial units than some luny faction like golden Hill Giants in the empire.

Given there are 10k Custodes, they technically make 10x more sense than any specific SM Chapter having a Codex...

Apart from one faction in the tau dex can only field commander plus fireblades anyway so its just fireblade spam instead of commanders if you go for larger detachments, but seriously who outside of guard is regularly taking a brigade at 1.5 to 2k?

I think it isn't as simple as just letting everyone or no one take X number of HQs since they are all so different.

Admech and most other armies are likely fine without HQ restrictions. Its really only Tau and Nids that seem to have HQs that are so good you are silly not to put all of your points into them.

I think with Tau the fact that the commanders can hide behind other units and also be some of the most effective shooting units in the game poses a problem. You probably don't want someone to run 7 of them from a "is this game fun" perspective, but you still want them to be a good unit. So limiting them send like a reasonable solution. The only other options are probably nerfing their effectiveness or increasing their cost so much that no one wants to take more than a few of them, and that's not much fun either.

For nids, to me it seems like the flying hive tyrant is mostly just too good at what it does for how much it costs. 7 of them dropping in is just such a powerful alphastrike, and they are effective in all phases of the game.

I don't see any other races having similar issues. If someone really wanted to bring 7 space marine commanders, librarians, etc, Or any other "small" HQ unit, I don't think that would be a big balance issue.

Hq restrictions are stupid and a stop gap. Just point the damn things appropriately and you won’t have a fething problem


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also any bets on how the knight codex is handled? Knights stil shoehorned into super heavy detachments?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also any bets on how the knight codex is handled? Knights stil shoehorned into super heavy detachments?

Surely yes, right? Why would the armigers be lords of war otherwise?

jcd386 wrote:
I think it isn't as simple as just letting everyone or no one take X number of HQs since they are all so different.

Admech and most other armies are likely fine without HQ restrictions. Its really only Tau and Nids that seem to have HQs that are so good you are silly not to put all of your points into them.

I think with Tau the fact that the commanders can hide behind other units and also be some of the most effective shooting units in the game poses a problem. You probably don't want someone to run 7 of them from a "is this game fun" perspective, but you still want them to be a good unit. So limiting them send like a reasonable solution. The only other options are probably nerfing their effectiveness or increasing their cost so much that no one wants to take more than a few of them, and that's not much fun either.

For nids, to me it seems like the flying hive tyrant is mostly just too good at what it does for how much it costs. 7 of them dropping in is just such a powerful alphastrike, and they are effective in all phases of the game.

I don't see any other races having similar issues. If someone really wanted to bring 7 space marine commanders, librarians, etc, Or any other "small" HQ unit, I don't think that would be a big balance issue.

Daemon princes, Blood Angel thunderhammer captains, Grandmaster Dreadknights (balanced since the rest of their codex is trash), IG tank commanders, literally any smite spam HQ that wasn't nerfed into the ground already, all come to mind. While some are >10W and can be targeted, they are all HQs that can be spammed since they are more cost effective. People keep saying its a uniquely Tau/Nid issue and it isn't.

PiñaColada wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also any bets on how the knight codex is handled? Knights stil shoehorned into super heavy detachments?

Surely yes, right? Why would the armigers be lords of war otherwise?

Indeed. With Armigers Knights now have a cheaper unit to fill a LoW detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think it isn't as simple as just letting everyone or no one take X number of HQs since they are all so different.

Admech and most other armies are likely fine without HQ restrictions. Its really only Tau and Nids that seem to have HQs that are so good you are silly not to put all of your points into them.

I think with Tau the fact that the commanders can hide behind other units and also be some of the most effective shooting units in the game poses a problem. You probably don't want someone to run 7 of them from a "is this game fun" perspective, but you still want them to be a good unit. So limiting them send like a reasonable solution. The only other options are probably nerfing their effectiveness or increasing their cost so much that no one wants to take more than a few of them, and that's not much fun either.

For nids, to me it seems like the flying hive tyrant is mostly just too good at what it does for how much it costs. 7 of them dropping in is just such a powerful alphastrike, and they are effective in all phases of the game.

I don't see any other races having similar issues. If someone really wanted to bring 7 space marine commanders, librarians, etc, Or any other "small" HQ unit, I don't think that would be a big balance issue.

Daemon princes, Blood Angel thunderhammer captains, Grandmaster Dreadknights (balanced since the rest of their codex is trash), IG tank commanders, literally any smite spam HQ that wasn't nerfed into the ground already, all come to mind. While some are >10W and can be targeted, they are all HQs that can be spammed since they are more cost effective. People keep saying its a uniquely Tau/Nid issue and it isn't.

Custodes jetbike captains is another.

I fought an army with Magnus, Mortarion, Blood Thirster, Keeper of Secrets and, a Lord of Change. It didn't have much troop support but it was a bear (and he got to go first).

Post Adepticon after playing 3 Nurgle deamons lists, they seriously need a FNP nerf or points increase.

-1 to hit armies have got to go!

I'd also like to see Guilliman go to 10W....

 chimeara wrote:
I'd also like to see Guilliman go to 10W....

hah, back handed buff

So April or may folks? We thinking this or infinity war come out first?

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

Well, Farsight only has 2 options as well. (commander + fireblade). So long as the enginseer is not limited it would be comparable.

I think his phrasing was a little too all inclusive.

Dandelion wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

Well, Farsight only has 2 options as well. (commander + fireblade). So long as the enginseer is not limited it would be comparable.

I think his phrasing was a little too all inclusive.

Sisters have St. C (1 per army) and Canoness so that would be tricky

The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

That's what I assume as well, the problem becomes where you'd draw the arbritrary line for "restriction worthy" though

Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Why would you move Platoon Commanders to HQ?

Tau had sub-commanders, in 4th.

And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

That's incorrect, there are detachments that only require 1 HQ slot - in theory you never have to take more than Commanders at current. In practice it means 3 suits and 1 other HQ.

Meant to type battalion detachment and skipped the battalion....

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

My all suits list already pretty much conformed to the restrictions because I wanted to eschew troops. Anyone who is bitchy at this point just wants to have his cake and get to spend it on CP rerolls too

gendoikari87 wrote:
Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

I think part of the problem my be that GW in their wisdom want all instances of a certain weapon to have the same points value, and because HQs often have 2+ WS/BS and a boatload of attacks they can get a lot more out of the weapon than a regular grunt. Do you cost the HQ assuming they will max out on weaponry though, as that makes them overcosted if they take less weapons?

Mark.

Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Why would you move Platoon Commanders to HQ?

Mostly because I dislike running 2+ company commanders for a single "platoon".
They're also in the way for things like veterans, special weapons teams and command squads. A platoon commander and his command squad take up 2 elite slots for 5 infantry models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

I would rather have a fair limitation applied to all factions as part of the core of army building. So marine captains are limited to 1, same with IG company commanders, techpriest dominus etc... Because if anything were to be limited it should be HQs. However, many factions can't handle that limit too well due to the lack of HQ options, and the multiple HQs required for detachments. To solve this, every faction would need weaker spammable HQs to make up for it.

Until then, any restriction is a bad idea.

Give Tau a sub-commander though and I'll stop caring about the commander limit.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

This is true but also very very hard to do with units that so wildly more efficient than others. For a Tau Coldstar as it exists in the current codex, I personally would want to see it at between 275-350 points but I know for a FACT that the first tau player who reads this would disagree by a factor of at least 100pts.

How did you come up with that value?
They are 180 points for 4 fusion anyway which is compairable to in points coat to a fuad las predator. Ok its 20 inch move but weapon range is 18 so 38 inch 58 is advancing thats 10 inch more than a predator, t5 vrs t7 6w vrs 11w not seeing the justification for adding 100 to 150 points over a predator.

point stuff on a sliding scale

across the board, a bit like how HH handles some units, so a unit costs "X" per model, but expanding it costs "Y"

could do the same with HQ, one costs "X" additional ones start to get more expensive

Ice_can wrote:
How did you come up with that value?
They are 180 points for 4 fusion anyway which is compairable to in points coat to a fuad las predator. Ok its 20 inch move but weapon range is 18 so 38 inch 58 is advancing thats 10 inch more than a predator, t5 vrs t7 6w vrs 11w not seeing the justification for adding 100 to 150 points over a predator.

I can see a trend of coldstars becoming character/priority target assassin's.

That's what I immediately thought of once I saw the changes.

Declare Mont'ka and that 40" move ideally would get you close enough or in a position where the character rule won't affect you.

Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

 davou wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

My all suits list already pretty much conformed to the restrictions because I wanted to eschew troops. Anyone who is bitchy at this point just wants to have his cake and get to spend it on CP rerolls too

Or, yaknow, have kroot or breachers as troops-who actually fit FSE playstyle and flavor far more than static gunlines?


How can anyone stand behind a decision to FORCE gunline on tau players as a good decision is beyond me.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

The Salamanders trait is overall a joke. The HQ units you're running are basically gonna give you the same benefit. I'd rather have seen them get something akin to the Lucius (which really would show them as Artisans instead of getting an overall redundant rule).

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

...well...and there is the problem that they are cheating if they are spending 10 CP in a single shooting phase (I assume you mean they are spending it on their flamer stratagem since you referenced a "points increase for spammed chapter tactics"). They can only spend it 1x per shooting phase.

The only SM Stratagem that really needs fixing (as in, a nerf) is RG Strike from the Shadows. That's the only one that can be "spammed". And if they nerf that, then they need to buff at least 7 other Space Marine stratagems that never get used because they are so unit-model specific and/or crappy;

Linebreaker
Killshot
Orbital Bombardment
Empyric Channeling
Datalink Telemetry
Tactical Flexibility
Armor of Contempt

He meant that Salamander units can re-roll either a hit or wound roll each round without expending a CP. So 10 Salamander units each taking advantage of a re-roll is equivalent to spending 10CP.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
He meant that Salamander units can re-roll either a hit or wound roll each round without expending a CP. So 10 Salamander units each taking advantage of a re-roll is equivalent to spending 10CP.

Ok I understand now, thank you. In fairness, I don't think he really expressed that idea supremely well.

Still...not sure I'm tracking...They basically kinda get 1/5 of a Captain or 1/5 of a Lieutenant in every unit? This is broken/needs a nerf?

I've literally not heard a single person say that Salamanders need or might need nerfing. Nor have I heard anyone think it, dream it or feel it, in a 500 mile radius either. There's really only 2 competitive Space Marine options; Guilliman bubbles and Raven Guard SftS alphas with Vanguard/Aggressors/Assault Centurions. That's about it. And even the those aren't what I would call dominating.

It seems like all you need is a thread calling for x to get nerfed, and there are immediately supporters chiming in. Kind of amusing, really.

so it's march 30.... no faq..... come on GW you promised the faq in march and september and you're going to miss the first deadline? C'mon.

They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Personally, I found it hilarious that people started complaining about the FAQ deadline being missed at around noon on March 1st.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

They've only missed the deadline of March - there was no deadline before that.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

And as has been previously mentioned, had they released the FAQ this week without having a chance to consider Adepticon, there would have been an uproar about how "issue x, which Adepticon clearly showed, was in no way addressed by this FAQ!" There would have been questions about why they didn't delay and complaints about how we now have to wait until September to see the fix.

Tyran wrote:
Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

I don't agree. And this wouldn't fix spam, people would just take double devourers for 24 shots, if the aren't *already*.

No one cared about Flyrant spam until it did well in one major event that was suspect as all hell and favored durable models that don't give up kill points, and had no LOS blocking terrain. These same exact flyrant lists got curb stomped at LVO (which is a bigger event).

 Marmatag wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

I don't agree. And this wouldn't fix spam, people would just take double devourers for 24 shots, if the aren't *already*.

No one cared about Flyrant spam until it did well in one major event that was suspect as all hell and favored durable models that don't give up kill points, and had no LOS blocking terrain. These same exact flyrant lists got curb stomped at LVO (which is a bigger event).

It may not fix the spam, but Monstrous Rending Claws seriously needs a point cost.

To be fair GW came out of their Nottingham ivory tower and entered the world of cut throat US play. They may have been confronted with questions and situations that they hadn't considered in the past and now they feel the need to correct some of those things. Rather than putting out 2 separate documents they decided to keep it to only one more thing to look information up in.

Yeah, after the gak show that was Chapter Approved clearly not being built with the updates most recent to it in mind, I can wait a bit longer if it means getting something that isn't such an utter failure.

Tyran wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

I don't agree. And this wouldn't fix spam, people would just take double devourers for 24 shots, if the aren't *already*.

No one cared about Flyrant spam until it did well in one major event that was suspect as all hell and favored durable models that don't give up kill points, and had no LOS blocking terrain. These same exact flyrant lists got curb stomped at LVO (which is a bigger event).

It may not fix the spam, but Monstrous Rending Claws seriously needs a point cost.

Why? Maybe monstrous scything talons need to be +2 strength. They're auto-take not because they're free but because monstrous scything talons are garbage.

 Marmatag wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

I don't agree. And this wouldn't fix spam, people would just take double devourers for 24 shots, if the aren't *already*.

No one cared about Flyrant spam until it did well in one major event that was suspect as all hell and favored durable models that don't give up kill points, and had no LOS blocking terrain. These same exact flyrant lists got curb stomped at LVO (which is a bigger event).

Flyrants did worse at LVO because different missions were used (ICT secondaries heavily influence which units are good) plus it might be one major event in the US but from what I heard Flyrants have been doing well in the UK for some time, even back at LVO when Flyrants were brought up as an effective counter to Dark Reapers

I've been playing Tyranids for a while, i'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Flying Hive Tyrants. A 24 shot Tyrant against reapers outside of cover isn't a bad deal. But when the reapers have cover - and, when they can fire & fade, and receive Ynaari boosts - suddenly the Tyrants lose.

There's a reason why los blocking terrain / cover is a big deal, and a reason why Adepticon had wildly different results than LVO, aside from the missions.

I also play a TON of ITC format events. Adepticon favored them.

If anything this proves how far the ITC has come, and have balanced this kind of thing out of the meta with a diverse and interesting mission pack.

I do NOT agree that Tyrants are overpowered.

Yes they created a tournament where 5 out of the top 8th were based around dark reapers.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've been playing Tyranids for a while, i'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Flying Hive Tyrants. A 24 shot Tyrant against reapers outside of cover isn't a bad deal. But when the reapers have cover - and, when they can fire & fade, and receive Ynaari boosts - suddenly the Tyrants lose.

There's a reason why los blocking terrain / cover is a big deal, and a reason why Adepticon had wildly different results than LVO, aside from the missions.

I also play a TON of ITC format events. Adepticon favored them.

If anything this proves how far the ITC has come, and have balanced this kind of thing out of the meta with a diverse and interesting mission pack.

I do NOT agree that Tyrants are overpowered.

Coming from a Tyranid player who likes ITC rules, this doesn't come across as massively unbiased, either. It's lots of opinion, with little facts, and as the other poster noted, ITC just ended up with a totally different kind of spam, so not really fixing the issue.

 Marmatag wrote:


No one cared about Flyrant spam until it did well in one major event

To be fair this is the first mainstream exposure for people.

 Marmatag wrote:
I've been playing Tyranids for a while, i'm well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Flying Hive Tyrants. A 24 shot Tyrant against reapers outside of cover isn't a bad deal. But when the reapers have cover - and, when they can fire & fade, and receive Ynaari boosts - suddenly the Tyrants lose.

There's a reason why los blocking terrain / cover is a big deal, and a reason why Adepticon had wildly different results than LVO, aside from the missions.

I also play a TON of ITC format events. Adepticon favored them.

If anything this proves how far the ITC has come, and have balanced this kind of thing out of the meta with a diverse and interesting mission pack.

I do NOT agree that Tyrants are overpowered.

I think they are mildly undercosted. And that mild undercosting is getting multiplied by 7 in these lists. Flyrants are better than you think.

I except that Grenade Launchers will be back at range of 36".

That is all that is needed.

 EnTyme wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

And as has been previously mentioned, had they released the FAQ this week without having a chance to consider Adepticon, there would have been an uproar about how "issue x, which Adepticon clearly showed, was in no way addressed by this FAQ!" There would have been questions about why they didn't delay and complaints about how we now have to wait until September to see the fix.

See here's why that's a bad idea. by the time they're done "fixing" things from the adepticon spam, there will be another they'll have to fix, and another and another and OOOPS it's september and we don't have the march faq.

Pinch it off already, yes it's not complete, no fething gak, it's never going to be. Drop it now, address flyrants in sept.

Could be that it's not just spam/broken balance their addressing... The design team was there at the doubles right? Perhaps they are addressing something toxic about tournament play? Perhaps a rules paradox came up in their games and they want to resolve it? Hell, maybe some of the FAQ questions we sent in started to make sense once they got to play against anyone but themselves.

Give them the benefit of the doubt once; if it becomes a regular habbit then give them flack

It's always "wait for x" or "give them slackfor now". This keeps going for decades. Would be nice for a change of pace for this mythical "one day" to actually appear rather than players constantly giving slack "for now"

tneva82 wrote:
It's always "wait for x" or "give them slackfor now". This keeps going for decades. Would be nice for a change of pace for this mythical "one day" to actually appear rather than players constantly giving slack "for now"

You mean like them putting out two codices a month? Or like them engaging on social media? Or them committing to a FAQ on a schedule instead of by the will of the gods? Or them offering list building tools? Or them answering questions on at shows and events? Or them engaging part of the community for playtesting?

yeah you're right, the gak they were up to 3 years ago certainly should be the meter stick by which we judge them now.

They missed ONE deadline that they set themselves, and they let us know right away why the missed it... Further that why amounts to "we found something that needs to be addressed"... When I started playing GW wouldn't have EVER looked at something that needed to be addressed, much less be actively trying to fix it. They CERTAINLY wouldn't have let us know about it.

gendoikari87 wrote:
See here's why that's a bad idea. by the time they're done "fixing" things from the adepticon spam, there will be another they'll have to fix, and another and another and OOOPS it's september and we don't have the march faq.

Pinch it off already, yes it's not complete, no fething gak, it's never going to be. Drop it now, address flyrants in sept.

1)
2) There will always be things to address - some less severe than others. That's why they committed to three touch points a year.

Yeah, this doesn't seem like a very big deal. Like, releasing a codex with major imbalances is a big deal. Best-case, that's not getting fixed for months, and if the unit is underpowered it might not be getting fixed for years. Delaying an update for a week or two is just whatever. It's annoying if you have a scheduled event, but TOs should obviously be setting cutoff dates for new rules that are well in advance of the event anyway.

I'd rather they take another month and give us a better product, personally.

It’s gw, there are ALWAYS balance issues to fix, always. If you wait for it to be perfect April will turn to may to September to Jan to never. If your going to pick March and sep as your faq times, hit your deadline and drop what you have. What’s left can be fixed in September


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If six months is bad for hive tyrant spam, over a year of IG brokenness is utterly absurd


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a perfect case of where the best is the enemy of good enough

Rocmistro 751335 9903622 wrote:

The only SM Stratagem that really needs fixing (as in, a nerf) is RG Strike from the Shadows. That's the only one that can be "spammed". And if they nerf that, then they need to buff at least 7 other Space Marine stratagems that never get used because they are so unit-model specific and/or crappy;

Linebreaker
Killshot
Orbital Bombardment
Empyric Channeling
Datalink Telemetry
Tactical Flexibility
Armor of Contempt

I've used Armor of Contempt with Sammael. When he's in his speeder, he has the Vehicle keyword. Other than that, though, yeah, those strats are pretty underwhelming.

Uh killshot needs no buff

Killshot is actually good. The only problem is it NEEDS three Predators. Kill one and it's gone.

Linebreaker suffers from Vindicators not being good.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh killshot needs no buff

It absolutely needs a buff - as it stands right now - 3 preds are required to use the fething stratagem - other than the much crappier line breaker bombardment of 3 vindicators - no other stratagem required 3 of anything to use (not that I can remember anyways. The eldar fireprism stratagem which is already twice as good (because it rerolls all hits and wounds) only requires 2. So go on and tell me how kill shot doesn't need a buff.

Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh killshot needs no buff

It absolutely needs a buff - as it stands right now - 3 preds are required to use the fething stratagem - other than the much crappier line breaker bombardment of 3 vindicators - no other stratagem required 3 of anything to use (not that I can remember anyways. The eldar fireprism stratagem which is already twice as good (because it rerolls all hits and wounds) only requires 2. So go on and tell me how kill shot doesn't need a buff.

As a guy whose using Killshot as a corner stone of his list, I'm perfectly fine with where it is.

I think the predator needs to be cheaper, being T7 3+ W11, rather than a killshot change.

Martel732 wrote:
I think the predator needs to be cheaper, being T7 3+ W11, rather than a killshot change.

I don't buy that one. Predator is good where it is and is. If you want to cheaper take HBs and Pred AC.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think the predator needs to be cheaper, being T7 3+ W11, rather than a killshot change.

I don't buy that one. Predator is good where it is and is. If you want to cheaper take HBs and Pred AC.

I agree, it's priced appropriately. It's still a SM tank, not a drukhari paper thing

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think the predator needs to be cheaper, being T7 3+ W11, rather than a killshot change.

I don't buy that one. Predator is good where it is and is. If you want to cheaper take HBs and Pred AC.

Yeah, that's exactly how I roll mine. 3 of them had zero issue dropping a Tesseract Vault, twice, yesterday. Spending all the points on the quad las preds is just silly IMO.

They are still too expensive kitted out as a dakka pred. They are stupid fragile for their cost.

If you are playing lists that can't kill 2 preds a turn you are not playing competitive lists.

Killshot only works if you get first turn or are playing casually.

It works great if you get first turn and castle up and are playing an army that has something to shoot with it on the board first turn (none of these things happen in competitive games).

It's so good we are seeing all the predator spam at major tournaments and really need to have a FAQ to make it weaker...

T7 3+ 11w just dies too easy. Too many guns are too good at shooting that particular toughness/save band.

Not having PoTMS means any moving against any of the -1 to hit armies reduces your shooting by half (3.6 expected wounds with rerolls of 1s for both shooting AND wounds against T7 3+ with pred AC to 1.8 having moved and -1).

Compared to other anti-tank options for 150 points i.e.

2x las cannon devs w/ cherub deal 6.17 expected wounds to the same t7 3+ for 120 points vs 4.5 for pred AC + H. bolters. Roughly 30% more expected damage for 25% less cost.

6.68 expected for las cannon + auto-cannon dread for 190 or 50% more damage for 25% more cost (and you get chapter tactics on the dread, no degrading and a 6+ FNP)

DA plasma ceptors get 21.8 expected damage (with overcharge and WfTDA) or 480% more damage for 16% more cost (and deepstrike so don't have to worry about getting alpha'd off the table, only good for one round of shooting but @ 22 wounds that's like an entire games worth [5 rounds] of shooting for that predator)

This is pretty basic stuff and is indicative why opinions on this site are so varied. Sure it works great in beer and pretzels but is a huge liability in competitive games...

Martel732 wrote:
They are still too expensive kitted out as a dakka pred. They are stupid fragile for their cost.

LRBT is 10.2 points per wound (T8)
LR is is 14.9 (T8 @ 2+)
Pred is 8.2
Hammerhead is 7.7

That puts the predator 6 points or so off from the Hammerhead if they have equivalent wounds. Hammerhead can fly, but doesn't have a variant like quad las pred (and not everything needs to be the same).

Baal is in a weird spot paying for the ability to advance faster.

I don't see how they're getting wrecked easily unless you regularly face tons of lascannons. Yes, they can die quick, but from the appropriate measure of force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:

2x las cannon devs w/ cherub deal 6.17 expected wounds to the same t7 3+ for 120 points vs 4.5 for pred AC + H. bolters. Roughly 30% more expected damage for 25% less cost.

Ok, now compare their durability to the predator.

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Uh killshot needs no buff

It absolutely needs a buff - as it stands right now - 3 preds are required to use the fething stratagem - other than the much crappier line breaker bombardment of 3 vindicators - no other stratagem required 3 of anything to use (not that I can remember anyways. The eldar fireprism stratagem which is already twice as good (because it rerolls all hits and wounds) only requires 2. So go on and tell me how kill shot doesn't need a buff.

Zoanthropes say hi.

Datalink telemetry would be a really good stratagem if whirlwinds were not overcosted.

Judging by how they waited until after adepticon, and persoanlly seeing how many flyrants there were.. go ahead and sell them now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

(snip)
Ok, now compare their durability to the predator.

Sure, against anti-tank weapons it takes about 8 las-cannon shots to just remove the 3 extra bodies (devs in cover) losing approx 1.5 models per 4 shots so to get rid of the next two devs (the guys with the las cannons) you need 4 more las cannon shots or 12 las cannon shots.

To take out the pred, 4 shots take off 5.2 wounds so 8-9 las cannons or easier to kill than the devs. (Odds of parking the pred in cover is much less than the devs in cover.)

Why am I shooting anti-tank weapons at the devs? Because when you run nothing but infantry what else are they going to shoot them at? Also range (not much shoots @ 48" that isn't anti-tank)

So 30% more damage, 25% less expensive and 33% more resilient...

edit: typo

Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

?

Surely addressing balance issues as quickly as possible is an improvement over letting them sit for a year.

Sounds like you want a bit more time to abuse your Flyrant list, or am I mistaken?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They are still too expensive kitted out as a dakka pred. They are stupid fragile for their cost.

LRBT is 10.2 points per wound (T8)
LR is is 14.9 (T8 @ 2+)
Pred is 8.2
Hammerhead is 7.7

That puts the predator 6 points or so off from the Hammerhead if they have equivalent wounds. Hammerhead can fly, but doesn't have a variant like quad las pred (and not everything needs to be the same).

Baal is in a weird spot paying for the ability to advance faster.

I don't see how they're getting wrecked easily unless you regularly face tons of lascannons. Yes, they can die quick, but from the appropriate measure of force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:

2x las cannon devs w/ cherub deal 6.17 expected wounds to the same t7 3+ for 120 points vs 4.5 for pred AC + H. bolters. Roughly 30% more expected damage for 25% less cost.

Ok, now compare their durability to the predator.

Leman Russ has T8 wounds, not T7, and its default weapon is better against a much wider range of targets than any given predator configuration. I use predators frequently, but I hate them for their inefficiency.

Predators are vulnerable to all kinds of crap that Leman Russ laughs at. Krak missiles, mortars, boltguns, autocannons, the list is rather long.

Am I the only one that thinks "Scions of Guilliman" should be available to all chapters? It's basically the Tactical doctrine from 7th. I'd like to see all chapters get access to it, then Ultramarines can get a stratagem not based around rerolls. We have "King rerolls himself" we don't need a stratagem based around them.

As far as Killshot and line breaker bombardment go, just make them proportional. For every X tanks add X. That way its weaker with only 2, but taking 3 would be more worth it

I also wouldn't mind stealing "Acquisition at any cost" from Ad-mech, along with "Machine Spirit Resurgence". But I don't see that happening.

And Naturally I want chapter tactics for everything like everyone else now

bananathug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

(snip)
Ok, now compare their durability to the predator.

Sure, against anti-tank weapons it takes about 8 las-cannon shots to just remove the 3 extra bodies (devs in cover) losing approx 1.5 models per 4 shots so to get rid of the next two devs (the guys with the las cannons) you need 4 more las cannon shots or 12 las cannon shots.

To take out the pred, 4 shots take off 5.2 wounds so 8-9 las cannons or easier to kill than the devs. (Odds of parking the pred in cover is much less than the devs in cover.)

Why am I shooting anti-tank weapons at the devs? Because when you run nothing but infantry what else are they going to shoot them at? Also range (not much shoots @ 48" that isn't anti-tank)

So 30% more damage, 25% less expensive and 33% more resilient...

edit: typo

Yet predators still appear very common. It's not realistic to assume the other army only has las preds. And i'll agree about infantry with 48" weapons having an extra degree of protection - I made the same claim in the Lootas thread.

And while the 2x lascannon in a dev squad is somewhat unique you're paying 57.5 points per LC. A quad laspred pays 47.5. That's why they're still around. Devs COULD take extra LC, but unless they're taking extra ablative wounds they're losing heavy weapons sooner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Leman Russ has T8 wounds, not T7, and its default weapon is better against a much wider range of targets than any given predator configuration. I use predators frequently, but I hate them for their inefficiency.

Predators are vulnerable to all kinds of crap that Leman Russ laughs at. Krak missiles, mortars, boltguns, autocannons, the list is rather long.

I know - I called it out as T8 and it pays a higher price per wound. We might get ahead of ourselves comparing to LRBTs, which may be a bit undercosted themselves.

"We might get ahead of ourselves comparing to LRBTs, which may be a bit undercosted themselves. "

Fair enough. I'm not in the devastator camp, necessarily. Other than the fact i can stuff them in pods to make them immune to alpha. However, I've done some pretty nasty stuff with the pred autocannon. It's just never enough against the power lists.

bananathug wrote:
If you are playing lists that can't kill 2 preds a turn you are not playing competitive lists.

..

I see this statement made quite a few times and yet the top 4 players at Adepticon had lists that could not kill two Predators on turn one.

I agree that there are many strong lists that can't kill 2 preds in a turn. However, there are even MORE strong lists that a marine list has to get through to get to the top tables that make a mockery of them. Preds are not a strong choice; they are a very risky choice. Your luck just runs out too easily with them.

Spartacus wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

?

Surely addressing balance issues as quickly as possible is an improvement over letting them sit for a year.

Sounds like you want a bit more time to abuse your Flyrant list, or am I mistaken?

I play imperial guard


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The whining about how broken guard is gets so fuggin old

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

Conscripts and Scions got nerfed in an emergency FAQ even before their codex came out. The Tyranid codex is only a few weeks younger than the Eldar one.

Scions need a round 2 unfortunately.

Armigers need help bad

gendoikari87 wrote:
Armigers need help bad

You should wait for the IK book on those.

Hoping the get announced soon

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Linked fire - requires 2 tanks within LOS - gives reroll hits and wounds vs the same target.
kill shot - requires 3 tanks within 6 inches of each other - gives +1 to wound vs the same target.

+1 to wound is worse than reroll wounds in every situation. Reroll hits is a huge additional bonus - no grouping requirement - 1 less tank requirement.

Are you of the opinion that link fire needs to be nerfed down to the level of suck of kill shot? Or do you believe that eldar stratagems should just be better than space marines ones...because they are eldar?

Actually I have a question- How is it that Linked fire gives re-roll to hit and wound ignore LoS and other benefits all for 1 CP yet for me to use psybolts cost 2 CP? (I get +1S and 1 better AP for all of my bolter shots from 1 unit for 1 attack [bolters become S5 AP-1 Dam1])

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Actually I have a question- How is it that Linked fire gives re-roll to hit and wound ignore LoS and other benefits all for 1 CP yet for me to use psybolts cost 2 CP? (I get +1S and 1 better AP for all of my bolter shots from 1 unit for 1 attack [bolters become S5 AP-1 Dam1])

Probably has something to do with the guy that wrote the rules for eldar, he plays eldar.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

Guard stuff was addressed early and often. The Nid codex and Eldar codex are pretty close in age. GE only wants to make balance adjustments twice per year, so if tyrants do not get fixed in this FAQ they sit as is until November CA. So what you are suggesting is the Guard who have gotten some nerfs since their release 1 month prior to Nids, and Eldar who were released like 2 weeks earlier should get nerfed (sometimes again) in April (so “full power” for 5-6 months), but Nids should get a pass until November (so 1 full year unaddressed). That seems fair to you?

Breng77 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

Guard stuff was addressed early and often. The Nid codex and Eldar codex are pretty close in age. GE only wants to make balance adjustments twice per year, so if tyrants do not get fixed in this FAQ they sit as is until November CA. So what you are suggesting is the Guard who have gotten some nerfs since their release 1 month prior to Nids, and Eldar who were released like 2 weeks earlier should get nerfed (sometimes again) in April (so “full power” for 5-6 months), but Nids should get a pass until November (so 1 full year unaddressed). That seems fair to you?

Well Grey Knights have almost gone a full year unaddressed. They still suck but maybe there's not as many people clamoring for a GK buff as people asking for a flyrant nerf

Breng77 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

Guard stuff was addressed early and often. The Nid codex and Eldar codex are pretty close in age. GE only wants to make balance adjustments twice per year, so if tyrants do not get fixed in this FAQ they sit as is until November CA. So what you are suggesting is the Guard who have gotten some nerfs since their release 1 month prior to Nids, and Eldar who were released like 2 weeks earlier should get nerfed (sometimes again) in April (so “full power” for 5-6 months), but Nids should get a pass until November (so 1 full year unaddressed). That seems fair to you?

Guard also got nerfed before GW "set in stone" (lol) their policy of FAQs and Balance Changes. It was the rapid Guard Balance changes that caused the outcry that caused GW to specify when and where ballance changes would be, along with the "2 week" faq rule that I don't even know is followed any more.

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Linked fire - requires 2 tanks within LOS - gives reroll hits and wounds vs the same target.
kill shot - requires 3 tanks within 6 inches of each other - gives +1 to wound vs the same target.

+1 to wound is worse than reroll wounds in every situation. Reroll hits is a huge additional bonus - no grouping requirement - 1 less tank requirement.

Are you of the opinion that link fire needs to be nerfed down to the level of suck of kill shot? Or do you believe that eldar stratagems should just be better than space marines ones...because they are eldar?

You are not being fair here, you are leaving out the biggest bonus of killshot, +1 damage.

And didn't Linked Fire move an ability that used to be part of the Fire Prism itself into a Stratagem? GW seems to be giving CP cost discount when they do that.

I exoect Guilliman will get another price increase, Tyranids and Eldar will get another nerf, and maybe Marines of all kind will get a small buff.

I dont think we will see many changes to the index lists, since i expect they should all be cleared out (other than sisters) by the end of the year.

 fraser1191 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I mean they let guards brokenness sit for over a year and dark reapers but suddenly flyrants are a bit powerful and that’s gotta get fixed NOW NOW NOW! ? I mean really?

Guard stuff was addressed early and often. The Nid codex and Eldar codex are pretty close in age. GE only wants to make balance adjustments twice per year, so if tyrants do not get fixed in this FAQ they sit as is until November CA. So what you are suggesting is the Guard who have gotten some nerfs since their release 1 month prior to Nids, and Eldar who were released like 2 weeks earlier should get nerfed (sometimes again) in April (so “full power” for 5-6 months), but Nids should get a pass until November (so 1 full year unaddressed). That seems fair to you?

Well Grey Knights have almost gone a full year unaddressed. They still suck but maybe there's not as many people clamoring for a GK buff as people asking for a flyrant nerf

Try GK are about 7 months old. But nerfs will always be clamored for more than buffs, they effect more people. Buffs only really get called for from people playing a faction because that is who benefits. Nerfs benefit everyone who plays against a faction with by definition is a larger group of players.

People seem to have a pretty shaky grasp of how long a year is in this thread. GW had better hurry up and get that FAQ out before people start complaining it's "a year" late.

 alextroy wrote:
And didn't Linked Fire move an ability that used to be part of the Fire Prism itself into a Stratagem? GW seems to be giving CP cost discount when they do that.

Killshot used to be an inherent rule for Predators too. Same with Linebreaker shells for Vindicators, Tremor Shells for Thunderfire Cannons and a few others

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Linked fire - requires 2 tanks within LOS - gives reroll hits and wounds vs the same target.
kill shot - requires 3 tanks within 6 inches of each other - gives +1 to wound vs the same target.

+1 to wound is worse than reroll wounds in every situation. Reroll hits is a huge additional bonus - no grouping requirement - 1 less tank requirement.

Are you of the opinion that link fire needs to be nerfed down to the level of suck of kill shot? Or do you believe that eldar stratagems should just be better than space marines ones...because they are eldar?

You are not being fair here, you are leaving out the biggest bonus of killshot, +1 damage.

That somehow makes up for lesser requirements and rerolling everything else instead?

Theres a bit of a rules conundrum in the YMDC section right now regarding transports. If the FAQ team is paying attention at all that ought to be cleared up.

 davou wrote:
Theres a bit of a rules conundrum in the YMDC section right now regarding transports. If the FAQ team is paying attention at all that ought to be cleared up.

More like some making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd rather GW address more important things.

Actually it does make a difference in game play. It is important to know if an embarked unit counts as being on the table even though the representation of the model is not on the table. If you have units in a flyer and the flyer is the last model on the table at the end of an opponent's turn are you tabled or not? If you embark into a vehicle on turn 1 on turn 4 is your model destroyed since it is not on the table since it's after turn 3?

A little clarity would be nice.

I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Actually it does make a difference in game play. It is important to know if an embarked unit counts as being on the table even though the representation of the model is not on the table. If you have units in a flyer and the flyer is the last model on the table at the end of an opponent's turn are you tabled or not? If you embark into a vehicle on turn 1 on turn 4 is your model destroyed since it is not on the table since it's after turn 3?

A little clarity would be nice.

And that's where Dakka^2 jumps the shark (for the 20th time?). People legitimately arguing that units are destroyed after turn 3 if they're in a transport.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

Or they just wanted to do it that way so people aren't told to "Consult Codex: Eldar" for the effects of a Stratagem?

If they're gonna Nerf Pox walkers, just cap them out at max unit size.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Yes sir, poor layout lol
But yeah they have looser requirements on their stratagems, like "drukari model" or "kabal unit" as opposed to "have 3 of these tanks"

I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Yes, it should have come out four days ago.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Eh... Scourges, Ravagers, and Razorwing Fighters look really good. Other than that, most things look to be solid but reasonable, with a few mediocre things here and there. It's not Tyranid good, or 5E DE good, but it's definitely looking like one of the better books they've put out this edition.

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Well won\t comment on exactly on these two since I'm not familiar with either army but I would argue that just because 2 things do exact same thing by rules doesn't make them equal. For example Kurov's aquilla. On 5+ you get spent CP back. I'm pretty sure other armies have similar item to give. Are they balanced? I would argue no. Don't recall armies that DO have such but let's go for scenario where orks would get one(thinking cap reimagined). IG would actually benefit MORE from this heirloom/whatever orks call them. Why? IG army is way better set up to get CP's which means they get more CP back. IG has dirt cheap useful troops they want anyway while bread&butter ork troop choice costs ~200 pts(vs ~50-60 pts for IG). Yes grots are but they don't want to spam them in similar scale to IG spamming infantry squads. Then when we go for brigade for 9 CP....Well for IG this is dirt easy and there's very little bad tax choices to take to fill in requirements. For orks...Well for starters we hit into the issue that in 2k game orks want about 150-200 boyz MINIMUM so 5+ squads. That's 1000pts+ for troops.

Then FA we have very poor choices so 3 FA is going to get either expensive(stormboyz, another big infantry blob that's while effective is also eating up points a lot if you go for 3 of them along with boyz). For IG we are looking at scout sentinels as options for FA tax. ~120 pts and unlike many ork choices those aren't even all that bad choices as the scout move and cheap cost gives them role for dealing with deep strikers! For elite...Same thing. Cheapest useful slot is for orks waagh banner nob but that's not automatic choice either. Most useful choice is kommandos and....Wait it hits into same thing! Useful but expensive choice. Say 5 boyz mob+grot+3 stormboyz+3 kommandos=VERY expensive brigade.

Heavy support orks have it actually okay as our best choice(kustom mek cannon) is also rather cheapish option so comparable to IG's 3 mortar choice.

End result? Well while IG can easily get 3 battallions or even brigade+battallion orks in practice are looking at 2 battallions or maybe 2 battallions+spearhead. Guess who gets more CP's? And guess thus who gets MORE CP's from heirloom/whatever? (note: As IG player I'm on opinion Kurov is too good. It's simply too much of a obvious choice. Hell we can spend CP to get it if we want some other heirloom, none which btw are nearly as obvious "take this" as Kurov's, and it pays itself back easily. Meanwhile on other armies I wouldn't be going for equilavent as easily. Less CP's to spend in the first place, other awesome options so I would be spending CP's more often to get more items than with IG)

Point: Need to look at bigger picture than just individual rule text. Specifically where it is applied. Albeit in this case SM strategem does sound bad deal compared to linked fire.

 alextroy wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

They said on Facebook that the Tau FAQ and the big FAQ will drop simultaneously and that the former was waiting on the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Mmm, delicious salt. The DE codex is on of my favorites so far, not because of power level, but because it did a good job of translating fluff into crunch and with few units you’ll feel bad putting on the tabletop. IMHO it’s what they should all aspire to.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

I have the DE codex and it doesn't look overpowered. Honestly I don't see many durkhari lists being absolute top tiers. The most competitive ultramarines and ravenguard lists are not inferior to the best drukhari combinations IMHO.

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Yeah! They should at least give us a 50% discount for these upcomming FAQ to make up for the fact that they made us wait! /s

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

You're right. We shouldn't let them make any excuse! They should release it so that we can complain that they didn't fix the things they saw at Adepticon. How dare they remove more opportunities to bitch?!

But they have us this perfect opportunity to bitch about being late. It's a bonus on top of whatever they fail to address in the FAQ. Win, Win!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

I don't know about you, but I prefer that they delay a FAQ by just a couple of weeks if it means that it will include significant, good changes that it would otherwise not have included. I suspect I'm not alone in that. GW is presumably making the calculation that more people would be annoyed by them putting out a FAQ right after Adepticon that doesn't address what many see as some of the biggest issues with the game than would be annoyed by them putting out a better FAQ a few weeks later.

Of course, the delay is annoying. It would be better if they put their FAQ in a time machine and released it 6 months ago. But the question is: did they fail to release just as good of a FAQ earlier because they lacked sufficient incentive to do so? That seems unlikely. I mean, what reason do they have to drag their feet? Surely it's much more likely that what's going on here is that they lack competence, and were just unaware of various issues until Adepticon put them into stark relief. They should fix their overall process so that they do a better job with balance and rules writing full stop, but given that they are not great at this surely it's better that they delay the FAQ for a brief time in order to address certain issues rather than leave those unaddressed until the next scheduled major FAQ. Like, the thing to be annoyed about is the extent to which codexes come out with very obvious imbalances, which many players can immediately see will need fixing, and that GW seems oblivious to these until something makes them pay attention. That they take the time to try to get it right once they are paying attention is not the thing to be annoyed about.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

They said on Facebook that the Tau FAQ and the big FAQ will drop simultaneously and that the former was waiting on the latter.

Hmm - seems a little odd to hold the Tau FAQ up when it should be its own thing.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

I don't know about you, but I prefer that they delay a FAQ by just a couple of weeks if it means that it will include significant, good changes that it would otherwise not have included. I suspect I'm not alone in that. GW is presumably making the calculation that more people would be annoyed by them putting out a FAQ right after Adepticon that doesn't address what many see as some of the biggest issues with the game than would be annoyed by them putting out a better FAQ a few weeks later.

Of course, the delay is annoying. It would be better if they put their FAQ in a time machine and released it 6 months ago. But the question is: did they fail to release just as good of a FAQ earlier because they lacked sufficient incentive to do so? That seems unlikely. I mean, what reason do they have to drag their feet? Surely it's much more likely that what's going on here is that they lack competence, and were just unaware of various issues until Adepticon put them into stark relief. They should fix their overall process so that they do a better job with balance and rules writing full stop, but given that they are not great at this surely it's better that they delay the FAQ for a brief time in order to address certain issues rather than leave those unaddressed until the next scheduled major FAQ. Like, the thing to be annoyed about is the extent to which codexes come out with very obvious imbalances, which many players can immediately see will need fixing, and that GW seems oblivious to these until something makes them pay attention. That they take the time to try to get it right once they are paying attention is not the thing to be annoyed about.

simply oh put what you ask for is unreasonable. After AdeptiCon there’s other tournaments they’ll need to address under this expect that they “take their time and get it right” ... and that’s because they will never get it right. This is the perfect case where the best is the enemy of good enough because you won’t come close to perfection and by being late you’ve lost the faith of a part of the fan base and judging by dakka it’s already super salty

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Gw isn’t known for brilliant business decisions....

 Ordana wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Tournament players are such a small, insignificant source of income compared to casual players that they could cancel this FAQ and it would have zero impact on their bottomline. Just like every edition before this one.

gendoikari87 wrote:
simply oh put what you ask for is unreasonable. After AdeptiCon there’s other tournaments they’ll need to address under this expect that they “take their time and get it right” ... and that’s because they will never get it right. This is the perfect case where the best is the enemy of good enough because you won’t come close to perfection and by being late you’ve lost the faith of a part of the fan base and judging by dakka it’s already super salty

There WILL always be something to fix. Whether it will be Dark Reaper/Ynarri or Flyrant bad is unknown.

Them being late didn't convert part of the community to being salty. Those people were looking for an excuse to be salty. And they'll do it again and again for literally any crack they can worm into.

Adepticon is one of the largest 40K events in the world. I think that it having more influence than downthestreetacon is OK. If GW saw, or think they saw, a need for change then I say let them change it. And then we can whine and moan as needed.

Lemondish wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Tournament players are such a small, insignificant source of income compared to casual players that they could cancel this FAQ and it would have zero impact on their bottomline. Just like every edition before this one.

That is blatantly false. Forgeworld sold out of fire raptors 2 weeks after chapter approved dropped, and there have been similar trends with other “OP” units.
It’s purely anecdotal (I wish I could find the post) but back in 7th someone on this forum broke down Dakka memberships, GW sales, and tournament attendance to make the case that about 20% of the 40k player base attends at least one tournament a year and are interested in “competitive” play.

Plus even the fluffiest players i know like to win games, and get tired of using bad units. I've heard plenty of causal players lament a unit being cool but not worth buying due it's tabletop performance.

Seriously, it should not be dichotomous. No unit should be without purpose, whether it be from a lack of functionality entirely, or being entirely outclassed in its functionality. Players shouldn't feel punished for liking certain units, whether they be competitively minded or not.

New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Better get my popcorn ready if true...

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

I don't see them.squatting soup because they have armies specifically designed to be an allied force. Custodes being the newest and most prominant example. I can see them limiting it or making the keywords more specific but squatting it emtierly seems unlikely.

The model limit thing I can absolutly see happening. It would be nice if they had a 6/7th Ed (I don't remember) Fantasy system where the limits were based on points level and unit classification (1 heavy choice per 1000pts or something) but thats probably too complicated for an FAQ.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

If this happens I'm gna laugh my ass of. I've been saying this should have happened since the beginning of 8th. The key word thing, not the highlanderesque restrictions.

Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

 Fafnir wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that "Support" factions like the Inquisition will get a special keyword allowing them to soup, and that specific non-troop units such as transports and others get an exemption from the rule (my poor Pathfinders )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

Tau are quite reliant on their Pathfinders and Drones to actually hit/stay alive respectively. Plus DEldar and their boats if they get effected.

MalfunctBot wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that "Support" factions like the Inquisition will get a special keyword allowing them to soup, and that specific non-troop units such as transports and others get an exemption from the rule (my poor Pathfinders )

That would be reasonable, which is why I will believe it when I see it.

Honestly, with some finesse, that solution could work. They would have to make some smaller factions, like Knights, exempt from the keyword restriction but other than that I'd be willing to give this solution a shot. Restricting non troops to a maximum of 3 isn't going to hurt most players at all and many could either simply forgoe one or two units or roll them into the 3 units they are now allowed to have. Like all rule changes this one would restrict some players who are building a fluffy army and not part of the issue (like a white scars bike list), which is obviously sad but there's probably no way around that.

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I have to admit I am doubtful of this rumor considering that it invalidates a lot of the core rules. It also wildly changes the battlefield that it might further imbalance armies.

In all seriousness, if they wanted to curb stratagems they could easily just reduce the amount of Command Points received, including units that seem to award extra command points.

Otherwise I am super excited to see where they will take this regardless of where.

Pretty much just the FAQs for this year and the Next Chapter Approved are the only thing keeping me wanting to play 40k anymore. If these FAQs and CA: 2018 don't reign in the mess GW is creating, I am probably moving on.

Been reading rulesets for other games recently, and have been blown away at what well written rules actually look like.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

I'm quite filled with disbelief by such rumours. As others have said, some armies only really work as allied. Still, the situation the game is now fervently asks for some kind of less rule-sharing; most of those 'Imperium/Aeldari/Chaos' rules should be just their base codex (meaning a Warlock shouldn't buff Wyches and Guilliman shouldn't let anything Imperial re-roll 1s near him). However, stuff like Astra Telepathica psykers need to interact with other Imperium stuff or it would have no use whatsoever.

The unit limitation is reeeally hard to believe. Because if that was true, then the attached picture would be unantainable.

Finaly, it would make this edition 8.5, because a 9e would preclude a new rulebook (which this FAQ certainly isn't)

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

I agree though. Most armies don’t tend to have more than 3 of any one unit, outside of troops – but there are some cases, where factions have limited options which would potentially make it problematic – but this might change going forward with the next few codices. The other potential issue is transports, as others have mentioned.

As for the “soup squatting”, I’d be surprised if it happens, and a little disappointed. Disappointed, because it means that GW have no idea how to match their lore to their game in a successful way, and are getting around it by just banning it. However, as it is, we can all mostly agree that it is broken in more ways than 1, and all to varying degrees – one example yet to hit is the mixing of the new DE with Craftworlds and/or Ynnari.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

On the note of limiting things per army/detachment though, I’m not a massive fan really and I feel it should only happen if there are no other options.

For example, with T’au Commanders. Would spamming them have been such a problem if they were BS 3 instead of 2? It’s something I’ve been failing to understand… Why are Commanders suddenly so so so so so much better than the rest of their army in terms of shooting at things, when in every other army their “leaders” tend to only be 1 step up from their standard counterparts, rather than 2. Hell, Longstrike could easily drop to BS3 as well, simply because he auto buffs himself back up to BS2.

Flyrants, maybe an increase in the wings cost is all that is needed? Worst case, double the cost of wings to 50 points, and -potentially- a small base cost increase. Alternatively, could drop the movement down from 16” to 12” as well. This however will affect basic Tyrants probably too much.

I agree in regards to -1 to hit chapter tactics, they should be removed, and the penalty shifted onto weapons that fire without physical LoS. I’d just swap it for “always counts as in cover and -stacks- with actually being in cover”. While strong, this has a fair amount of counter play, in regards to all the “ignore cover” options out there, and the prevalence of -3 weaponry. It’s also time for the unit type restrictions to be lifted, and everything to apply to everything (with the exceptions of “in faction mercenaries”).

I just want the FAQ to arrive now though. Everything new hobby wise for me has stopped, and has been stopped for a while waiting for this FAQ.

Kdash wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

Depends on wording. Already many places which use "max X of Y" says that each X in squadron counts as 1. So 1 HS slot with 3 russ=3 russ for the limit=no more russes.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

Except GW is creating new broken stuff all the time. If things would become balanced tournament players wouldn't be all the time rushing to buy new army. This would hurt their profit margin. You really think GW hates money and doesn't want MOAR of it?

I don't believe Gw would ever impose universal highlander. A lot of mini-factions (like Inquisition) could be bundled into an imperial-agents esque faction.

tneva82 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

Depends on wording. Already many places which use "max X of Y" says that each X in squadron counts as 1. So 1 HS slot with 3 russ=3 russ for the limit=no more russes.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

Except GW is creating new broken stuff all the time. If things would become balanced tournament players wouldn't be all the time rushing to buy new army. This would hurt their profit margin. You really think GW hates money and doesn't want MOAR of it?

Oh, I agree that they are always making more broken stuff, but, eventually they’ll get the hint that the amount of work they have to do to constantly re-work things costs more than just getting it right first time. By that point, they’ll also have experience of “getting things right”

As for the wording of the restrictions, I suppose, but if they go down that route, I sincerely hope they go for “FOC unit” rather than “game 1 onwards unit”.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

There is not enough salt in the universe to throw at that rumor.

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

At this point I think GW's best bet is to release Chapter Approved 2-3 times a year and only have it filled with points and maybe a mission or two. Then keep the price of the booklet at something like 2-3 quid.

That way they can balance points faster.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

It's not like we are placing our trust and money on the biggest miniatures and wargames company boasting 40+ years of experience in the field, right? "It's not an easily done thing" is not really an excuse. GW is not an unruly bunch of forum trolls, they are a professional high profile company with huge budget and tremendous assets. So what if it's not easily done? Get your ass down and fix it. Otherwise, don't charge drug prices for plastic toy soldiers and even drug-ier prices for 80 page rulebooks.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

We just big company having done that for oh..30 years? One would think one of these days they would show SOME sign of progress. I mean even if they do everything randomly one would imagine one of these days they would get it right by simple case of random chance.

I hope those rumours arent true otherwise no non mono god army will be able to take daemons

"No soup" seems pretty unbelievable, because yeah that makes a bunch of armies totally unworkable in matched play. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing if what you're interested in is a balanced wargame -- it'd be pretty obviously the right call if this was a digital game -- but it's definitely a bad thing from the perspective of GW not wanting to annoy people who have invested into these armies.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I hope those rumours arent true otherwise no non mono god army will be able to take daemons

Very dubious for sure. Too many armies would become unplayable. Seems even CSM codex would be hurt big time with just in it's codex. GW has been for years moving toward LESS restrictions and made entire factions based on it. Like they would suddenly invalidate or even effectively invalidate those?

And we hit into another case of these restrictions actually hurting more toward the top armies than weaker and even do crippling blows to fluffy already struggling lists like speed freaks who would be totally gutted. Well they were gutted already but with this totally gutted...As it is my poor orks would get hurt most(especially if with vehicles/monster squadrons they would do like tournaments so 3 killa kan=3 for the limitation) while my IG passes pretty much unhurt. Okay max 3 russ(assuming 3 russ in squadron=3 russ for limit. If not russ are still effectively infinent in 2k games and beyond that limitations will be changed often enough anyway) hurts but 3 russ, 3 tank commander, 1 pask=7 russ hull. Albeit 3 tank commander rather than just 6 russ is bit annoying but not undealable issue.

Not buying this. Though just in case I'll post-pone dark/blood angel codexes. Had been considering using pile of those for allies but think I'll post pone that. I have 300+ models to paint anyway(plus 30k and terrain) so no need for them Have enough them for ally, not enough to play on them so if I buy codex and by miracle it IS true that would be wasted codexes as not going to buy new models for them for a while.

But PP are the second largest miniature game around, have been around for about 20 years and their SPECIFIC goal is tight rules and tournament level gameplay and they can't manage to do it either.

GW are far more casual and have never had any aim to have an airtight, legal document style rule set so I don't know why you should expect them to.

To sum it up in one sentence so that we are absolutly clear

A company WITH LESS FACTIONS AND MODELS TO BALANCE set out to SPECIFICALLY create and airtight rules system and well balanced game and COULD NOT DO IT OVER THE COURSE OF 20 YEARS, how do you expect GW to do it when it isn't their aim AND they have far more models and factions?

Nobody is expecting 100%. But you know expecting like 10% wouldn't be too unreasonable. Or even not making moves that are deliberately designed to alter purchase patterns rather than any semblance of balance.

Reminder: FOUR CHAN.

That is all.

(That isn't to say I don't think they're possible)

I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

jcd386 wrote:
I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

No way. Letting Eldar take assassins would complicate other things and the net benefit would be just about nil. It would the equivalent return of Taudar.

Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

I wish there was a way to prevent spam without more forced restrictions. That said, those rumours are faulse, as Guard lists would be next to impossible and most of the formations would become obsolete

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

Of course matched play being effectively norm means it would be stupid to buy something if you can't use it outside matched play. Thus unlikely for GW to do. They want to sell for example Ynari models and assasins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I wish there was a way to prevent spam without more forced restrictions. That said, those rumours are faulse, as Guard lists would be next to impossible and most of the formations would become obsolete

Huh? Guard has it fairly easy with these ones.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

This very same solution was brought up by the leaker when he messaged his buddy the rumours, to which they replied "and to ignore that matched is the "default mode of play" is a damn fool's-".

No-one is going to suddenly start playing Narrative or (heavens forbid) Open play because of this FAQ.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But PP are the second largest miniature game around, have been around for about 20 years and their SPECIFIC goal is tight rules and tournament level gameplay and they can't manage to do it either.

GW are far more casual and have never had any aim to have an airtight, legal document style rule set so I don't know why you should expect them to.

To sum it up in one sentence so that we are absolutly clear

A company WITH LESS FACTIONS AND MODELS TO BALANCE set out to SPECIFICALLY create and airtight rules system and well balanced game and COULD NOT DO IT OVER THE COURSE OF 20 YEARS, how do you expect GW to do it when it isn't their aim AND they have far more models and factions?

Lots of hyperbole here....

Functional rules are the expectation of a game. And GW is working in that direction. So pretending its not somewhere on GW's list of priorities is absurd.

Now if GW is able to get there, who knows.

No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

So your saying that PL and Narrative play issues found at Adepticon are going to be featured in the FAQ? Cause PL and Narrative play are for the beer and Pretzel corp.

Do tell us what was learned at Adepticon in the Narrative and PL play were found that are going to be the FAQ to stay on top Unit1126pll.

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

So your saying that PL and Narrative play issues found at Adepticon are going to be featured in the FAQ? Cause PL and Narrative play are for the beer and Pretzel corp.

Do tell us what was learned at Adepticon in the Narrative and PL play were found that are going to be the FAQ to stay on top Unit1126pll.

No? I didn't say anything about PL and narrative play. Matched Play is played at the narrative level - my local club's narrative campaign is using matched play rules. I think people who claim that "matched play only affects tournament players and not the casual crowd" are deluding themselves. So what GW saw at the tournament were armies that didn't match their design vision, and so they are trying to fix the game to match their design vision.

The best possible game is one in which balance is good enough that there is no distinction between a competitive list and a fluffy list, imo. You can either do this by actually balancing the game (apparently not GW's thing) or by stomping on unfluffy competitive lists until they stop cropping up (could be in the new FAQ?).

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

If many people play Narrative or Open and Match play does not drive game balance then what use is delaying the Faq because it won't bring changes to Narrative and Open play. Only Match play which they are not balancing around (or so someone claims)

Don't forget that Games Workshop expects people to make their armies Battle-Forged even in Narrative Play (citation: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/05/new-warhammer-40000-battle-forged-armiesgw-homepage-post-4/ , and also the rulebook).

So any change to the definition of a "Battle Forged Army" also changes Narrative Play by default.

 Ordana wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

If many people play Narrative or Open and Match play does not drive game balance then what use is delaying the Faq because it won't bring changes to Narrative and Open play. Only Match play which they are not balancing around (or so someone claims)

You're taking the "narritive" part of the inital post in this chain too literally. He didn't mean Narritive play.

My group played Matched play narritivly. None of us spam flyrants or dark reapers, we play balanced lists and play competitivly with non-netlisty armies in order to tell a story. This is probably how a mjority of people play.

This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

You understand that Adepticon is a public setting and an easy way to get data that isn't just nerds emailing them their personal grievences right?

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that using tournament data to make the game better overall doesn't mean the FAQ is specifically aimed at tournament players? I can acknowledge that while I'll probably never play against fltrant or dark reaper spam, I'm glad that people who DO won't have to anymore.

FAQs can be for both right?

They may have found loopholes or problems that needed more fixing at apedticon, they may have changed their mind about something.

I think "new-gw" cares 50/50/something. Partially narrative, partially beer and pretzels matched, partially tournament. My first post today was in response that no one cared about an mode other than pure matched play. Something I know to simply not be true.

Better balance is good for the game and thus for the hobby but not everyhting good for the hobby is good for balance.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

The people who keep insisting that the FAQ is about Beer and Pretzel play.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

The people who keep insisting that the FAQ is about Beer and Pretzel play.

I don't know anyone who has actually argued that the FAQ is only about beer and pretzel play except for the ridiculous straw man you've constructed and have been beating with a baseball bat for the last few posts.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

You understand that Adepticon is a public setting and an easy way to get data that isn't just nerds emailing them their personal grievences right?

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that using tournament data to make the game better overall doesn't mean the FAQ is specifically aimed at tournament players? I can acknowledge that while I'll probably never play against fltrant or dark reaper spam, I'm glad that people who DO won't have to anymore.

Great. Tell us what that is. Speculate, or find that reason that your chosen method of play is relevant enough to warrent attention in the FAQ.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

No way. Letting Eldar take assassins would complicate other things and the net benefit would be just about nil. It would the equivalent return of Taudar.

Sorry, I didn't mean that eldar would get assassins. I would imagine I've they would still looking be for imperium. I probably could have sperated my examples better.

Funnily enough from a purely balancing perspective Eldar getting assasins is no worse than IG or Admech.

Imperium encompasses half the units in the game. Somewhere in that impossible warren there is always going to be an OP combo.

Wich is why soup benefits need limiting you can make an internally/ externally balanced codex. But trying to do that for a faction encompassing half the game? It becomes a lot more difficult.

I will pray to a god I don't believe in that the 0-3 restriction isn't true. Not because it actually affects me, but because its sucks and it does not fix anything.

 Galas wrote:
I will pray to a god I don't believe in that the 0-3 restriction isn't true. Not because it actually affects me, but because its sucks and it does not fix anything.

8th Edition GW does not appear to understand nuance. It's sledgehammer or nothing.

Maybe for 9th edition they can make the points of units scale with the number of duplicate you take ?

Manticore : 1 for 150pts, 2 for 160pts each, 3 for 170pts each, 4 for 180pts each.

If you only take 1, you get a "discount". 2 gets you the real cost, 3 or more and you're paying a tax.

The Shadespire FAQ dropped earlier this morning, I think?

What are the odds that this means we'll get the 40k FAQ today?

VoidSempai wrote:
The Shadespire FAQ dropped earlier this morning, I think?

What are the odds that this means we'll get the 40k FAQ today?

From what i gather, some event organisers are expecting it this week. Previous unofficial rule of thumb for 40k FAQs was tuesdays... So... hopefully we'll see it drop tomorrow, but, at least we should be hopeful for sometime this week.

I highly doubt any rumors on 4chan are accurate, except maybe by accident.

That said, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon, 9 of them featured unit spamming of more than 3 of the same unit. Some were particularly egregious, like Jason Sparks' Dark Angels list with 8 Dark Talons, and there were 4 Tyranid lists that spammed flying Hive Tyrants (and one that fell under the more-than-3 threshold still had 3 of them).

Another interesting tidbit - the contents of the top 16 armies' starter boxes are not well represented in their respective army lists. Of the Tyranid lists, only 2 contain anything from their starter box, and those were the 2 with Malwocs. None of the contents of the Chaos Marines starter box made it into any of the Chaos lists, the only thing from the Eldar starter box that made it into the Eldar list was Farseers, and even half the contents of the IG starter box was absent from the top Adepticon lists - nary a Leman Russ or Commissar to be had.

It strikes me that having high-profile tournament lists feature repetitions ad nauseum of one particular unit while there being a notable absence the units that GW promotes as the starting building blocks of their respective armies is probably not the best situation for GW. One would think the company would like all of their products to be attractive to their target audience, not just a narrow selection of them.

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

ITT:
Games sell better when they are unbalanced, because everyone likes buying bad games.

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That literally makes no sense. Balance is exactly what they should want. If everything in an army is playable then people will want to own units of everything. I doubt there's been a massive rush on people buying lictors or whirlwinds.

(I dunno if whirlwinds are crap, I just never see them get mentioned.)

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That's one of the most idiotic things I think I've heard in quite some time, cheers to you bub

A game system that does not strive to be sufficiently balanced will never make money. Consumers reject spending money on broken unfun things.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That literally makes no sense. Balance is exactly what they should want. If everything in an army is playable then people will want to own units of everything. I doubt there's been a massive rush on people buying lictors or whirlwinds.

(I dunno if whirlwinds are crap, I just never see them get mentioned.)

It should be what they want but they obviously aren't trying. If they were trying - wed have a balanced game - it is not that hard to do.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It should be what they want but they obviously aren't trying. If they were trying - wed have a balanced game - it is not that hard to do.

I eagerly await your fan rewrite that will supplant Warhammer 40k's BRB as the preferred rules in the setting.

In fact, I'll even pay good money for it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That literally makes no sense. Balance is exactly what they should want. If everything in an army is playable then people will want to own units of everything. I doubt there's been a massive rush on people buying lictors or whirlwinds.

(I dunno if whirlwinds are crap, I just never see them get mentioned.)

It should be what they want but they obviously aren't trying. If they were trying - wed have a balanced game - it is not that hard to do.

"its not hard"
And there goes any point you might have wanted to make.

I expect you will be able to produce a balanced version of 40k that is fun to play in about a months time? After all, its not hard.

Really? It's not that hard to do? I'd love to see you try to balance everything in every codex and have it all come out balanced. It should be easier for you since you don't have to consult other people or worry about what is coming out in the next few months.
I expect a complete list of all units and options by the end of April since it's so easy.

Yikes, double ninja'd. And I agree I'd pay good money for a truly balanced game.

The number one complaint I have heard most often leveled at GW both on the internet and IRL is their lack of balance.

How is that driving sales? Perfect imbalance is a nice theory in moba's but even there it has to be kept on a tight leash, hence perfect.

Lemondish wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That's one of the most idiotic things I think I've heard in quite some time, cheers to you bub

A game system that does not strive to be sufficiently balanced will never make money. Consumers reject spending money on broken unfun things.

Are you living in Bizaro world? Have you seen 40k? 8th might be a more balanced eddition but it is still extremely unbalanced and the previous editions were hilariously broken. It is clear that consumers do in fact spend lots of money on broken and unbalanced things. True - it doesn't make sense - I would love to get into decision makers heads at GW just to figure out why they believe unbalanced is the way to go?

I'm sure it has something to do with "It's a game of toy soldiers" "why do you take it so seriously".

The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

I am not sure how I feel about the rumors. On one hand, it will solidly fix the soup issue. It does remove things like Brigade from Matched Play (let's not forget, these changes would ONLY apply to Matched Play), but isn't the intent of matched play to be more balanced for tournaments?

Wayniac wrote:
I am not sure how I feel about the rumors. On one hand, it will solidly fix the soup issue. It does remove things like Brigade from Matched Play (let's not forget, these changes would ONLY apply to Matched Play), but isn't the intent of matched play to be more balanced for tournaments?

How would it remove a bridge?

 Ordana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That literally makes no sense. Balance is exactly what they should want. If everything in an army is playable then people will want to own units of everything. I doubt there's been a massive rush on people buying lictors or whirlwinds.

(I dunno if whirlwinds are crap, I just never see them get mentioned.)

It should be what they want but they obviously aren't trying. If they were trying - wed have a balanced game - it is not that hard to do.

"its not hard"
And there goes any point you might have wanted to make.

I expect you will be able to produce a balanced version of 40k that is fun to play in about a months time? After all, its not hard.

I actually have to disagree with you here, and agree with the poster you're mocking.

It actually isn't hard to produce a balanced 40k edition if you are consistent with how you price units across the board with codices.

It can even be asymmetrical consistency, so maybe some codices have cheaper ranged power than others, but this must be counterbalanced in a manner that befits overall equality of strength between the two codices.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Really? It's not that hard to do? I'd love to see you try to balance everything in every codex and have it all come out balanced. It should be easier for you since you don't have to consult other people or worry about what is coming out in the next few months.
I expect a complete list of all units and options by the end of April since it's so easy.

Yikes, double ninja'd. And I agree I'd pay good money for a truly balanced game.

You are already paying money for an unbalanced game. Why would they do anything different? Why do you think it is so hard? A lot of work - no doubt - but it's not difficult work.

you can only balance 40k to a point. and doing so requires a lot of playtesting and math. neither of which I have any faith GW is capable of.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That's one of the most idiotic things I think I've heard in quite some time, cheers to you bub

A game system that does not strive to be sufficiently balanced will never make money. Consumers reject spending money on broken unfun things.

Are you living in Bizaro world? Have you seen 40k? 8th might be a more balanced eddition but it is still extremely unbalanced and the previous editions were hilariously broken. It is clear that consumers do in fact spend lots of money on broken and unbalanced things. True - it doesn't make sense - I would love to get into decision makers heads at GW just to figure out why they believe unbalanced is the way to go?

I'm sure it has something to do with "It's a game of toy soldiers" "why do you take it so seriously".

That'll be why GWs sales reports were on a consistant decline during the Kirby era and suddenly started increasing after he left and the company started actually caring about balance.

jcd386 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I am not sure how I feel about the rumors. On one hand, it will solidly fix the soup issue. It does remove things like Brigade from Matched Play (let's not forget, these changes would ONLY apply to Matched Play), but isn't the intent of matched play to be more balanced for tournaments?

How would it remove a bridge?

Maybe I'm thinking of another detachment, I saw an earlier post that said these rumored changes would remove at least one detachment from use because it would require too many options than would be allowed under the FAQ.

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

FAQ are a new thing for GW. I acknowledge they are doing a better job at it in 8th. It's still being handled quite lackadaisical. This edition is already a year old and we are more unbalanced now than when we started. GW's sales are through the roof right now too!

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Really? It's not that hard to do? I'd love to see you try to balance everything in every codex and have it all come out balanced. It should be easier for you since you don't have to consult other people or worry about what is coming out in the next few months.
I expect a complete list of all units and options by the end of April since it's so easy.

Yikes, double ninja'd. And I agree I'd pay good money for a truly balanced game.

Yes, balancing a game this complex is incredibly hard. Take something that's gone through many iterations of balance (and still is), but is in a pretty decent place - like Starcraft - and consider how simple balancing it is compared to Warhammer. Only 3 factions and 2 resource types, maybe 30 total units in the game. Probably the only thing more complicated in SC is that you have more control over resource management in the form of workers/mining. And still it's not a perfect balance.

Now think about not only units and weapons, but that you have different melee/ranged weapons, detachments, scenario/deployment types, stratagems, psychic powers, and all coming across a couple dozen or so of factions...plus soup, so you have to consider how they'll interplay not only within their codices, but their armies. You also don't have as easy access to data from electronic matchmaking, so you're required to rely on tournament standings.

Now, I don't think it's an impossible task to balance it...or to get close to have like a 90% or so balance, where the most egregious offenders aren't hideous...but it's not nearly as easy as all of the salt here would make one think.

 Galas wrote:
I will pray to a god I don't believe in that the 0-3 restriction isn't true. Not because it actually affects me, but because its sucks and it does not fix anything.

What if it's 0-3 outside of Troops?

The changes don't bother me either, really.

Can still run a Leman Russ Tank Company, can still run Baneblade Company, can still run my Slaanesh daemons, can still run my Adepta Sororitas...
Even so, I hope it doesn't happen, as I can see a lot of themed armies getting killed that don't have the fortune to run tank squadrons for example.

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

FAQ are a new thing for GW. I acknowledge they are doing a better job at it in 8th. It's still being handled quite lackadaisical. This edition is already a year old and we are more unbalanced now than when we started. GW's sales are through the roof right now too!

When we started we didn't have THIRTEEN codexes.