I think that pretty clearly says Necrons are going with the FAQ/Tau
To be blunt, I'm with you in that it says something, but I object to the use of the term "Clearly"
I've read over this chain of responses a few times and I go with my interpretation of it, but I can kind of see yours too. They also say at one point that they don't know anything for sure.
So maybe we'd be better reading Tea leaves to find the answer
I think that pretty clearly says Necrons are going with the FAQ/Tau
To be blunt, I'm with you in that it says something, but I object to the use of the term "Clearly"
I've read over this chain of responses a few times and I go with my interpretation of it, but I can kind of see yours too. They also say at one point that they don't know anything for sure.
So maybe we'd be better reading Tea leaves to find the answer
I'll get the kettle. TBH, I had read it your way, initially.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
GW didn't take away your 7th ed rulebooks. Anyone can keep playing Taudar and Demon-Orks in 7th edition games even now. The only requirement is finding someone willing to play 7th edition. When you think about it, in comparison, that requirement quite similar to playing 8th edition, or whatever edition D&D, or any other game out there with multiple editions.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
Honestly it is kind of one sided that some allies got completely axed from the game, while other factions did not. Taudar was very good and is a solid argument against soup. Nobody likes an invisible riptide wing except for the person playing riptides. Soup has dominated the meta since 8th launched and is going to stay until it is removed. It is really annoying to have Taudar taken away because it is "too broken" and then have to read about Imperial/Chaos/Eldar soup for the entirety of the edition.
These rumors don't seem all that believable, and the elements mentioned all seem to be 'hot button' issues to the community that are most likely to get a reaction.
Having said that, if it were real, 0-3 would be annoying but not too destructive. It would impact my Guard list as I'd have to drop some Company Commanders. I can't think of a list I run that would be affected beyond that since I don't tend to play Soup or take more than 3 unit choices per detachment of anything except troops anyway.
It is important to note that if these restrictions are by Detachment, it doesn't need to have all that great an impact.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...
You're naive if you think it'll cause people to run bigger squads. It's going to be avoided no matter what.
Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).
I can't for something that's banned.
Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.
But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.
Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.
My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option
Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...
You're naive if you think it'll cause people to run bigger squads. It's going to be avoided no matter what.
Pretty much. It will just cause them to run different units that serve much the same purpose as the ones they had to remove. Run three squads of Devastators and three squads of Hellblasters instead of six of one type, for example (not that I have ever seen anyone do this, but it is certainly possible). Big squads will never be a thing.
Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
LunarSol wrote: Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.
If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top
Congratulations. You got my point. Regardless of what GWs published Matched Play rules are, you can play whatever you want in Open or Narrative Play.
However, GW will make whatever restrictions they want to to make Matched Play work without regard for anyone's perceived entitlement to play with whatever models they happened to buy. Kinda like how Conscripts and Commissars disappeared from Matched Play when their rules changed.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top
Congratulations. You got my point. Regardless of what GWs published Matched Play rules are, you can play whatever you want in Open or Narrative Play.
However, GW will make whatever restrictions they want to to make Matched Play work without regard for anyone's perceived entitlement to play with whatever models they happened to buy. Kinda like how Conscripts and Commissars disappeared from Matched Play when their rules changed.
The issue then becomes 'does this make matched play better?' which all the so called 'leaks' would not. In fact several of the changes would simply consolidate power even further among the top armies.
LunarSol wrote: Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.
If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.
Yep, the choice isn't between running 10man tactical squads(or devs, battle sisters, bikes, scouts, etc) or running multiples of your codexes worst units. The choice is between buying a better army or losing every game(or quitting).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShaneMarsh wrote: These rumors don't seem all that believable, and the elements mentioned all seem to be 'hot button' issues to the community that are most likely to get a reaction.
Having said that, if it were real, 0-3 would be annoying but not too destructive. It would impact my Guard list as I'd have to drop some Company Commanders. I can't think of a list I run that would be affected beyond that since I don't tend to play Soup or take more than 3 unit choices per detachment of anything except troops anyway.
It is important to note that if these restrictions are by Detachment, it doesn't need to have all that great an impact.
Of course it doesn't affect one of the most all around OP armies in the game. That's the problem with it. The problem isn't that 0-3 is stupid(even though it is) the problem is that some armies straight up can't function, some armies take a pretty significant hit in power, and the armies that are currently top tier are almost completely unaffected.
If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.
If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.
Heretic Astartes keyword? If cultists and poxwalkers dont have it, give it to them in the faq.
If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.
Heretic Astartes keyword? If cultists and poxwalkers dont have it, give it to them in the faq.
The CSM book has daemons in it. Mostly for summoning purposes I think, which would still be valid with this restriction (though the fact that summoning sucks would still render those entries basically invalid).
LunarSol wrote: Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.
If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.
That one unit is not priced correctly or people wouldn't want 6 of them, if everyone thing all units are sub par then they're even, hence balanced in theory.
Im sure the main rulebook FAQs are done. They're just reevaluating the Faction ones.
Honestly, the entire release of 8th could have done well with a formal beta. That's basically how it started, just without the communication stream set up to allow the feedback needed. Just instead of taking feedback from the community to help develop the foundations, they're blindly rushing to slap together solutions from the loudest voice in every other direction.
If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.
Heretic Astartes keyword? If cultists and poxwalkers dont have it, give it to them in the faq.
All the classic daemons, Fallen, Cypher. Same applies to Death Guard and Thousand Sons. They're codexes already contain units that make their detachment bonuses non-functional, making them illegal would just be hilarious.
Im sure the main rulebook FAQs are done. They're just reevaluating the Faction ones.
Honestly, the entire release of 8th could have done well with a formal beta. That's basically how it started, just without the communication stream set up to allow the feedback needed. Just instead of taking feedback from the community to help develop the foundations, they're blindly rushing to slap together solutions from the loudest voice in every other direction.
Folks, the fixes they put out over the last year and a half have not actually been ideas from the loudest voices, proving yet again that some people don't know what they're talking about.
alextroy wrote: Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?
Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?
So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.
Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.
Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?
Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top
Oh please you can't be naive enough to not realize matched play is the playing style. If something isn'' possible in matched play it might just as well not exist. If you can do non-matched with matched play army that works but reverse is out
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
Ah yes ork trukks and chimeras are dominating tournaments right now!
Blanket limitations like this is how incompetent game developer breaks balance while ignoring the real problem. As such not even surprise gw would do that as they can be used as definition of incompetent game developers in dictionary
Isn't it funny how this supposed balance fix actually makes balance worse while ignoring real culprit? That's gw for you!
restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.
BrianDavion wrote: restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.
BrianDavion wrote: restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.
At which point unit restrictions go from a bad idea to being totally arbitrary and actually being worse than doing nothing. You're going to let custodes bypass the restriction when the biker captain is one of the most spammed units in 40k? What happens if grey knights get a new book that breaks dreadnights and people start running 6 of those? What happens if grey knights get a 4-5 kit release and they aren't a specialist army anymore. Are we gonna refaq every faction in and out of this stupid limit every time a book comes out? What about soup armies using elite armies to bypass the restriction and then combining it with things like guard that weren't affected by the changes anyway to make soup that is EVEN MORE powerful than it was before?
It would be a better idea to make 6 Hive Tyrants mandatory for matched play regardless of faction, and I mean that seriously. Making 6 hive tyrants mandatory would put similar levels of arbitrary, pointless army building restrictions on people, but would also not make the game balance stupidly worse for the sake of...who the hell knows what the unit restrictions would ACTUALLY accomplish because they'd certainly make the balance worse.
Yeah. Given how long GW has been working on the updated FAQ since Adepticon, they certainly aren't just tossing in a quick fix rule to deal with the issues they have observed at the various tournaments. I'm hoping we get something more innovative and outside the current box then 0-X of Unit A.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.
See, that's fine for a single change. You could probably playtest a points change to hive tyrants in that amount of games...unless you end up with negative results. Because if the result is 'this change doesn't work' you'd need more.
But if you're changing up multiple rules, in a game with as many moving parts as 40k has, you could do a round of playtests with everyone who was at adepticon AND LVO playing 4 games each and still miss things.
To expand on this, everything in the game affects everything else. Nerfing Dark Reapers or Flying Hive Tyrants doesn't just make those units worse, it also makes all units they'd normally be strong against better. For example. what if nerfing Dark Reapers bumps Dark Talons+Dark Shrouds up to the point where it's almost impossible to deal with? Nerfing one unit could very well result in a completely unrelated unit becoming even MORE brokenly OP than that first unit was in the first place.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
You mean the change is drastic enough for US to playtest it unknowingly.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.
If that's all they do in a week. I don't know how much work a Game designer has to accomplish in a week, but I'm sure it involves more that just play testing.
I guess we've come to the part where people complain GW play tests too much.
They release it, we get to grips with it, we feed it back. They take it on board, make some changes based on our feedback. They release, we get to grips with it, we feed it back. And so on.
hobojebus wrote: Yeah it's very obvious they Arnt properly play testing just look at the difference in power between ig and tau.
They give lip service to things like balance and playtesting but don't actually uphold it.
I mean, that's a little harsh. The game is more balanced than it's been for 2 editions (regardless of what the internet says) so it's not like they don't care, it's more like they just don't think about the game at its breakpoints as much as the player base does.
And then you have interesting questions that pop up as you make more codexes, for example: Which codex is closer to correct Tau or Guard? Which powerlevel should they be shooting for? Did they perhaps make the guard codex and decide that that was a higher powercurve than they wanted?
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.
There are 16 codexes out right now. Add the next three, which will have gone to the printers a month ago. Several of them deviate quite far from the mean.
Make a change and check if it breaks any armies at list building - go back the the drawing board if it does.
Make another change and check list building again.
Play test it - two games is about an entire work day for two people.
If something comes back send it back. If not go to the outside playtesters who aren't paid and have their own jobs, too.
Meet with playtesters to discuss and make tweaks.
Do all of this over your normal job and deadlines.
BrianDavion wrote: restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.
At which point unit restrictions go from a bad idea to being totally arbitrary and actually being worse than doing nothing. You're going to let custodes bypass the restriction when the biker captain is one of the most spammed units in 40k? What happens if grey knights get a new book that breaks dreadnights and people start running 6 of those? What happens if grey knights get a 4-5 kit release and they aren't a specialist army anymore. Are we gonna refaq every faction in and out of this stupid limit every time a book comes out? What about soup armies using elite armies to bypass the restriction and then combining it with things like guard that weren't affected by the changes anyway to make soup that is EVEN MORE powerful than it was before?
It would be a better idea to make 6 Hive Tyrants mandatory for matched play regardless of faction, and I mean that seriously. Making 6 hive tyrants mandatory would put similar levels of arbitrary, pointless army building restrictions on people, but would also not make the game balance stupidly worse for the sake of...who the hell knows what the unit restrictions would ACTUALLY accomplish because they'd certainly make the balance worse.
You adjust the FAQ, or release in a new FAQ to restrict certain units then, or you just remove the whole sentence at some point if required. It's a fluid edition, as new problems occur, new ways to solve it will be needed, or original solutions will have to be adjusted.
Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.
Grimgold wrote: Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.
I could see that. I honestly think Strategems should only be available for the army that the Warlord is from. That would screw soup armies over hardcore though. Every army would still be able to use the basic Strategems though.
Grimgold wrote: Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.
I could see that. I honestly think Strategems should only be available for the army that the Warlord is from. That would screw soup armies over hardcore though. Every army would still be able to use the basic Strategems though.
That was the original point of stratagems, as a counterbalance to having more specific armies and would definitely cut down on all the agents of Vect that are going to be keeping an eye on literally every Eldar army in all future tournaments.
Sure they could probably do an extra level of stratagems in the next chapter approved - one or two fairly basic ones that are just Chaos/Imperial/Eldar.
At the outset of 8th Ed., GW promised "extra special bonuses for themed armies". I would be fine with limiting stratagems and faction bonuses in ways that limit cross-faction sharing.
I'm going to have to agree that the only stratagems an army may use are the ones available to the Warlord.
Armies will still be able to "soup", and many units not of the Warlord's codex will still be able to benefit from a number of stratagems, but it will make soup less of an "I win" button.
Grimgold wrote: Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.
Second one seems prefectly fine, firs tone would be better if it allowed DTs as well IMO
Ynnari dies with ”only the Warlord’s stratagems” meaning no stratagems whatsoever for Ynnari armies. That’s a good thing by the way. It also blocks Eldar from souping a small Drukhari spearhead for ”counterspell” and Imperials for many many all-purpose stratagems. The nearly unbeatable Pox/Cultist horde also needs stratagems from two sources to function and will die with this restriction.
Funnily enough, many tournaments have used this exact comp restriction (3max and only wl gems) for over 6 months already.
LunarSol wrote: Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?
I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.
If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.
That one unit is not priced correctly or people wouldn't want 6 of them, if everyone thing all units are sub par then they're even, hence balanced in theory.
Yeah its so undercosted and OP. It's the most cost effective units in the codex and they are still not worth being part of an imperial soup tournament list. Yeah for codex marines chasing grey nights into never being seen on a table again.
Grimgold wrote: Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.
It's interesting that you have one that makes balance worse and one that makes balance marginally(but not significantly) better.
Are you a GW rules writer from 7th? Because that was absolutely their MO.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Sure going to cut down on the number of Warlords from armies without Codexes...
That's not the worst thing, as that's already a shrinking number with the release of codexes.
But it's not gonna be zero until at least mid 2019 is it? Cause SoB aren't coming out until then and even with a beta codex, they won't really be a 'codex' army. They'll have a book built around having all of their units cut in half. Imagine if you got all the strategems and other stuff custodes got but still only had the one box of troops and that's about where they'll be at.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Sure going to cut down on the number of Warlords from armies without Codexes...
That's not the worst thing, as that's already a shrinking number with the release of codexes.
But it's not gonna be zero until at least mid 2019 is it? Cause SoB aren't coming out until then and even with a beta codex, they won't really be a 'codex' army. They'll have a book built around having all of their units cut in half. Imagine if you got all the strategems and other stuff custodes got but still only had the one box of troops and that's about where they'll be at.
I did say that's not the worst thing. I didn't say that it wasn't a bad thing. It's just meh. It really sucks for orks, sisters, Space wolves, Genestealer cult, and those who's codexes come out soon, meaning Knights, Harlies and Deathwatch. Y'nnari are in a weird place as I don't even know if it's been said if they are getting a codex or not at all.
So. You could be Y'nnari.
While I do not think making all units (other than troops and whatever other exceptions are made) 0-3 solves all of the games problems, I am having trouble seeing how it would make the game worse.
I don't know if i have ever written a list or played against a list where i saw 4 or 6 or 8 of the same unit and though "oh yeah this game is going to be interesting." 3 of a unit tends to be about my threshold for where effective redundancy tips over into unimaginativeness.
I definitely think that most of the time we take 3+ of a unit because there is a balance issue of some kind (usually one unit is too good, or every other unit is too bad) and that those issues should be addressed, but in a perfect world of balance it seems to me that a 0-3 limitation would still be fine to promote variety, due to the inherent strength of unit redundancy, which is something that can be hard to balance under the current system.
So it seems to me that with minimal changes, a 0-3 system could work. I would probably be on board with certain factions having some exceptions for fluff reasons (SM bikers, deathwing, etc), and some other rule changes (like probably get rid of or limit most vehicle squadrons).
I am not sure that perfect balance for 40k will ever be attainable, but it seems like it would be easier to reach with a 0-3 limit than without.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Sure going to cut down on the number of Warlords from armies without Codexes...
That's not the worst thing, as that's already a shrinking number with the release of codexes.
But it's not gonna be zero until at least mid 2019 is it? Cause SoB aren't coming out until then and even with a beta codex, they won't really be a 'codex' army. They'll have a book built around having all of their units cut in half. Imagine if you got all the strategems and other stuff custodes got but still only had the one box of troops and that's about where they'll be at.
I did say that's not the worst thing. I didn't say that it wasn't a bad thing. It's just meh. It really sucks for orks, sisters, Space wolves, Genestealer cult, and those who's codexes come out soon, meaning Knights, Harlies and Deathwatch. Y'nnari are in a weird place as I don't even know if it's been said if they are getting a codex or not at all.
So. You could be Y'nnari.
Those factions have no stratagems anyway (other than generic and the one CA one), so how does it suck for them? Genestealer cult can't use Tyranids, Sisters can't use marines, Orks can't use anyone. Just means the warlord with warlord trait and relics comes from another faction for now. Or no difference.
Wolves are a little different, as there are a couple of marine strats they can use. But when they do theirs, going to be at least 50% marine anyway
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Sure going to cut down on the number of Warlords from armies without Codexes...
That's not the worst thing, as that's already a shrinking number with the release of codexes.
But it's not gonna be zero until at least mid 2019 is it? Cause SoB aren't coming out until then and even with a beta codex, they won't really be a 'codex' army. They'll have a book built around having all of their units cut in half. Imagine if you got all the strategems and other stuff custodes got but still only had the one box of troops and that's about where they'll be at.
I did say that's not the worst thing. I didn't say that it wasn't a bad thing. It's just meh. It really sucks for orks, sisters, Space wolves, Genestealer cult, and those who's codexes come out soon, meaning Knights, Harlies and Deathwatch. Y'nnari are in a weird place as I don't even know if it's been said if they are getting a codex or not at all.
So. You could be Y'nnari.
Those factions have no stratagems anyway (other than generic and the one CA one), so how does it suck for them? Genestealer cult can't use Tyranids, Sisters can't use marines, Orks can't use anyone. Just means the warlord with warlord trait and relics comes from another faction for now. Or no difference.
Wolves are a little different, as there are a couple of marine strats they can use. But when they do theirs, going to be at least 50% marine anyway
Sisters have 2 extremely good strategems actually. We can just stop any spell on a 4+ and we can Soulburt when a character dies. Losing those because I had 175pts of Custodes bike captain filling out the SoBs complete lack of options seems excessive.
I agree that having access to 3 codexes worth of strategems isn't something that should be allowed but a lot of the suggestions for fixing them are more punishing to the weaker parts of soup lists than the stronger ones.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I honestly think all these proposed solutions are just bad.
Hoping this big FAQ isnt nearly as game changing as we all assume.
I agree. I feel like most people here don't even play the game. Adding across the board restrictions should not even be considered at this point. There are really only a handful of actual problematic units/interactions and they should be dealt with on there own. Also, a friend plays Grey Knights and I'm not sure even a 30% points reduction would help. Hopefully they don't have to wait till the end of the year.
BrianDavion wrote: restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.
So you are making exceptions and looparounds for stupid blanket restriction that shouldn't exists anyway since it just breaks the balance without actually fixing the problem.
Good job! Actually that sounds a lot like the GW designers would do. They are experts on breaking balance and ignoring problems.
cuda1179 wrote: GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?
The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.
Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
hobojebus wrote: Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
hobojebus wrote: Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
Tournament players are pretty much only players you CAN trust to playtest. They are the ones who know actually how the game works. They can spot the problems even without pulling out models from shelf nevermind what they can do with models on board.
GW meanwhile...They don't even know what the word means! Too advanced word for them.
hobojebus wrote: Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
Tournament players are pretty much only players you CAN trust to playtest. They are the ones who know actually how the game works. They can spot the problems even without pulling out models from shelf nevermind what they can do with models on board.
GW meanwhile...They don't even know what the word means! Too advanced word for them.
Tournament players are the ones that constantly ruin every single codex that GW has produced. WAAC players that only ever play with a tiny number of units and slaughter every scrap of fluff should be kept as far away from playtesting as possible.
hobojebus wrote: Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
Tournament players are pretty much only players you CAN trust to playtest. They are the ones who know actually how the game works. They can spot the problems even without pulling out models from shelf nevermind what they can do with models on board.
GW meanwhile...They don't even know what the word means! Too advanced word for them.
Tournament players are the ones that constantly ruin every single codex that GW has produced. WAAC players that only ever play with a tiny number of units and slaughter every scrap of fluff should be kept as far away from playtesting as possible.
It's always the game to blame, never the player. GW allowed for waac stuff in their books, people will take advantage. This is not the players' fault. Not ever.
It's always the game to blame, never the player. GW allowed for waac stuff in their books, people will take advantage. This is not the players' fault. Not ever.
Not blaming the players, just saying if thats how rhey approach 40K, it makes them structurally unqualified to playtest, as their perspective is intentionally narrow and skewed to exclude 99% of what makes 40K40K.
Tournament players are the ones that constantly ruin every single codex that GW has produced. WAAC players that only ever play with a tiny number of units and slaughter every scrap of fluff should be kept as far away from playtesting as possible.
No. It's the GW that ruins codexes. Don't blame players. Blame the ones doing the codexes. Blame lies 100% on GW for not not doing their job.
It's always the game to blame, never the player. GW allowed for waac stuff in their books, people will take advantage. This is not the players' fault. Not ever.
Not blaming the players, just saying if thats how rhey approach 40K, it makes them structurally unqualified to playtest, as their perspective is intentionally narrow and skewed to exclude 99% of what makes 40K40K.
They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.
They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.
That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.
Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.
But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.
Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
And yet at the same time, the tournament scene is also the most consistent place for data and consistent data is important for any action. Tournaments might be small compared (although "tiny, tiny, sliver" is a blatant exaggeration) is a to the total grand total of players in clubs, FLGS, friend's garages and basements, and even online with programs like vassal and tabletop sim, but those places can be extremely different in terms of house rules, attitudes, personal metas, access to models and rules, and even understanding of the rules. How useful is that information if those players don't have someone who plays marines, or bans forge world, or have a house rule that disallows first turn assault. Then that information is actually irrelevant because it doesn't nothing to help. And that's even before considering how would GW would get that information in the first place.
Why not. Grey Knights are arguably still too strong against a large variety of lists. Playtest them against an all-Kroot List in a Cities of Death Game or a Footdar Aspect Warrior List in an Open War Game or a Primaris list made from 2 Starter Sets in a Planetfall scenario, etc.., etc..
Tournament players are irrelevant and unsuited for playtesting, because they don't even play or use 99% of mathematically possible 40K lists, 75% of play modes such as narrative or open play gameing or many point values outside the 1500 to 2000 bracket even within matched play, that stuff needs to be balanced against. Tournaments are such a tiny, tiny sliver of the entirety of 40K, they are utterly irrelevant.
And yet at the same time, the tournament scene is also the most consistent place for data and consistent data is important for any action. Tournaments might be small compared (although "tiny, tiny, sliver" is a blatant exaggeration) is a to the total grand total of players in clubs, FLGS, friend's garages and basements, and even online with programs like vassal and tabletop sim, but those places can be extremely different in terms of house rules, attitudes, personal metas, access to models and rules, and even understanding of the rules. How useful is that information if those players don't have someone who plays marines, or bans forge world, or have a house rule that disallows first turn assault. Then that information is actually irrelevant because it doesn't nothing to help. And that's even before considering how would GW would get that information in the first place.
But it‘s useless data, worse than useless, actually misleading data, because it is a self-selected and highly biased sample.
It‘d be like basing a study on public health only on Olympic athletes or a survey on household spending only on members of a posh counrty club.
Size of the sample is less a problem than its lack of representitativeness.
If you‘re truly serious about making 40K more balanced, you must ignore that data at all costs.
And yet at the same time, the tournament scene is also the most consistent place for data and consistent data is important for any action.
The problem is that even if the data is consisten it is also completely skewed and flawed. Rogue trader was never intended as a competetive tournamnet game, its like competeing in D&D. Every new edition of 40k comes with less "flavour" and less cool and fluffy rules, all to cater for the tournamnet crowd.
Tournament players are trying to turn 40k into something that it cannot be, a balanced watertight set of tournament rules.
If i didnt have so much time, energy, affection and money invested in 40k i wouldnt care a gak about this.
Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
So 40k should be balanced around the most extreme waac lists and feth the rest?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
Well, car safety is only neede in extreme circumstances of a crash. That comparison makes no sense.
But if you wanna run with it, Magnus or Grey Knights are a very, very common crash possibly spoiling thousands of store and pick-up games every day. Balancing them better against the typical primaris army 12-year old Timmy or the all-Metal Footdar Aspect Host of the local gronard should be a high priority. Poxwalker-farm in contrast isnt a relevant issue outside of an exotic 3 or 4 events. It‘s not a high priority thing from a „crash-testing“-perspective.
jcd386 wrote: While I do not think making all units (other than troops and whatever other exceptions are made) 0-3 solves all of the games problems, I am having trouble seeing how it would make the game worse.
I don't know if i have ever written a list or played against a list where i saw 4 or 6 or 8 of the same unit and though "oh yeah this game is going to be interesting." 3 of a unit tends to be about my threshold for where effective redundancy tips over into unimaginativeness.
I definitely think that most of the time we take 3+ of a unit because there is a balance issue of some kind (usually one unit is too good, or every other unit is too bad) and that those issues should be addressed, but in a perfect world of balance it seems to me that a 0-3 limitation would still be fine to promote variety, due to the inherent strength of unit redundancy, which is something that can be hard to balance under the current system.
So it seems to me that with minimal changes, a 0-3 system could work. I would probably be on board with certain factions having some exceptions for fluff reasons (SM bikers, deathwing, etc), and some other rule changes (like probably get rid of or limit most vehicle squadrons).
I am not sure that perfect balance for 40k will ever be attainable, but it seems like it would be easier to reach with a 0-3 limit than without.
The #1 reason why I have seen any army field more than 3 of anything is transports. Rhinos, Raiders, Wave Serpents, Trukks, Battlewagons, Chimeras, Drop Pods and probably some things I have missed have all been very army-defining models in the past. 0-3 limitation on those will kill all those armies for good.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
So 40k should be balanced around the most extreme waac lists and feth the rest?
Did I say that? I like to think I know myself pretty well, and I think that's not what I'm saying. Nor do I think GW only consider tournaments anyway, since they have their own staff playing games and they have have been introducing play testers to their rule making process. This is not some zero sum game that 40k can only get better causally or competitively.
hobojebus wrote: Right I don't get why anyone takes gw at their word they have lied to us over and over.
I never have given the claim that everything was play tested much credence before the codex released but it should be clear by now they either Arnt playtesting with tournament players or they are and ignoring their input.
No way would you beta test grey knights and give your seal of approval, or let necrons release without points drops or a reworking of res protocals.
You really have to remember GW main audience is teenagers who are casual players, not WAAC competitive players, or even just low level competitive players.
I imagine GW don't playtest these weird hyper-competitve soup armies that perform in tourneys, they playtest normal builds with normal troops.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
So 40k should be balanced around the most extreme waac lists and feth the rest?
Did I say that? I like to think I know myself pretty well, and I think that's not what I'm saying. Nor do I think GW only consider tournaments anyway, since they have their own staff playing games and they have have been introducing play testers to their rule making process. This is not some zero sum game that 40k can only get better causally or competitively.
But it is a zero sum game, in order to make the game more suited for tournaments you have to make it worse for casual players, there is no other way.
You cant have 20+ different factions with many wildly different playstyles within each faction and make a perfectly balanced tournamnet game. In order to make it balanced a lot of units need to be squatted (not likely) or a lot of units need to be made the same.
We get it, guys. You really, really hate the fact that some people play competitively.
Your casual, for fun lists don't bother me or anyone in a tournament. Cannot for the life of me understand why my/our lists throw you into a fury on the internet.
Please calm down and return to the topic at hand, instead of vaguely being rude to one another.
The only point I will concede is that some tournament players see every unit as crap if it isnt as good as the best one in his category.
"This unit cant survive one turn in the open unsupported vs 10 ynnary dark reapers? CRAP! Next one please."
And thats a problem, balance should go towards the middle. Those units you dont actually see much in tournaments but people agree that they feel right for the cost.
jhnbrg wrote: But it is a zero sum game, in order to make the game more suited for tournaments you have to make it worse for casual players, there is no other way.
You have failed to deliver proof of this statement multiple times, why do you keep preaching it?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
Finding expoits and stres testing is not how gaming balance works. That's how stres testing works. Wich is an important part of game balance, wich is an important part of game design, wich is an important part of GW's product.
A game is more than it's balance. If I want to play a perfectly balanced game I'll go play checkers or chess. Warhammer moslty need to fullfill the fantasy of recreating the fantastical battles of the 41st millenium. That is why balance is good for the game, but not everything good for the game is good for balance. And blanacing the different needs of the game and hobby is an important thing for Gw to do. That's why you can't just rely on tournament game(r)s for playtesting. It's not just about them or their playstyle, it's about everyone's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Making the game better for one set of people does not automatically make it better or worse for another set of people.
Yeah, you dont only balance for the high ranking players.
How many games touch balance changes for things that are fine or even weak in tournaments but frustrating for new players (Nova in heroes of the storm for example)
A good balance team will balance for both crows, that have very different needs.
But people on the internet is to eager to discalify anything that isnt a tournament as not worth looking into.
Perhaps consider that tournaments are valuable in that they reveal the net-lists that will be stomping Timmy's face at the FLGS? If these top lists, which are fun in a competitive setting (fun being a relative term used here in the sense that both participants willingly engage each other with a common understanding and expectations), but are not fun at your FLGS when you're playing a pick-up game (or just getting into/coming back to the hobby, which the numbers appear to indicate people are), are dis-incentivized (or hamstrung), and lists NOT seen are incentivized, the game moves toward 'balance'.
The ideal is a mix of both. You *have* to include tournament data in your balancing because it's the top of the top, and the only real way to get consistent information. You start by taking the top 10% and bottom 10% of represented units, factor in their performance - then nerf the top and buff the bottom. That's the ideal - to shift everything towards the middle, over time, little by little.
Where you run into problems is that this isn't the top and bottom of all games. As people rightly say, this is a very small percentage of all games played - so buffing something that's underrepresented in tournament games can inadvertently create a monster in the 90% of games that are played outside of a tournament setting. A good example is 7th edition T'au - they only ever had middling performance in tournaments but would crush casual games and had a horrible reputation as a result.
'Great, use every other game as your balance testing then!' How? Unlike tournaments, GW don't have access to data from every game in every club and kitchen and basement and whatever. It's simply not possible at present. The only way to replicate is is have thousands of playtesters playing thousands of games; which they don't have. In the scheme of things, GW are a *tiny* company and really don't have the personpower or time resources to playtest things properly. They have their external playtest team - but they're made up of mostly tournament minded people, so have the same problems as just taking data from tournaments anyway.
How do they solve this? No idea. Find a way to start collecting data from all games played, I guess. It could be incorporated into the list construction app I guess, but it's very easy to game.
They absolutely can't just listen to people on the internet, that's a horrible idea. One person claiming (just an example, nothing personal) that Magnus and Grey Knights are OP doesn't mean they are. Just because I say that Death Guard are middling at best because I play with Plague Marines and Forge World dreads doesn't mean they are - you need data. Lots and lots of consistent data.
DCannon4Life wrote: Perhaps consider that tournaments are valuable in that they reveal the net-lists that will be stomping Timmy's face at the FLGS? If these top lists, which are fun in a competitive setting (fun being a relative term used here in the sense that both participants willingly engage each other with a common understanding and expectations), but are not fun at your FLGS when you're playing a pick-up game (or just getting into/coming back to the hobby, which the numbers appear to indicate people are), are dis-incentivized (or hamstrung), and lists NOT seen are incentivized, the game moves toward 'balance'.
+1 internet for that 79 word long sentence.
Warhammer 40k is probably pretty tough to keep balanced. A lot of the "fun and fluffy" things that get added can quickly be subverted for ultra-competitive play. The detachment system allows for some really fluffy armies, but also allows competitive players to spam the top units in a given army with little and sometimes no "tax unit" requirement.
I really wish GW would do what FFG does with a lot of their games. FFG tends to have a "rule reference", which tells you how to play the game, and then also a "tournament document", which tells you how to run a organized play, competitive event. I think GW sort of tried to do this with the Open/Narrative being for "everyone" and Matched being for the competitive players. I think they really needed to offer a structure for "competitive casual" and then a stricter set of army building requirements for "competitive tournament". They really needed Open/Narrative, Matched and Tournament modes.
DCannon4Life wrote: Perhaps consider that tournaments are valuable in that they reveal the net-lists that will be stomping Timmy's face at the FLGS? If these top lists, which are fun in a competitive setting (fun being a relative term used here in the sense that both participants willingly engage each other with a common understanding and expectations), but are not fun at your FLGS when you're playing a pick-up game (or just getting into/coming back to the hobby, which the numbers appear to indicate people are), are dis-incentivized (or hamstrung), and lists NOT seen are incentivized, the game moves toward 'balance'.
+1 internet for that 79 word long sentence.
Warhammer 40k is probably pretty tough to keep balanced. A lot of the "fun and fluffy" things that get added can quickly be subverted for ultra-competitive play. The detachment system allows for some really fluffy armies, but also allows competitive players to spam the top units in a given army with little and sometimes no "tax unit" requirement.
I really wish GW would do what FFG does with a lot of their games. FFG tends to have a "rule reference", which tells you how to play the game, and then also a "tournament document", which tells you how to run a organized play, competitive event. I think GW sort of tried to do this with the Open/Narrative being for "everyone" and Matched being for the competitive players. I think they really needed to offer a structure for "competitive casual" and then a stricter set of army building requirements for "competitive tournament". They really needed Open/Narrative, Matched and Tournament modes.
I think most of the "WHAT ABOUT POOR LITTLE TIMMY?!?" arguments are mostly overblown and/or faux concern. But I agree that there's a clear difference between 'casual-competitive' play and 'competitive' play, and that lumping them both under 'matched' play probably doesn't serve either category as well as it could.
Cephalobeard wrote: We get it, guys. You really, really hate the fact that some people play competitively.
Your casual, for fun lists don't bother me or anyone in a tournament. Cannot for the life of me understand why my/our lists throw you into a fury on the internet.
Please calm down and return to the topic at hand, instead of vaguely being rude to one another.
Don't flagrantly misrepresent people view point, it's beneath you. They are not hating a certain aspect of the game, they simply recognize that it's flawed to use house ruled formats to patch the game proper.
I play both competitively and casually, I get exactly where they are coming from. Being good at adepticon or LVO really has zero baring on 90% of the actual game. They are a format built upon house rules, made up missions and in a timed format. You practice the format and specific missions more then you practice the actually rules proper, which ironically is why so many errors keep popping up on streams.
Here's an example of on e of the best tournament format players in the world, if not the best, losing to a list that would be laughed to hell and back on any competitive forum, to a store casual player nobody has probably heard of. How? Because he isn't playing a tournament pack, he's really good at busting specific tournaments when you give him lead time to practice. So what they need to do is hire a few of these guys so they can control for the variables themselves. I mean in the video he even admits to not knowing anything about a redemptor dread. Good luck getting units balanced from that crowd without specifically controlling the input.
Now, if GW hired a few of these guys to fly in twice a year and playtest the crap out of certain rules and mechanics etc. thats a whole other hog. BTW this isn't to say that GW reaching out to the tournament scene is bad. But adjusting the game over and over based on that one data set is bad. Half of the things currently wrong with the game are in the core rules anyway. Matched play rules, force org charts, how armies are built, characters, smite and moral mechanics. The lack of tank shock is also one of the biggest factors. They can tweak the codexes to hell and back and the game will still suffer from problems until they address those things.
Red Corsair wrote: Here's an example of on e of the best tournament format players in the world, if not the best, losing to a list that would be laughed to hell and back on any competitive forum, to a store casual player nobody has probably heard of. How? Because he isn't playing a tournament pack, he's really good at busting specific tournaments when you give him lead time to practice. So what they need to do is hire a few of these guys so they can control for the variables themselves. I mean in the video he even admits to not knowing anything about a redemptor dread. Good luck getting units balanced from that crowd without specifically controlling the input.
This may be an overstatement.
While I'm sure players like Nick practice the mission pack ahead of time, this video really illustrates is how fragile any list can be. The fact Chaos was not able to encircle its targets is what decided the game, there are no auto-wins.
Competitive / tournament players annoy me as much as anyone, but dismissing their feedback due to the nature of mission packs ignores the knowledge of tactics / strategy they build by playing the game repetitively. I don't see them as stress testers so much as power users, they are going to figure out how to get the most out of the rules.
I wouldn't mind if GW took their feedback a little more seriously than other players, if I knew they were also thinking about the units competitive users don't use. My concern is more about bad units being overshadowed by good units, which makes it hard to run fluffy lists.
hobojebus wrote: No in order to balance they need to hire a statistician but they are too cheap to pay one enough.
In the lootas thread math was used to make Lootas "as durable" as marines per point. This resulted in 9ppm Lootas, which is about the worst thing you could do. Just because someone can do math doesn't mean they understand the game.
Valkyrie wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are the main rules decisions we're hoping to see in this FAQ?
I'm hoping for clarifications to some things have have cropped up in rule sets that don't make much sense. Or funny wording where the intention is clear but RAW means you get arguements in gaming centre's etc.
Tournement lists don't care too much. If a tournement whats to ban the flyrant list they can do so FAQ doesn;t affect tournements too much is list building.
Cephalobeard wrote: We get it, guys. You really, really hate the fact that some people play competitively.
Your casual, for fun lists don't bother me or anyone in a tournament. Cannot for the life of me understand why my/our lists throw you into a fury on the internet.
Please calm down and return to the topic at hand, instead of vaguely being rude to one another.
Don't flagrantly misrepresent people view point, it's beneath you. They are not hating a certain aspect of the game, they simply recognize that it's flawed to use house ruled formats to patch the game proper.
I play both competitively and casually, I get exactly where they are coming from. Being good at adepticon or LVO really has zero baring on 90% of the actual game. They are a format built upon house rules, made up missions and in a timed format. You practice the format and specific missions more then you practice the actually rules proper, which ironically is why so many errors keep popping up on streams.
Come now. I'm taking the piss at the situation. This thread is pages upon pages of people shaming one another, i'm tossing some satire while commenting that both types of play are valid.
Well, there's the list of what the community wants and expects. My favorite was Tac marines as cheap as scouts.
And hey, as far as I go, I'll take whatever. This edition has already chased off the four other regulars I used to play with, so I'm quickly running out of any dog in this fight unless I start going to the local tournament scene.
What would everyone's reaction be if they posted the FAQ, and it's half a page long, with only one or two questions and answers, all of which are stupid, e.g.:
Q: "When [rule] says NO, does it really mean YES?"
It's going to be a huge disappointment to all the people who are treating it like a long-awaited and personally-owed rewrite for Codex: Their Stuff, as opposed to an FAQ.
Particularly when it is specifically titled: BIG FAQ
Silentz wrote: It's going to be a huge disappointment to all the people who are treating it like a long-awaited and personally-owed rewrite for Codex: Their Stuff, as opposed to an FAQ.
Particularly when it is specifically titled: BIG FAQ
I play Grey Knights, and every FAQ and release since after 5th edition has been nothing but overhyped disappointment.
My god. It'll be like a thousand instances of the 'Leave Brittny Alone' guys all nerd raging at once, in a live chat. Will there be in-chat counselling?
jhnbrg wrote: But it is a zero sum game, in order to make the game more suited for tournaments you have to make it worse for casual players, there is no other way.
You have failed to deliver proof of this statement multiple times, why do you keep preaching it?
I have stated SO many times that the only way to make 40k a balanced set of rules suitable for tournaments is to take away most of the choises and invalidiate large amounts of fluffy lists, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
Cephalobeard wrote: We get it, guys. You really, really hate the fact that some people play competitively.
Your casual, for fun lists don't bother me or anyone in a tournament. Cannot for the life of me understand why my/our lists throw you into a fury on the internet.
Please calm down and return to the topic at hand, instead of vaguely being rude to one another.
I dont hate that people play in tournament but dont fething ruin 40k anymore than you already done.
jhnbrg wrote: But it is a zero sum game, in order to make the game more suited for tournaments you have to make it worse for casual players, there is no other way.
You have failed to deliver proof of this statement multiple times, why do you keep preaching it?
I have stated SO many times that the only way to make 40k a balanced set of rules suitable for tournaments is to take away most of the choises and invalidiate large amounts of fluffy lists, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!
I totally disagree with this - you can fix most of the issues in 40k with points changes. Points changes don't invalidate anything in a casual environment. If anything - it will make your matches more interesting because regardless of what you take - you will be able to have reasonably close games. That is better for everyone. Including tournament players.
You can fix most issues in 40k with points changes. Inequal acces to soup/allies is one of the exceptions. It really hinders faction identity and worse it makes proper balancing (including points costs) harder.
It's a desperately needed change to be honest (the cp one). I can now make much, much better armies without haven't do weird stuff and have enough CP to make an actual impact on games. Especially in the the more CP hungry lists that happen to be relatively elite.
Thank christ, removing themed armies from standard play would have been a rather nasty slapdown to everyone who doesn’t think with a tournament mindset.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Chaos, Imperium, Eldari no longer allowed for detachment keywords.
Individual models will need fixing. My Inquistion detachment just died an ugly death
Automatically Appended Next Post: So much salt from my fellow Fallen players, but they [b]do[/b[ say that some models will be erratad to continue being playable
As I heard them, it's per DETACHMENT not per ARMY.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Chaos, Imperium, Eldari no longer allowed for detachment keywords.
Individual models will need fixing. My Inquistion detachment just died an ugly death
Automatically Appended Next Post: So much salt from my fellow Fallen players, but they [b]do[/b[ say that some models will be erratad to continue being playable
As I heard them, it's per DETACHMENT not per ARMY.
It is. My Inquisition detachment used the Imperium keyword to fill out, but I'll wait till the doc comes out. Fallen only have 1 HQ and no troops, similar situation for Legion of the Damned. (but will be fixed via matching rule changes for those datasheets)
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Was about to post the same. Tournaments need spam help and that is a great rule. No one is stopping you from running your friendly games as you see fit.
Guideline for Events:
Rule of 3: only use same datasheet 3 times, troops and transports excepted
Beta rules:
Army construction/soup:
You can no longer use Chaos, Imperium, Tyranids or Aeldari as the faction keyword within one detachment
Exceptions: SoS, Assassins, LoD, other units that dont work as their own army.
First turn/reserved/alphastrike:
Fully half your army has to be on table (by units and power level)
If something arrives within first turn, it can only deploy within your deployment zone.
Exception: Anything that deploys before first turn starts, GSC ambush
He explains how strong shooting alpha strike is, and their solution is....to make it so you can only deep strike into your own deployment zone first turn even though deep strike is one of the few answers to shooting alpha strike? Wow that is a terrible rule. RIP Daemons.
Also totally ignore the reality that you can mitigate enemy alpha deep striking with scouts/infiltrators/screens, but nothing you can do about shooting alpha striking (especially with most tables being limited to a couple buildings for terrain and the rest is open LOS).
I'm also not sure how you can score a kill / more kills / first blood on first turn in ITC now if you play Daemons, given that you can only deep strike into your deployment zone and the only long range shooting units you have in the codex are 1) skull cannons and 2) soul grinders (and we all know Soul Grinders are terrible).
That nerfs Flyrant spam heavily too as it relies on Spore Mines to allow all your Flyrants to Deep Strike. That + Rule of 3 + points increase buries that list.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
Virules wrote: He explains how strong shooting alpha strike is, and their solution is....to make it so you can only deep strike into your own deployment zone first turn even though deep strike is one of the few answers to shooting alpha strike? Wow that is a terrible rule. RIP Daemons.
They mentioned how strong deep strike alpha strike was, not gunlines, which are a completely different problem.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Was about to post the same. Tournaments need spam help and that is a great rule. No one is stopping you from running your friendly games as you see fit.
Except like 3 det rule no-one will play without. Also you miss the fact spam units are still broken. Gw did not fix problem. If they had spam wouldn't be problem
I get what they are trying to do but it gets tough and playing points vs power level I'm guessing we will use half points must be on the table as well.
Only being able to deep strike 1k points on turn 2 (unless you want to land in your own deployment zone) will make it tough.
Hopefully they rule that in a transport counts as on the table or else 1st turn shooting just got a lot more powerful.
Dedwoods42 wrote: That nerfs Flyrant spam heavily too as it relies on Spore Mines to allow all your Flyrants to Deep Strike. That + Rule of 3 + points increase buries that list.
I didn't even realize that - my fourth hive tyrant just became surplus
Khorne is a faction keyword so my Khorne Daemonkin is safe from this soup nerfing, which makes me pretty happy. More CP is also a nice surprise. My list goes from 9 to 13 CP, so now I can actually use my Fight Again strats.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
So the anti Aplha Strike really...isn't an anti alpha strike.
Sure, you can deep strike a few units turn 1 and zap zap in close range but this doesn't hurt gunelines at all. So per usual they don't understand what Alpha Strike I and it further nerfs assault armies
So did they say Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, etc cannot be use for detachment shared keyword, or whole army?
If it is just for detachments, I actually quite like that. It forces you to take a whole detachment of Marines, or CWE instead of just "plug-n-play" cherry-picking the units you want.
Obviously there needs to be some concession for things like Assassins to even be played.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
The two are functionally equivalent, really. Nobody is going to play matched play with rules that aren't consistent with those used in tournaments.
Galef wrote: So did they say Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, etc cannot be use for detachment shared keyword, or whole army?
If it is just for detachments, I actually quite like that. It forces you to take a whole detachment of Marines, or CWE instead of just "plug-n-play" cherry-picking the units you want.
Obviously there needs to be some concession for things like Assassins to even be played.
-
Just for the detachment. Imperium Armies are fine. Me having Cypher, Marbo and two Inquistors in a detachment is no longer fine but they could be in seperate detachments without issue.
Except like 3 det rule no-one will play without. Also you miss the fact spam units are still broken. Gw did not fix problem. If they had spam wouldn't be problem
So how many hoops do you need to jump through now to show that this is just a sales tactic?
That Deep Strike one is crap because the most offending units are the shooting ones that need to be slapped on the wrist with a point increase. What are they expecting Daemon armies to do?
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
The two are functionally equivalent, really. Nobody is going to play matched play with rules that aren't consistent with those used in tournaments.
Yeah - it's like Power Level. Tournament rules become Matched Play rules become casual rules so long as tournament players remain such a large present in non-tournament play.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
if that rule comes into play for tournaments, and doesnt become at least a de facto standard rule, I'll eat a hat
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That Deep Strike one is crap because the most offending units are the shooting ones that need to be slapped on the wrist with a point increase. What are they expecting Daemon armies to do?
I don't know. We'll find out when the FAQs are out as GSC have an exemption.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
The two are functionally equivalent, really. Nobody is going to play matched play with rules that aren't consistent with those used in tournaments.
No they aren't. My group doesn't play tournament rules packs (ITC, LVO, adepticon, etc), so I just disproved your 'nobody' statement about people playing non-tournament.
the nice thing about the tournament rules; is that you can self-impose if you're a tournament player when you go in for pickup games. You do what you want, and I will build my lists to adhere to rules I'm likely going to need to respect later on.
ChargerIIC wrote: All non-troops and Transports are hard capped at 3 copies in Matched Play
Bye bye balance
Stop the hyperbole. This is only a recommendation for tournament play.
Which will be de facto standard for all games. Furthermore do you think gw will actually fix probled after that? If they did there would be no need for this rule.
No. They specifically said this is a tournament recommendation, not a matched play rule. It will not be the 'de facto standard for all games.'
Yes. And 3det is only suggestion officially but in practice it is iron hard rule that is even more rigorously followed than premeasuring is allowed.
Theory is irrelevant. Only practice matters and that shows tournamen' rules are defacto. Hopefully you don#t own deathwing as they just became illegal
Spoletta wrote: With the dark reaper spam, there aren't many competitive long range shooting lists left.
AM can still put together a decent long range alpha strike, but that is only one faction and it failed to do anything worthy in the last events.
You are crazy. What kind of tournaments have you been going to?
Astra Militarum / Gullimen Space Marine / Eldar shooty / Tau Bork'an / etc. lists are already brutal. Massive deep strike nerfs will remove the only thing that really challenged them.
Dedwoods42 wrote: If you're getting tabled turn 1 by a static gunline you're not using anywhere near enough LOS blocking terrain.
You don't have to be tabled, just crippled. And with FLG selling their own terrain, you're going to see a lot of tables with `5 medium- and small-sized buildings and maybe some craters. Was the same at LVO and all the GTs I've played at in 8th. Few tables at few tournaments use big mountains or giant factory buildings or other types of terrain features that would really protect a decent-sized army from shooting on the first turn. And of course that's not counting 36"+ range ignore LOS shooting and etc.
Spoletta wrote: With the dark reaper spam, there aren't many competitive long range shooting lists left.
AM can still put together a decent long range alpha strike, but that is only one faction and it failed to do anything worthy in the last events.
You are crazy. What kind of tournaments have you been going to?
Astra Militarum / Gullimen Space Marine / Eldar shooty / Tau Bork'an / etc. lists are already brutal. Massive deep strike nerfs will remove the only thing that really challenged them.
Except for AM, none of those lists actually poses a credible threat turn 1 (after DA double nerf), and in fact none of those appeared at a top table, no matter the ruleset (again, except DA).
tneva82 wrote: Yes. And 3det is only suggestion officially but in practice it is iron hard rule that is even more rigorously followed than premeasuring is allowed.
Theory is irrelevant. Only practice matters and that shows tournamen' rules are defacto. Hopefully you don#t own deathwing as they just became illegal
The only theory here is your own. If my group chooses to use more than three detachments per X amount of points, we'll play it that way. I do play this game, it's no theory for me.
If the three detachment rule is used without exception in standard pick-up games, it's likely because the parties involved don't realize it's a recommendation for organized events. If there's no friendly discussion with other players, why even bother playing the game? Just complain on forums all day about how the game (or army Y) is unplayable.
Also, a friend plays deathwing, and even abiding to this tournament recommendation of only 3 of each non-troops, non-transport, he could still make an army. 3x each of any; Deathwing Terminator Sqauds, Deathwing Knights, Deathwing Cataphractii Terminator Squads, Deathwing Tartaros Terminator Squads, + any variation of characters from HQ/Elites, and vehicles. Who's theory is this again?
I'm a bit confused by the Battle Brothers rules change when it comes to Ynnari. Does it mean that none of your detachments can mix Aeldari? I would have thought that was the whole point of a Ynnari army.
So it's functionally equivalent to a multi-Aeldari list except you swap Battle Focus, PfP etc...
Related Errata
Index: Imperium 1 Page 87 – Damned Legionnaires, Abilities
Add the following ability:
‘Saviours From Beyond: As long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard
Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So... You can now take a Vanguard Detachment without taking a HQ?!?!?!?! Or am i missing something here?
dumb_numpty wrote: I'm a bit confused by the Battle Brothers rules change when it comes to Ynnari. Does it mean that none of your detachments can mix Aeldari? I would have thought that was the whole point of a Ynnari army.
So it's functionally equivalent to a multi-Aeldari list except you swap Battle Focus, PfP etc...
A bit odd.
Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn Replace this paragraph with the following: ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes), provided that the Detachment does not include any of the following: Urien Rakarth, Drazhar, Mandrakes, the Avatar of Khaine or any <Haemonculus Coven> units. You can include these models in the Detachment even if you are using the Battle Brothers matched play rule.
If Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne is included in a Detachment, all Aeldari units in that Detachment gain the Ynnari keyword. These units cannot use any of the following abilities, and are not considered to have them: Ancient Doom, Battle Focus, Rising Crescendo, Power From Pain. Instead, Ynnari Infantry and Biker units gain the Strength from Death ability, as described below. The Detachment is still considered to be a Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment, and so can use Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics respectively. Note that these units will not, however, gain any of the Detachment abilities listed in their respective codexes (such as The Path of War, Craftworld Attributes, Masque Forms, Drukhari Obsessions, etc.).’
dumb_numpty wrote: I'm a bit confused by the Battle Brothers rules change when it comes to Ynnari. Does it mean that none of your detachments can mix Aeldari? I would have thought that was the whole point of a Ynnari army.
So it's functionally equivalent to a multi-Aeldari list except you swap Battle Focus, PfP etc...
A bit odd.
Ynnari is a keyword alongside Aeldari that gets given to all the units in that detachment. So, you can still use eldar from all 3 factions in the 1 detachment, as they will have the Ynnari keyword. You can then still have your 1 craftworlds detachment for stratagems, and your 1 DE detachment for Agents of Vect...
Just read the FAQ and as I suspected it makes no difference to how I will play. It's is just a FAQ for matched play and people who play the game for the love of the universe it's set in will only have to add some extra command points to their forces. Easy.
dumb_numpty wrote: I'm a bit confused by the Battle Brothers rules change when it comes to Ynnari. Does it mean that none of your detachments can mix Aeldari? I would have thought that was the whole point of a Ynnari army.
So it's functionally equivalent to a multi-Aeldari list except you swap Battle Focus, PfP etc...
A bit odd.
Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn Replace this paragraph with the following: ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes), provided that the Detachment does not include any of the following: Urien Rakarth, Drazhar, Mandrakes, the Avatar of Khaine or any <Haemonculus Coven> units. You can include these models in the Detachment even if you are using the Battle Brothers matched play rule.
If Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne is included in a Detachment, all Aeldari units in that Detachment gain the Ynnari keyword. These units cannot use any of the following abilities, and are not considered to have them: Ancient Doom, Battle Focus, Rising Crescendo, Power From Pain. Instead, Ynnari Infantry and Biker units gain the Strength from Death ability, as described below. The Detachment is still considered to be a Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment, and so can use Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics respectively. Note that these units will not, however, gain any of the Detachment abilities listed in their respective codexes (such as The Path of War, Craftworld Attributes, Masque Forms, Drukhari Obsessions, etc.).’
I obviously need to go do some more reading. Aren't the Xenos updates essentially what they were before + a Battle Brothers exemption? I don't see what they needed to call Ynnari out in the Battle Brothers rule and then clarify that they are exempt in the Xenos rule update. I've clearly missed their point.
For the Ynarri Rules i think it means you cant have a mixed detachment of drukhari and craftworld stuff, instead its either a ynarri,craftworld detachment, or a ynarri drukhari detachment,
battle brothers states you have to share a keyword that isnt aeldari or ynarri,
Hmmm i dont quite get it. Do they contradict themselves?
"This means that you can still include appropriate allies, but now they might need to be included in a different
Detachment. "
vs a few lines later
"BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your
Army Faction."
so i cant play celestine with my admech or genestealer & tyranids?
