Is anyone else reading the FAQs that GW is putting out and thinking to themselves "Wow these clowns have no idea what they are doing?" So many simple fixes could have happened with this FAQ and instead I feel like they are either adding more questions to the mix or they are taking already sub-par units/armies and nerfing them even further. So far from what I have read very little has been helped in the FAQs, some notable exceptions aside. And of course the nerfing stick hitting weak armies is a bit ridiculous at this point. My favorite so far has been the GW teams reasoning behind Mad Dok Grotsnik having a Cybork Body.

Yeah, there's a lot of inconsistencies, as is tradition, and a lot of "was that really a question that was frequently asked?", as is tradition, and even more "yeah this totally broken thing really does that, no that totally unplayable unit really was meant to be unplayable", again, as is tradition.

I'm not sure what people were expecting, I know hope springs eternal, but the FAQ stuff is directly in line with how GW has operated for the last two decades.


:(

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, there's a lot of inconsistencies, as is tradition, and a lot of "was that really a question that was frequently asked?", as is tradition, and even more "yeah this totally broken thing really does that, no that totally unplayable unit really was meant to be unplayable", again, as is tradition.

I'm not sure what people were expecting, I know hope springs eternal, but the FAQ stuff is directly in line with how GW has operated for the last two decades.


:(

But it started off quite well...

And it's not exactly in line with how they've acted for two decades. It opened up a venue that had previously been closed off as we were stonewalled as far as any kind of explanation on rules went.

You were expecting changes? They are to clarify unclear parts on how it's intended to be played...

But as for rule changes...That's not FAQ's job.

tneva82 wrote:
You were expecting changes? They are to clarify unclear parts on how it's intended to be played...

But as for rule changes...That's not FAQ's job.

Actually FAQs can change how rules are done. For instance they could have specified that Mob Rule could be used against Fear checks. That would have fit in line with the rest of the terrible rule and made Orks a bit better against a lot of CC units. Instead they took the easy road and said, "Nah feth the orks".

So many missed opportunities to help the community and make people think that GW actually gives a feth.

You have to remember that the FAQ's are not meant to "nerf" or "buff" armies, but rather just to help everyone play the same game. Almost all answers have actually been expected, with some notable exceptions. Even of these exceptions, some of them are actually in the rules, but just verbalized in a way that no one expected to mean that way. Some examples:

#1 - Grenades; one per phase, even in assault. They said "throw", which we took to mean "shooting attack", but "throw" isn't actually described elsewhere in the rules as a shooting attack, and it seems like units in close combat are also "throwing" the grenades then.

#2 - Battle Brothers not allowed to start in each other's transports. The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

Aside from that, the only times they've really done a major errata has been in these cases:

#1 - Increased Dreadnaught's (and Helbrute's) attacks so they all match.

#2 - Made Warp Spiders "one jump only".

#3 - Gave the Tankbusta Nob a Close Combat Weapon.


From this, it stands to reason that GW want a player who picks up the book with only a casual knowledge of the game to be able to play "correctly", and for that to match what everyone else is already playing. Players assume that a Tankbusta Nob can take a Power Klaw, because all other Nobz can, and it even says they have access to the armoury. So many people make that mistake, that they brought in the Close Combat Weapon. A player might also honestly assume that because the Warp Spider's rule in the codex says that can't make the special move during their next turn, that this move in the shooting phase should only happen once as well. Lastly, the Dreadnaught one really was I think GW hearing how weird it was that two things with the same name had different stats in different codex's, but had players not made a stink about it nothing would have happened.

Aside from that, GW is keeping things as they are written as often as possible. I'm sure some of these things actually caused GW to say "huh, you know what, it SHOULD have kept Lumbering Behemoth", but to that, someone probably decided "Yes, but only players who had the last codex would know that. A newer player won't realize that it should have a rule that they've never seen and never heard of and have no idea what it does. Just go with it, and we'll note it down for the next time we write a codex."

(followed by that first employee saying "sir, you're not writing anything down.", "don't worry, we'll remember it. I promise" fingers-crossed-behind-back)

Why would they bother to "fix" things in 7th when they can save the changes for 8th and make ou pay for the fixes instead of handing them out with free FAQs?. [/sarcasm] - "7the ed is a flaming pile of gak. They fixed it all in 8th, so I'm buying that ruleset and using it instead!"

Personally, I do believe these FAQ's ARE fact-finding endevours for 8th edition; a way for GW to locate and consider rule questions/hole that they can then address in the next version. I don't think they're being intentional in rule-screwing any faction, but instead finding out what people don't understand or don't like so they can incorporate it into a better ruleset with the next (hopefully better playtested) edition. A clean rules break with a new, improved edition with everyone on equal footing is, in theory, better than attempting to patch up a broken system that people might equate rule changes to house rules.

I still like how BA went from two useful formations to one.

Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

the problem is tha increasingly its not a game for anyone. Its not a game for those looking for a tactical wargame scenario simulator (by GW's own admission), its too expensive for little timmy who just wants to play with cool toys, it's totally worthless as a narrative story or campaign framework, and its obscenely overcomplex and overburdened with rules for a beer and pretzels game.

I still wish the writing of the Codices would be contracted out to Fantasy Flight or WizKids and then slapping the GW label on it and sell it. We'd definitely get better rules.

SG

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

GW has made these FAQ DRAFTS with the goal of fixing problems in the game currently. GW is pushing out even MORE IoM factions and sub codices in the hope of selling MORE models and rules. What they should have done was take a fething minute to look over what they currently have and find a way to fix it. The FAQs offered a lot of useless fixes to problems that a lot of us didn't know existed. They clarified very little and then to add insult to injury they ridiculed actual concerns about game design and played it off as if that was what they intended.

Turning a 5++ into a 6+ FNP and sticking it on a character with a 5+ FNP already and then attempting to tell us that the reason Mad Dok lost his invul and gained a useless 6+ FNP is because he is "Mad". that is insulting to those who play the game and it speaks volumes to how they treat that faction.

I honestly think Orks get more releases and extra stuff the any other faction except IoM, specifically SMs. BUT all of our extras and supplements tend to suck. The fact that GW just phoned in another Ork release (New Ork Flyer, still AV10 all around and no dakka) and then a few months later gave SMs an assault flyer with good stats and relatively cheap price makes it that much more unbearable.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

GW: If a Template weapon with Multiple shots (E.G the Frag Cannon) fires overwatch, it does its number of shots in D3

Players: Does the Frag Cannon get multiple Wall of Death?
GW: No

Wut?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

the problem is tha increasingly its not a game for anyone. Its not a game for those looking for a tactical wargame scenario simulator (by GW's own admission), its too expensive for little timmy who just wants to play with cool toys, it's totally worthless as a narrative story or campaign framework, and its obscenely overcomplex and overburdened with rules for a beer and pretzels game.

And? If you'll notice I never said 40k was a great game or anything, my last sentence was "Find a new game". If you spent hours and hours complaining about a game, maybe get a new hobby?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

Where did I take it personally or tell you to throw away stuff? You've posted time and again how GW hates Orks and how it's a terrible game. I'm being bad by telling you to try a new one?

But sure, if you want suggestions:
-Play test the FAQs, they're drafts, give feedback
-Wait it out, a new edition will roll around
-Build a better army. Recognize Orks are bad in this iteration and start an Eldar/SM army that's OP
-Find a new game

SemperMortis wrote:
I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

*shrug* Switching game and keeping models aren't mutually exclusive. Don't know where you get the idea that you need to throw models away just 'cause you would dump the 40k.

SemperMortis wrote:


I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

I stopped playing 40k at the start of 7th ed, but I saw no need to throw out any of my codexes or models because of that. It sucks that they don't see the battlefield anymore and just sit on a shelf, but it's given me a lot of time to work on painting them to a new level while I play games that supply more fun, such as X Wing.

If you have a good group of friends at your LGS, you could even get your heads together and create a house ruleset to play by, or even work on an entirely new game such as I am doing at this very minute.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

I get not supporting GW's rules, but why boycott Citadel models? I think codex writers and model sculptors fall into two very different halves of GW as a whole, and I still find myself happy to buy their models.

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a good codex for your army. Sounds very much like a certain definition of insanity to me, as does continuing to play a game that you hate because you feel you haven't got your money's worth from what you spent. Incoming vague comparison here, but I've played a lot of crap video games I paid for. Doesn't mean I keep playing them till I'm dry as a bone, I just toss them out and get back to more Overwatch/Space Marine/Insurgency/DOW

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

I stopped playing 40k at the start of 7th ed, but I saw no need to throw out any of my codexes or models because of that. It sucks that they don't see the battlefield anymore and just sit on a shelf, but it's given me a lot of time to work on painting them to a new level while I play games that supply more fun, such as X Wing.

If you have a good group of friends at your LGS, you could even get your heads together and create a house ruleset to play by, or even work on an entirely new game such as I am doing at this very minute.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

I get not supporting GW's rules, but why boycott Citadel models? I think codex writers and model sculptors fall into two very different halves of GW as a whole, and I still find myself happy to buy their models.

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a good codex for your army. Sounds very much like a certain definition of insanity to me, as does continuing to play a game that you hate because you feel you haven't got your money's worth from what you spent. Incoming vague comparison here, but I've played a lot of crap video games I paid for. Doesn't mean I keep playing them till I'm dry as a bone, I just toss them out and get back to more Overwatch/Space Marine/Insurgency/DOW

G.A

I actually get a lot of fun games still because my local area is crammed with Orks, BA, Nid, and CSM players. So all of us at the bottom can still play games relatively easily against each other. We do have a few SM and Eldar players and occasionally I play against them when I feel I might surprise them with something they aren't used to or because of a tournament or local event.

I LOVE warhammer40k I just HATE the current rules and the HUGE power imbalance that exists between the top tier (Eldar, Tau, SMs) and the Bottom tier (CSM, Nid, BA and Orks).

And I am not one to spend all that money and time on a hobby just to let it sit on a shelf for a few years because the game creators are idiots and dont know how to write a balanced game.

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

SemperMortis wrote:
I actually get a lot of fun games still because my local area is crammed with Orks, BA, Nid, and CSM players. So all of us at the bottom can still play games relatively easily against each other. We do have a few SM and Eldar players and occasionally I play against them when I feel I might surprise them with something they aren't used to or because of a tournament or local event.

I LOVE warhammer40k I just HATE the current rules and the HUGE power imbalance that exists between the top tier (Eldar, Tau, SMs) and the Bottom tier (CSM, Nid, BA and Orks).

You me both - I hated how I now had to spin around at the bottom where once my Orks used to be strong. I think the difference between me and you is that you still manage to get good games in with people who are practically forced to play friendlies with their armies; my LGS became one huge group of top tier players, and I was pretty glad that I ended up leaving it behind. In fact, when I visited 2 years later, 40K had vanished and been replaced by Magic.

And I am not one to spend all that money and time on a hobby just to let it sit on a shelf for a few years because the game creators are idiots and dont know how to write a balanced game.

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

Perhaps you should try writing your own ruleset as I am currently doing. I have no idea who would play mine as I don't know anyone here, or if it'd be any good, but it certainly makes me feel better about my collection's lack of field service. If you wrote something up, at the very least have people to play it with, and it could work a lot better than what you compromise for your gaming experience now.

As you said, GW don't care, and that is unlikely to change. I'm sure you don't want to be stuck in the same cycle of playing a crap game for years to come.

SemperMortis wrote:

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

Again, guys, let's all say it together: IT'S A DRAFT! It's meant to be played, commented on, etc.

Honestly this feels like more whining it's an FAQ not a rebalance of the whole game. Everyone wants rule changes deal with it.

Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

By and large I've been very satisfied with the FAQs. The few answers that have displeased me have still made sense, for the most part.

The FAQ's aren't nerfing anything.

The nerfs originated when the codexes were written. These units that appear now to be getting a nerf were nerfed all along; GW's English was just too poor to fully document the nerf.

The FAQs are just fixing the units were mis-nerfed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

And your source is? They explicitly stated they wanted these to be play tested and reflected back on. Even if they're changes in the form of 8th, no need to proclaim the end of the world yet.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

Yeah, GW probably means "draft" as in "check our spelling, but the answers aren't changing"

I'm actually quite hopeful. I have never wanted a rules overhaul as it takes time to relearn a whole new system. By reaching out to the community via Facebook, GW can "take the pulse" of what needs to change, address certain issues that don't require them to rewrite whole sections of a codex, then they can apply those REAL changes to 8th edition.
The core of the game is not broken, but the lack of structure in list building/allies and bloat of the rules has created some nasty situations.

Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

Yes it is a FAQ ant not a rule change Errata, but I hoped that GW will use a little bit more RAI and not strict RAW to answer them

 Galef wrote:

The core of the game is not broken, but the lack of structure in list building/allies and bloat of the rules has created some nasty situations.

Depends on what you define as core.
the simple rules that are still the same since 3rd are not broken, but if you are talking about 7th edi rulebook than I have to disagree because those rules are defiantly broken and need a complete re-write (without missing essential things but keeping outdated paragraphs because it was to much work to check to read it twice before it got printed)

And GW will not do it better with 8th, just because their way of writing rules is not working that way.
They have core rules and add with each faction special rules that have nothing to do with the core mechanics and because they don't care about wording you will get those small problems that a simple new special rules causes a lot of problems.
AoS is also written that way, they just needed 6 months until a nice idea of simple core rules was broken again and needed a fix.

Davor wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

What are they doing posting rules updates to FB only? That's fething garbage! Unless it's off the PDF downloads on their website, it does not exist to me. I am not going to dig through an FB page to find rules errata.

They will add it as pdf to the website when everything is finished

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

Davor wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

What are they doing posting rules updates to FB only? That's fething garbage! Unless it's off the PDF downloads on their website, it does not exist to me. I am not going to dig through an FB page to find rules errata.

Right now, they're only drafts, and are being published on Facebook so that people can give feedback on them.

Presumably they'll be added to the GW website once they're finalised.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689817.page

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689817.page

Thank you. That was quite helpful.

I would be mad, but they just appear to be RAW interpretations and generally common sense things that would have otherwise been assumed... although I guess any assumptions fall into RAI. But, I only know the rules well enough to interpret Craftworld and Harlequins.

I am disappointed that they would not use the opportunity to make some of these rules make more sense or apply in a more logical manner (Autarch gets no Flickerjump but has the equipment that one would assume would allow him to do such a thing - thus making it entirely pointless to give him the generator), but honestly I expect nothing less of GW.

People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

Well, yes and no. I don't think they will change any of their rulings. When they started the comments, they said as much with their "don't tell is if you don't like the rule; only tell is if you can't understand it" crap.

I'm pretty sure the grenade ruling will stand, even though it is clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule. I really don't think they care that much, tbh.

Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

Davor wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

What are they doing posting rules updates to FB only? That's fething garbage! Unless it's off the PDF downloads on their website, it does not exist to me. I am not going to dig through an FB page to find rules errata.

HOW WROOOD. (In a Jar Jar voice.) Well that was quite rude. Asking for help someone gives it to you and they it's not good enough? Heaven forbid scrolling down is a lot of work.

He's not wrong. Facebooks timeline is a bull crap place to be hosting rules for a game. Granted these are just the drafts and I am sure the website will be updated with the faqs when it's all said and done. But those rulings don't count for gak until they appear on the actual website.

Good to see what direction they are heading in. But we should all be waiting for the final versions.

 Lance845 wrote:
He's not wrong. Facebooks timeline is a bull crap place to be hosting rules for a game. Granted these are just the drafts and I am sure the website will be updated with the faqs when it's all said and done. But those rulings don't count for gak until they appear on the actual website.

Good to see what direction they are heading in. But we should all be waiting for the final versions.

Except, that's the opposite of what we should be doing. these are drafts; meaning that we should be testing them and finding out what works, what doesn't, and what needs further clarification. Ignoring them means that any inconsistencies that they have literally asked us to help them deal with will go unseen, and the rules will be worse off for it.

I find it very, very easy to believe that many game developers have little clue about the games they're making.

For example, in World of Warcraft, where all the gameplay takes place on servers that the developers have full access to, the PvP developers found it bizarre that so many Rogues were choosing one option over another. So they actually asked Rogue players why they were totally ignoring that one option no matter how much they buffed it.

High-end Rogue players had to explain to the developers that the option that was going unused had the sole function of making a particular buff active more often, but without the option, it was already active almost 100% of the time anyways.

They also had to explain to the developers, very slowly, the myriad of possible uses for an ability which teleports the player immediately behind a target player. Because the devs believed it would only be used to reach distant enemy players and were oblivious to the usefulness that would come from being able to use it to teleport to a friendly healer who came under attack, or to escape an unwinnable situation, among a variety of other things it was being used for. In 40k terms, the developers made an Independent character with a rule letting it teleport into base contact with any model within 18" and never considered it would be used for anything other than ignoring the random charge distance to automatically get into melee combat with an enemy unit.

The way I've always seen it is that a broken game comes from the players, not the writers. When they design a mechanic, they have ideas about how it should work and when it would be used. The players find ways to abuse this and break it causing imbalances.

They try to fix this imbalance the inly way they really can. Write a more powerful thing on par with how the players broke the previous one. (Yes they could do a rules update, but they would have to charge for it. They're having to put in more work for something the playerbase messed up). Unfortunately the new powerful thing on par with the player made op thing, gets exploited pushing it's power level up. The cycle repeats.

The reason things get left un updated when it's very underpowered is probably because everyone calls them out on updating something so soon calling it money grabbing.

Admittedly there are things that could be done, but could quickly get out of hand. They could do an errata for every codex when they do a new codex. But they would probably charge for it because they would have to put serious time and effort in. And this would happen with every major codex update. So you could end up buying a £1 errata every 2 months as well as a new codex every year or so.

Everyone seems to want major changes and buffs/nerfs. That requires work and effort and playtesting so it doesn't make something else need major buffs/nerfs. Would you be willing to spend time doing that for free instead of working on something that makes you money? Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean someone can do it for free.

Overall the FAQs are that, frequently asked questions that needed an answer. We got that. Nothing more, nothing less (except for a few errata that were genuinely needed). People will always complain and stamp their feet no matter what. If we get meaningful changes we most likely will have to pay "GW are overpriced and charge for things too much". If they don't we get left were we are " GW are terrible at rules and I know how to do it better with my 30+ years of business and market knowledge with the system I created"

Playerbase broke it? You can't break it. You can use it only to the letter it is written. If it is abusable, then it's poorly written. In a game this big, that will inevitably happen, but you could severely limit it by playtesting. Look at Malifaux. The amount of abusable rules compared to warhammer is a fraction of a fraction, because they thuroughly playtest. Before they start playtesting they're almost as bad as gw units, but they let the whole playerbase abuse it before they write the final versions.

 HANZERtank wrote:
The way I've always seen it is that a broken game comes from the players, not the writers. When they design a mechanic, they have ideas about how it should work and when it would be used. The players find ways to abuse this and break it causing imbalances.

They try to fix this imbalance the inly way they really can. Write a more powerful thing on par with how the players broke the previous one. (Yes they could do a rules update, but they would have to charge for it. They're having to put in more work for something the playerbase messed up). Unfortunately the new powerful thing on par with the player made op thing, gets exploited pushing it's power level up. The cycle repeats.

The reason things get left un updated when it's very underpowered is probably because everyone calls them out on updating something so soon calling it money grabbing.

Admittedly there are things that could be done, but could quickly get out of hand. They could do an errata for every codex when they do a new codex. But they would probably charge for it because they would have to put serious time and effort in. And this would happen with every major codex update. So you could end up buying a £1 errata every 2 months as well as a new codex every year or so.

Everyone seems to want major changes and buffs/nerfs. That requires work and effort and playtesting so it doesn't make something else need major buffs/nerfs. Would you be willing to spend time doing that for free instead of working on something that makes you money? Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean someone can do it for free.

Overall the FAQs are that, frequently asked questions that needed an answer. We got that. Nothing more, nothing less (except for a few errata that were genuinely needed). People will always complain and stamp their feet no matter what. If we get meaningful changes we most likely will have to pay "GW are overpriced and charge for things too much". If they don't we get left were we are " GW are terrible at rules and I know how to do it better with my 30+ years of business and market knowledge with the system I created"

They could try letting players playtest the crap out of the rules with free draft versions available online before committing anything to print.

And see where that has us now? The complaints about the faqs and how terrible they are.

As a player myself I'll admit that most of us are useless when it comes to that. Most people want whats best for their army, and will want it buffed because most players want more. Opponents will want less. They would have to also do a set for proper rules testing, as average joe has not much clue about balance. What I would suggest is set up a system where only people that apply and get accpted get to rules test. This keeps it more consistent and fair by having a large player set of roughly equal amounts for each faction. In a game this big what people perceive as being a fair balance can throw the next thing to be op. A focused group of game veterans that know what they're doing is whats needed. Offer an incentive for doing it such as a run of 'playtester special models' and let people apply.

And in regards to purifier. An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed. It's people looking for ways to break it. In a game this big it's hard to balance it all without a complete redo, such as sigmar did. Do every codex at once along with the main rules.

 HANZERtank wrote:
An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed.

First of all, that is a terrible analogy. A piece of technology and a ruleset have nothing to do with each other. You jailbreak the iphone to make the technology do something it is already capable of, but that a company doesn't necessarily want you to do. The ruleset is written in a way where it restricts you from doing certain things and allows others. If you find something that it allows that GW didn't think about when allowing it, that's still playing something they have specifically allowed.

Second, it actually *does* make it poorly designed. They've specifically designed measures to stop it from being used in any way but their own, and yet those measures are being circumvented. Obviously it's not doing what it was specifically designed to do. That's poor design.

 Purifier wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed.

First of all, that is a terrible analogy. A piece of technology and a ruleset have nothing to do with each other. You jailbreak the iphone to make the technology do something it is already capable of, but that a company doesn't necessarily want you to do. The ruleset is written in a way where it restricts you from doing certain things and allows others. If you find something that it allows that GW didn't think about when allowing it, that's still playing something they have specifically allowed.

Second, it actually *does* make it poorly designed. They've specifically designed measures to stop it from being used in any way but their own, and yet those measures are being circumvented. Obviously it's not doing what it was specifically designed to do. That's poor design.

Rules are technology, as noted in copyright and trademark laws. And both the jailbreak example and your own counter argument showcase why this specific rule set is poorly designed.

SJ

 JimOnMars wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

Well, yes and no. I don't think they will change any of their rulings. When they started the comments, they said as much with their "don't tell is if you don't like the rule; only tell is if you can't understand it" crap.

I'm pretty sure the grenade ruling will stand, even though it is clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule. I really don't think they care that much, tbh.

I agree that many of the FAQs (if not all of them) will stand in the official draft whenever released. There may be a few that change, but I don't think the grenade ruling will be one of them. It isn't even " clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule". One could make the argument (and indeed that is what GW is doing with this draft) that the original rule always intended for only 1 grenade to be "thrown" per unit, per phase. Whether shooting it, or in assault. GW never defined "thrown" to mean "shooting attack", so applying the "1 per" rule to assault is still perfectly within the bounds of the BRB as written.

It actually only effect very few armies in a negative way. Ork Tank Bustas are the most unfortunate case, but every other army is fine. Marines only get 1 MB per unit anyway and the Eldar units affected (Fire Dragons & Swooping Hawks) are still Eldar.

As for the FAQ's, I am treating the drafts as official until the official FAQ drops. it just makes sense and provides a clear answer to so many situations. Even if you don't agree with the answer, it's better than no answer at all.

-

IMO the worst one was grenades.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

And your source is? They explicitly stated they wanted these to be play tested and reflected back on. Even if they're changes in the form of 8th, no need to proclaim the end of the world yet.

That source would be GW's standard operating procedure for the last 20 years? They tend not to release anything until its in a final or near final form, the only exception being some FW experimental rules stuff. As noted, most of this is also FAQ clarification of intent and meaning of their own writing, not feedback based Errata. If we get numerous radically changed answers, I'll eat crow, but I'm willing to bet that the final FAQ's won't be substantially different, if at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:
the problem is tha increasingly its not a game for anyone. Its not a game for those looking for a tactical wargame scenario simulator (by GW's own admission), its too expensive for little timmy who just wants to play with cool toys, it's totally worthless as a narrative story or campaign framework, and its obscenely overcomplex and overburdened with rules for a beer and pretzels game.

I have to quote this just for the sheer truth of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
IMO the worst one was grenades.

It's a change that needed to happen.

Why did it need to happen?

pm713 wrote:
Why did it need to happen?

To make vehicles have a bit more of a fighting chance.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why did it need to happen?

To make vehicles have a bit more of a fighting chance.

Grenades do not make a meaningful difference. Vehicles don't have a chance because of things like scatter spam not grenades. The change only made the game have one more stupid mechanic.

And the grenade thing helped mcs, too.

Martel732 wrote:
And the grenade thing helped mcs, too.

It helped MCs that needed help, and didn't effect MCs that you would need them against. Seriously, what DK or Riptide is dying to Krak Grenades? Meanwhile my Carnifex will get pulverized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Grenades do not make a meaningful difference. Vehicles don't have a chance because of things like scatter spam not grenades. The change only made the game have one more stupid mechanic.

No. The fact that a unit that is good at killing light infantry (Swooping Hawks) could also annihilate any vehicle at will takes away from the feel of a "specialist" codex.

Scatterlasers are irrelevant to this conversation, as we all know how broken they are, and no FAQ can change that.

To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

No mc needed help. They get a truckload of amazing rules. But krak grenades were never really viable vs 3+ armor anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
No mc needed help. They get a truckload of amazing rules. But krak grenades were never really viable vs 3+ armor anyway.

Say that to my Toxicrene. And I've also lost Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants to them. And my C'tans are scared of them.

Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

Ah yes, the OPness of my two WS3 attacks. Fear me!

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.

Eldar troops don't have grenades. They have one unit that does. Harlequins can get one grenade on characters so they're the same now and before. The FAQ makes a dumb mechanic, nerfs one unit that needed it and nerfed lots that didn't need ot.

If the Tank is shooting then it moves at similar speeds or is on the other side of the board. Assuming it's a slower tank. Grenades weren't a threat to tanks and the FAQ makes no sense and isn't needed.

IM talking about grenades and melta bomb where you can only use one or the other.

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.

Eldar troops don't have grenades. They have one unit that does. Harlequins can get one grenade on characters so they're the same now and before. The FAQ makes a dumb mechanic, nerfs one unit that needed it and nerfed lots that didn't need ot.

If the Tank is shooting then it moves at similar speeds or is on the other side of the board. Assuming it's a slower tank. Grenades weren't a threat to tanks and the FAQ makes no sense and isn't needed.

*shrug* Say what you want, a whole squad being able to Haywire a SHV in one turn was ridiculous. It might mean my Obelisk sees some play now.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

Ah yes, the OPness of my two WS3 attacks. Fear me!

Most MCs have way more attacks than that.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.

Eldar troops don't have grenades. They have one unit that does. Harlequins can get one grenade on characters so they're the same now and before. The FAQ makes a dumb mechanic, nerfs one unit that needed it and nerfed lots that didn't need ot.

If the Tank is shooting then it moves at similar speeds or is on the other side of the board. Assuming it's a slower tank. Grenades weren't a threat to tanks and the FAQ makes no sense and isn't needed.

*shrug* Say what you want, a whole squad being able to Haywire a SHV in one turn was ridiculous. It might mean my Obelisk sees some play now.

Maybe you should read what I said. Particularly the part where I said that Hawks were a problem.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

Ah yes, the OPness of my two WS3 attacks. Fear me!

Most MCs have way more attacks than that.

Like the ones that weren't worried about Krak Grenades already? You are right. And the change to grenades did nothing to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Maybe you should read what I said. Particularly the part where I said that Hawks were a problem.

Yes, and the FAQ fixed them. How is this a bad thing, again?

I'm not super upset about the grenades at all because I never relied on them.

It's a problem because making dumb mechanics and nerfing lots of units because of one issue is ridiculous.

Example: Scatterbikes are ridiculous. Fix: All units that move during their turn must take an Initiative test at a -2 penalty before shooting to shoot. This fixes scatterbikes by reducing their shooting a lot. But you probably agree that it's a terrible fix.

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines.

which are the most common troops anyone encounters and comprise half the armies in the game, also Sisters come with them and IG infantry & Inquisition henchmen can be given them. More than half the armies in the game come with Kraks as standard issue or can be given them.

Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good

Hrm, not much of one, getting a 10man infantry squad into CC with a tank would, even with below average rolls, kill 95% of tanks in the game in a single round of CC on average.

and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

If we're talking Fire Prisms sitting at the back of the board and that can rapidly redeploy, then sure. If we're talking about transports advancing on an opposing force, or non Fast gun tanks, then not really. Likewise, with deployment options like Outflank or Deep Strike there are numerous ways to deliver infantry near enemy armor even on the back board edge.

Again, I dont agree with the way that was interpreted by the FAQ, and I dont think the issue lay with grenades inherently, but Grenades were stupidly overcapable. That said, I dont think the FAQ on Grenades was done out of any balance concern on this issue, and the correct fix should be in changing the vehicle rules.

The grenade thing just showed us how GW rule design work.

That what the GW think the game is like and what players are actually doing after they read what is written are two different things.

And of course it showed us the people out there who will always defend anything what GW is doing no matter what it is
(of all the stuff that needed a fix, grenades were not that thing that needed a fix, but it was this one rule were RAI from the player has nothing to do with RAI from GW)

I haven't used them, yet. But the only games I have played since they started coming out was a Kill Team Tournament.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Rules are technology, as noted in copyright and trademark laws.

Ah, well that sure makes them exactly the same thing. Hold on, my Codex is ringing, I'll have to get right back to you.

Personally I felt the FAQ on grenades was spot on, the idea that everyone is throwing grenades in close combat at once is bat gak stupid (I can just see an entire squad of Marines collectively saying "Here, hold this". at the same time). It's not remotely how grenades are used in real life and even applying creative license to it makes no sense in game.

Drop Pod doors and Tyranids being AoC with Genestealer Cults are the real headscratchers though.

 Imateria wrote:
Personally I felt the FAQ on grenades was spot on, the idea that everyone is throwing grenades in close combat at once is bat gak stupid (I can just see an entire squad of Marines collectively saying "Here, hold this". at the same time). It's not remotely how grenades are used in real life and even applying creative license to it makes no sense in game.

while I totally agree from a realistic perspective, every previous edition allowed grenades to be used in a per model basis and the 7E rules with regards to tank attacks didnt appear to be any different to most people, hence why many have issues with it.

 Imateria wrote:
Personally I felt the FAQ on grenades was spot on, the idea that everyone is throwing grenades in close combat at once is bat gak stupid (I can just see an entire squad of Marines collectively saying "Here, hold this". at the same time). It's not remotely how grenades are used in real life and even applying creative license to it makes no sense in game.

Drop Pod doors and Tyranids being AoC with Genestealer Cults are the real headscratchers though.

And one person using a grenade while everyone else stands around isn't stupid?

Realistic?
Depends on the situation and the unit you are in.
But for an example, in the end of "saving private ryan" they would have not been able to kill the tanks with their "melta bombs" because the whole unit would have only been allowed to throw one (and this guy killed himself with it)

Next thing is, that realism is never a good argument in game design, because you can counter everything with an "realistic" example

It makes marines pay for expensive power fist upgrades to take on vehicles in melee. Krak grenades was never why vehicles are a mess in 7th, though. The Eldar are in the corner laughing as we squabble over some krak grenades. Pathetic.

Martel732 wrote:
It makes marines pay for expensive power fist upgrades to take on vehicles in melee. Krak grenades was never why vehicles are a mess in 7th, though. The Eldar are in the corner laughing as we squabble over some krak grenades. Pathetic.

Agreed. Why do a few people hate cc units getting a chance on vehicles and MCs, when so few actually reach combat anyway?

"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

Considering over half the attacks fail without counting hit rolls that's not true. Most of the grenades miss when you use a 10 man squad and who lets a 10 man squad do that.

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

To be fair, 4+sv MC's are a rather rare exception, the vast majority sport a 3+ or 2+ save and many have invuls and FNP or regeneration or something on top of the armor to boot.

Only time my IG care would be vets with demolitions. Not really much point to giving the whole squad meltabombs when they can only chuck one a turn.

That said, the uprade is 20pts and comes with a demo charge. Given each demo charge costs 20pts for SWS, it kind of points to the idea that GW expected you to only use one meltabomb a turn, given the meltabombs are essentially free with the demolitions upgrade.

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

and the Toxicrene gets AP2, because...

Reasons!

There is no way on the Empra's brown earth that thing should be AP2. Grenades are the tiniest of counters.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

and the Toxicrene gets AP2, because...

Reasons!

There is no way on the Empra's brown earth that thing should be AP2. Grenades are the tiniest of counters.

The same reason every MC gets AP2. It's huge, er, monstrous. Twice the size of a Carnifex!

Grenades are not the tiniest of counters against MCs. Every model in a large squad having a krak grenade is too effective against a large number of MCs. (10 guardsmen with krak grenades will kill the toxicrene in 2 or so turns, but lose only 4 or so guardsmen) and walkers (which is the important catehgory here!), but ineffective against the problem MCs of Wraithknights and Riptides, which will still barely feel it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The counter is a power fist or other power weapon.

A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

Okay shot off the table by Tau, Guard, Eldar, gravstar marines, Admech, or Necrons. MCs are crazy good in an environment with no tailoring.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

With Martel it makes little difference. If he isn't facing Eldar it seems to be cheese Tau or SM cheese. His meta is.....not casual.

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

With Martel it makes little difference. If he isn't facing Eldar it seems to be cheese Tau or SM cheese. His meta is.....not casual.

Well, then I wouldn't play in that meta.

There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Martel732 wrote:
There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Is that still a thing? I would think people wouldn't complain about that anymore.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Is that still a thing? I would think people wouldn't complain about that anymore.

It still messes with you when you don't have much AA.

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Is that still a thing? I would think people wouldn't complain about that anymore.

It still messes with you when you don't have much AA.

Eh, Tau easily have AA, Space marines can grav it out of the sky, Eldar have so many shots it doesn't matter, and Necrons can ignore them. Hence why I haven't heard of many people complaining about Flyrant spam.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Is that still a thing? I would think people wouldn't complain about that anymore.

It still messes with you when you don't have much AA.

Eh, Tau easily have AA, Space marines can grav it out of the sky, Eldar have so many shots it doesn't matter, and Necrons can ignore them. Hence why I haven't heard of many people complaining about Flyrant spam.

None of my armies can deal with it. Granted I'm pretty casual though.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's pentaflyrant. Don't forget pentaflyrant.

Is that still a thing? I would think people wouldn't complain about that anymore.

It still messes with you when you don't have much AA.

Eh, Tau easily have AA, Space marines can grav it out of the sky, Eldar have so many shots it doesn't matter, and Necrons can ignore them. Hence why I haven't heard of many people complaining about Flyrant spam.

BA can do nothing but endure it.

SemperMortis wrote:
GW has made these FAQ DRAFTS with the goal of fixing problems in the game currently.

Well, there's your problem.

FAQs are not supposed to be changes, they're clarifications.

I have no idea why you expected that FAQs would make any significant changes.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

Not every Eldar player spams Scatbikes. Only the super-serious hardcore WAAC tournament (usually) players.

 Happyjew wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

Not every Eldar player spams Scatbikes. Only the super-serious hardcore WAAC tournament (usually) players.

And ones who can't play. That's why I have to deal with them now.

 Happyjew wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

Not every Eldar player spams Scatbikes. Only the super-serious hardcore WAAC tournament (usually) players.

It's a really obvious thing to take in the book. Why take a heavy support choice when you can take more obj sec troops that shoot like heavy support?

Martel732 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

Not every Eldar player spams Scatbikes. Only the super-serious hardcore WAAC tournament (usually) players.

It's a really obvious thing to take in the book. Why take a heavy support choice when you can take more obj sec troops that shoot like heavy support?

Fun, fairness, variety, theme, I don't own many jetbikes. That kind of thing.

This thread makes me think of basically every time each edition gets their FAQs out. It's the same thread and the same responses and complaints. GW is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

pm713 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A counter that no one can afford, because it will likely just be shot off the table by a scatterbike.

*sigh* Not everyone has scatterbikes. In fact, only Eldar have those.

With Martel it makes little difference. If he isn't facing Eldar it seems to be cheese Tau or SM cheese. His meta is.....not casual.

The main problem with his meta is his opponents being idiots/dicks when it comes to terrain and setting up giant firing lanes so there's no LOS blocking cover on the board.

We have some. But it doen't help because eldar can move 12" to get the angle. Los works vs immobile gun lines only.

Alcibiades wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

and the Toxicrene gets AP2, because...

Reasons!

There is no way on the Empra's brown earth that thing should be AP2. Grenades are the tiniest of counters.

The same reason every MC gets AP2. It's huge, er, monstrous. Twice the size of a Carnifex!

Grenades are not the tiniest of counters against MCs. Every model in a large squad having a krak grenade is too effective against a large number of MCs. (10 guardsmen with krak grenades will kill the toxicrene in 2 or so turns, but lose only 4 or so guardsmen) and walkers (which is the important catehgory here!), but ineffective against the problem MCs of Wraithknights and Riptides, which will still barely feel it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The counter is a power fist or other power weapon.

Isn't the Toxicrene one of the worst units the Tyranids have not counting grenades anyway? Plus how many 4+ Mountrous Creatures exist, really?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

and the Toxicrene gets AP2, because...

Reasons!

There is no way on the Empra's brown earth that thing should be AP2. Grenades are the tiniest of counters.

The same reason every MC gets AP2. It's huge, er, monstrous. Twice the size of a Carnifex!

Grenades are not the tiniest of counters against MCs. Every model in a large squad having a krak grenade is too effective against a large number of MCs. (10 guardsmen with krak grenades will kill the toxicrene in 2 or so turns, but lose only 4 or so guardsmen) and walkers (which is the important catehgory here!), but ineffective against the problem MCs of Wraithknights and Riptides, which will still barely feel it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The counter is a power fist or other power weapon.

Isn't the Toxicrene one of the worst units the Tyranids have not counting grenades anyway? Plus how many 4+ Mountrous Creatures exist, really?

I can think of three and two fly.

Swampmist wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
He's not wrong. Facebooks timeline is a bull crap place to be hosting rules for a game. Granted these are just the drafts and I am sure the website will be updated with the faqs when it's all said and done. But those rulings don't count for gak until they appear on the actual website.

Good to see what direction they are heading in. But we should all be waiting for the final versions.

Except, that's the opposite of what we should be doing. these are drafts; meaning that we should be testing them and finding out what works, what doesn't, and what needs further clarification. Ignoring them means that any inconsistencies that they have literally asked us to help them deal with will go unseen, and the rules will be worse off for it.

Problem with that is that the FAQ team gives everyone ONE WEEK to ask questions and then for what ever reason, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK ANYMORE. Can't understand why a time limit is ever put on, it should always be considered. It's almost like GW will not go back to FAQs again till next year when 8th edition comes out, if it comes out.

Scott-S6 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
GW has made these FAQ DRAFTS with the goal of fixing problems in the game currently.

Well, there's your problem.

FAQs are not supposed to be changes, they're clarifications.

I have no idea why you expected that FAQs would make any significant changes.

Funny how a lot of FAQs does change things significantly though. That is why people expect FAQs to change them because that is what GW does a lot of times.

I can think of one FAQ that's a significant change and that's the Warp Spider one. Which others are actual changes?

Quite, lots of the ones being cried about weren't changes.

We've certainly never seen GW try and use FAQs as a means to fix fundamental problems with a ruleset or balance issues.

pm713 wrote:
I can think of one FAQ that's a significant change and that's the Warp Spider one. Which others are actual changes?

And that one, I believe, is in the Errata section. And I agree, most of the FAQ's that surprised people were not actually changes if you re-read the original rule. GW expects too much out of it's readers.

The Psychic power limitation is a great example. One of the first sentences in the dang section was "The number of powers a psyker can use depends on the Mastery level"
Yet for some reason players thought they could keep casting until they ran out of powers or WC; which was a clause that was specifically referencing switching between psykers and did not overrule the previous limitation.
GW did not change how the powers work, they clarified everyone's failure at reading comprehension.

-

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Quite, lots of the ones being cried about weren't changes.

We've certainly never seen GW try and use FAQs as a means to fix fundamental problems with a ruleset or balance issues.

Well, way back when they used to do regular FAQ/Errata and occasionally would change things which needed changing.

In an old Dark Elf book for Fantasy they worked with a Dark Elf forum to identify problems and fixed them, including changing wargear and points costs. That was a long time ago, though.

 Galef wrote:


The Psychic power limitation is a great example. One of the first sentences in the dang section was "The number of powers a psyker can use depends on the Mastery level"
Yet for some reason players thought they could keep casting until they ran out of powers or WC; which was a clause that was specifically referencing switching between psykers and did not overrule the previous limitation.
GW did not change how the powers work, they clarified everyone's failure at reading comprehension.

-

That's an awful example, because the relationship between Mastery and number of powers cast is never defined.

As written, that rule doesn't define what that dependence is, is it 1 power per ML, 8? Banana?

People generally made the assumption that 1ML=1 power cast, but that was an assumption.

It remains an excellent example of wooly rules writing.

 Galef wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I can think of one FAQ that's a significant change and that's the Warp Spider one. Which others are actual changes?

And that one, I believe, is in the Errata section. And I agree, most of the FAQ's that surprised people were not actually changes if you re-read the original rule. GW expects too much out of it's readers.

The Psychic power limitation is a great example. One of the first sentences in the dang section was "The number of powers a psyker can use depends on the Mastery level"
Yet for some reason players thought they could keep casting until they ran out of powers or WC; which was a clause that was specifically referencing switching between psykers and did not overrule the previous limitation.
GW did not change how the powers work, they clarified everyone's failure at reading comprehension.

-

That wasn't a failure of reading comprehension. That was a failure of being specific in writing. I saw both sides, and played whatever people wanted, but you have to admit that "Depends on" does not mean "is equal to." They didn't put in the rulebook explicitly in what way the number of powers depended on mastery level. So some people assumed it to be a 1:1 ratio, which ended up being correct RAI. Others believed it to mean their mastery level plus psychic focus plus force weapons would determine their total numbers of powers known, which would determine how many powers they could cast each phase. Both still "depend on" the psyker's mastery level. "How many powers can a psyker cast?" "It depends."

Use a different example if you want to assert reading comprehension failure.

Edit: *Shakes fist* Azrael!!!

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
"Every model gets to use a grenade" = "all 4+ save MCs die in close combat"

Now the Toxicrene can function.

and the Toxicrene gets AP2, because...

Reasons!

There is no way on the Empra's brown earth that thing should be AP2. Grenades are the tiniest of counters.

The same reason every MC gets AP2. It's huge, er, monstrous. Twice the size of a Carnifex!

Grenades are not the tiniest of counters against MCs. Every model in a large squad having a krak grenade is too effective against a large number of MCs. (10 guardsmen with krak grenades will kill the toxicrene in 2 or so turns, but lose only 4 or so guardsmen) and walkers (which is the important catehgory here!), but ineffective against the problem MCs of Wraithknights and Riptides, which will still barely feel it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The counter is a power fist or other power weapon.

Isn't the Toxicrene one of the worst units the Tyranids have not counting grenades anyway? Plus how many 4+ Mountrous Creatures exist, really?

I can think of three and two fly.

Then this complaint is literally the most unreasonable thing I've heard in a while.

It all boils down to the fact if a giant monster crushes you... in no way should armour be particularly helpful...

By comparison an extremely cheap upgrade being able to kill already semi vulnerable creatures is not the way to go. It's just people moaning when it comes to specific MC's without realising there are other MC's out there.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
It all boils down to the fact if a giant monster crushes you... in no way should armour be particularly helpful...

By comparison an extremely cheap upgrade being able to kill already semi vulnerable creatures is not the way to go. It's just people moaning when it comes to specific MC's without realising there are other MC's out there.

Most Monstrous Creatures have 3+. A Carnifex in melee with TEN Marines is taking one wound a turn. Krak Grenades are NOT killing it at a fast rate.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
It all boils down to the fact if a giant monster crushes you... in no way should armour be particularly helpful...

By comparison an extremely cheap upgrade being able to kill already semi vulnerable creatures is not the way to go. It's just people moaning when it comes to specific MC's without realising there are other MC's out there.

Which makes sense if it charges you. If it just sits there and swings, it's not crushing anything.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
It all boils down to the fact if a giant monster crushes you... in no way should armour be particularly helpful...

By comparison an extremely cheap upgrade being able to kill already semi vulnerable creatures is not the way to go. It's just people moaning when it comes to specific MC's without realising there are other MC's out there.

Which makes sense if it charges you. If it just sits there and swings, it's not crushing anything.

A giant monster stepping on you hurts whether it charged or not.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I can think of three and two fly.

Technically the C'tans are in that boat.