This thread isn't for discussing why you hated it or why it actually helped with balance, there are many other threads for that, just a simple did you like it/didn't you like it. While arguing about the new rules is for a different thread, feel free to state the biggest things in the FAQ that will effect your army, for example:
The deepstrike nerf will make my bloodletter bomb and terminators less tactically versatile.
The warptime nerf will mean my terminators will have a lower chance of making the charge when they come down.
The Battalion buff will give me +6CP but I will no longer be able to spend that so freely on Tide of Traitors, spending them on Daemon Deepstrike is not as good (see above) but I may be able to use the attack twice stratagem more often.
Bonus Question: will you play using the new rules or will you ignore them until the next FAQ?
Seems good. There's a few weird rules questions I'd like to see clarified, otherwise I'm interested to see how it affects the meta.
Deep strike reliant armies, like Blood Angels, clearly struggle a bit with the beta rules. This would seem to impact assault armies more than shooting armies, although there are numerous important shooting units that deep strike or deploy via the Webway. We'll see if that shifts the meta more towards shooting, like a lot of people are predicting.
PROS
- Warptime nerf frees up my sorcerer from being a caddy
- Smite buff helps my rubrics
- None of my lists broke the rule of 3 and fixes a lot of other issues barring perhaps IG
I voted Okay and I will use it. I think the "soup" fix wasn't really a fix, very few armies were mixing detachments with multiple factions (Supreme Command was the biggest offender here), but their fix does nothing to stop taking multiple detachments of different factions together.
Everything else seems solid. I like the proposed 0-3 restriction a lot. I kinda hoped they would have adjusted more points on things, but this seems really good overall.
I think the FAQ is a bit dissapointing but still an improvement. Of sorts..
The bigger issue is that some of the fixes are bandaids that fails to fix underlying issues. Like, right now spamming units is generally better than having a diverse list. So the FAQ imposes a restriction on unit spam, rather than making a diverse list the tactically better choice. That is perhaps better than nothing, but it is not a true fix.
The same is true of deepstrike. The current meta is extremely centered around alpha-striking. Deepstriking is the perfect tool here, because it both protects you from your opponents alpha-strike while enabling your own. Nerfing deepstrike does not fix the underlying problem of alpha-striking being so crucial, but it is probably better than nothing (it remains to be seen). And a true fix would probably need changes to the basic turn structure of 40k.
And then there is the weird bits: Warlocks got a pricehike, and they are now almost as expensive as a weirdboy? Really?
But all in all I am satisfied that GW changes things up regularly. A changing meta is much better than a stale meta.
It would have been great except for the fat nerf to deep strike melee and also the nerf to Flyrants. Capping them at 3, also with the 50% points rule, would have been sufficient.
The warp time & Swarmlord nerf is a bit rough but i can understand it. However, it doesn't change the fact that Alpha Legion Berzerkers can essentially do this at no point cost.
My current list is dead because of the point change to Flyrants. I only ran 2 of them, and i didn't have more than 2 of any unit in my army. So, I had a balanced list that fits into the new format, but i'm no longer legal, and even if i drop the points, i'm not sure it will work without the ability to deep strike.
As previously, I dislike the beta rules as there are some bigger issues they cause, but I really enjoy the changes made to the faq. Even though a chunk of them make many of my lists illegal. I think for the game as a whole, they are positive.
Bharring wrote: Why do people complain so much about Warlock powers, then complain when they nerf Warlocks (and Spirit Seers)?
They could have nerfed the powers - it would have made more sense. Why exactly your tier 2 psykers have better powers than your tier 1's is kind of mind boggling. Warlocks were already significantly over pointed and spirit seers I believe were the cheapest unit in the game with real smite. Realistically heres what should have happened. Spirit seer goes up 15 points warlock goes down 5 and biker warlock goes down 20. Range on quicken reduced to 6 inches - protect specifically only buffs "ARMOR SAVES" - no more 3++ shining spears. There - balanced.
Seems ok so far, does mean having to change a few things around within my Tyranids (as no more mixing hive fleets by the look of it - not allowed to key on the word "Tyranid")
It doesn't affect anything on my lists, except the fact that I can dispose of more CPs now.
I voted for good. Soup, units spam and deep strike nerf were basically the thing I wanted.
I haven't seen the points changings though, but I don't think my armies have been buffed or nerfed in this matter. Two of them don't even have the codex, and the third one has a codex that was released not even two weeks ago, too soon to change it.
People whined about 'soup' being OP and now my not-even-remotely-competitive but fluffy and heavily converted Inquisition army is illegal in Matched Play. I can no longer field just two squads of SoS, I need to have either three or none. I can't field a single Assassin, I now need three of them. Having all the traditional Inquisitorial henchmen like Crusaders, Death Cultists, Hospitallers etc. split across multiple subfactions with silly keyword restrictions on their abilities (so that a Hospitaller can't even heal her own boss) was already a pain in the arse, but they now can't even go in the same detachment. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Hilariously, my much more competitive Night Lords army is completely unaffected. Even more hilariously, this is partly because it's (to many people) much less 'fluffy', in that it only has two squads of Raptors. If I'd built the usual 'fluffy' NL army, it'd have fallen foul of the Rule of 3.
I looked it over. It's rather amusing as it really makes you wonder just how little the devs actually understand game design 101.
FAQ wrote:Battle Brothers: When we originally wrote this edition of Warhammer 40,00 we wanted to make sure that your army could include appropriate allies...the Rules for what units could be included in each Detachment were therefore very relaxed, but this has since led to some very 'mixed' Detachments that include units from far more Factions than we originally envisioned.
Gee, ya think? Protip: Players minmax. Double so in PvP.
FAQ wrote:Detachment Command Benefits: When creating a Battle-forged army, the Battalion and Brigade detachments are seen as not offering enough command points for the number of units you must include...
Except for a lot of tournament armies, including at DakkaCon, BAO, Nova, LVO, Warzone Atlanta, ATC, etc. that took a Battalion with "cheap" troops (Guard, Renegades and Heretics, heck even MSU Alaitoc Rangers) to provide enough CP to use with another allied detachment.
Likewise, they did not clarify how out-of-phase abilities work, how "Keywords vs Faction Keywords" really works (RAW, the Daemon FAQ that states that only Faction Keyword Daemons can use Daemon Stratagems is still meaningless), and their errata to Overlapping Fields of Fire/Focused Fire still doesn't work.
Stratagem wrote:Before: You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au Sept Units that target this unit in this phase.
The issue? A unit can target multiple units, and RAW, if one enemy unit failed a save and the Tau player popped Focus Fire, subsequent units could get +1 to wound all their targets provided they target the unit that activated the stratagem.
Errata wrote:After: Add 1 to wound rolls for attacks made by other T'au Sept Units that target this unit in this phase.
Instead of " +1 to wound for units that target," it's now "+1 for attacks made by units that target." RAW, units target while attacks resolve, so this FAQ ruling doesn't actually work.
Duskweaver wrote: People whined about 'soup' being OP and now my not-even-remotely-competitive but fluffy and heavily converted Inquisition army is illegal in Matched Play. I can no longer field just two squads of SoS, I need to have either three or none. I can't field a single Assassin, I now need three of them. Having all the traditional Inquisitorial henchmen like Crusaders, Death Cultists, Hospitallers etc. split across multiple subfactions with silly keyword restrictions on their abilities (so that a Hospitaller can't even heal her own boss) was already a pain in the arse, but they now can't even go in the same detachment. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Hilariously, my much more competitive Night Lords army is completely unaffected. Even more hilariously, this is partly because it's (to many people) much less 'fluffy', in that it only has two squads of Raptors. If I'd built the usual 'fluffy' NL army, it'd have fallen foul of the Rule of 3.
I'm about done with GW at this point.
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
What's the context? Almost no one was using mixed detachments outside that sort of fluffy stuff. You already lose your faction benefits for doing so. That is completely stupid rule that does not improve balance one bit.
As balancing fixes go, overall this is a failure. Most of these changes benefit or do not negatively affect IG gunline, which was already on of the most potent builds in the game.
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
What's the context? Almost no one was using mixed detachments outside that sort of fluffy stuff. You already lose your faction benefits for doing so. That is completely stupid rule that does not improve balance one bit.
As balancing fixes go, overall this is a failure. Most of these changes benefit or do not negatively affect IG gunline, which was already on of the most potent builds in the game.
I'm not gonna do that. However, being able to shoot firs turn in peace without having to worry about pesky deep strikers is a huge bonus for a gunline. And thanks to the squadrons, Leman Russes are pretty much unaffected by the dataslate limitation. Commissars also got buffed, though they needed that. But still a win for IG.
I also would really like to tell me what was the context in which the new soup detachment ban made sense.
I'm not gonna do that. However, being able to shoot firs turn in peace without having to worry about pesky deep strikers is a huge bonus for a gunline. And thanks to the squadrons, Leman Russes are pretty much unaffected by the dataslate limitation. Commissars also got buffed, though they needed that. But still a win for IG.
And FW datasheets are still a problem, yes. I don't support the beta reserves rule in it's current form.
I also would really like to tell me what was the context in which the new soup detachment ban made sense.
There was plenty of assassin / celestine obnoxiousness.
To that end, the limit-3-of-a-datasheet can't be more than a patch, without substantial reworks. So I can only take 3 Warlocks. On foot anyways - I can take 3 on foot and 3 on jetbikes. The difference between datasheets isn't as consistent between books as you might think. One book might have a couple options each with tons of customization, and another might have minor alterations be seperate units/datasheets. Weren't the Predator Annialator and Destructor 2 different "units" at one point?
A worthwhile stopgap, sure. But I'm sure it can be done better in the long run.
It isn't perfect but I liked it, it shows that GW are willing to make big, bold changes that are going to change the way people play and keep things interesting.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ was great IMO. I like the direction GW are moving 40k towards and I like the fact that the meta is evolving.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
I think Leman Russes might need to lose squadding and FW datasheets need tackling, but I overall agree.
Perhaps All leman Russ tanks gain the (leman Russ) keyword and you cannot take anymore than 3 tanks with the (leman Russ) keyword.
But its not keywrods its dataslates/sheets so every LR with a datasheet is 0-3 at 2k points, I'm not sure the squadron allows you past that actually
I know, my suggestion fixes that, 0-3 leman Russ regardless of type, it’s something I will house rule for our tourney packs, test it out and send feedback, will of course test it out vanilla too, as currently everyone else can only take 3 “battle tanks” and guard can spam the crap out of them, that’s a clear issue for trying to deal with them.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.
If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.
I thought it was pretty good. My Admech Infiltrators lose some bite since I can't deepstrike behind my enemy, but at the same time, my Styies VII stratagem still works, so that's fine with me. It also shows they're aware of how devastating first turn can be.
Both my main lists got CP buffs. My Admech list is now at 15 CP and my ork list is at 13. Kinda sad orks didn't get any point decreases, which we desperately need for about 70% of our codex, but I think it was pretty decent.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.
It would be fair if everyone had the same baseline to begin with. In this game however we do not.
Would you call it fair if everyone had to pay 5000$ every day in a world where half the people get a daily 10000$ and others get nothing?
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.
If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.
This is like saying that a worse football team should start with more goals when playing a better team.
There are no handicaps in a competitive environment. Its equal or nothing.
If only one or two units are competitive in a slot you take bigger squads of them. Its pretty simple.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.
If all codexs had good internal and external balance maybe.
Not if one army has only one or two good/competative choices in a given slot as your now maxed out at 3 and then on to taking sub par choices. If you have a depth of competative choices your in a much better position.
This is like saying that a worse football team should start with more goals when playing a better team.
There are no handicaps in a competitive environment. Its equal or nothing.
If only one or two units are competitive in a slot you take bigger squads of them. Its pretty simple.
Great idea I'll tell GW I need to be able to take a bigger squad of single model datasheets.
It's decent. I'm a little salty that the boosted the CP on Battalions, but didn't boost the CP for DE Raiding Party. I'll have to re-jigger my army again.
I really dont understand the bump in CPs for battalions and brigades when the developers said the reason they did it was to help elite armies.
Yeah, that makes sense.
bullyboy wrote: I really dont understand the bump in CPs for battalions and brigades when the developers said the reason they did it was to help elite armies.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Because technically IG can't use all those CP and elite armies taking battlions get a boost.
Quickjager wrote: ...Why can't IG use all those CP? By the same extension how does a elite army fill those slots in the first place?
They just usually don't have units in place to use them often enough and the regenerate so much anyway. Every time I play against IG they have 10+ remaining.
Yeah, IG don't use all of his CP in a game. The difference between having 12 CP and 20 CP when you are regenerating them is irrelevant.
But for Adeptus Custodes the difference between having 7 CP ( 3 batallion+1 vanguard/etc...+3 base) vs having 9 CP (5 batallion+1 vanguard/etc...+3 base) is huge.
I like this as it will make people actually have to have some variation in their army instead of taking 5+ of that really good unit and hope it goes well. Now we can really do things like tactical movement, denial, claiming objectives instead of just shooting each other off the table.
Also I keep hearing IG gunline this and that but I have yet to see any IG gunline armies win the bog tournaments. All I see is people poaching Infantry squads and mortars to increase their CPs.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”
Yeah, poor Deathwing, such limited unit choice. Between Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Cataphractii Terminators, Deathwing Tartaros Terminators, Deathwing Knights, Deathwing Champion, Deathwing Apothecary, Deathwing Ancient, Deathwing Termie Master, Deathwing Master in Cataphractii Armour, Deathwing Librarian, Deathwing Chaplain, Deathwing Chaplain Dreadnought, Belial, Deathwing Dreadnought, Deathwing Venerable Dreadnought, Deathwing Contemptor Dreadnought, Deathwing Land Raider, you totally have zero choice that is totally not larger than what most armies in the game get, and that's without even considering Forge World units
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
Dude, the same rule across all factions is THE DEFINITION OF FAIR.
It's the reverse scenario of horde players complaining about chess clocks when they felt it put them at a disadvantage.
Of course it's fair. It is the same for everyone.
If all or even most of the codexes had a similar number of things to choose from across multiple roles, I’d agree. But they don’t, not even remotely. Sometimes treating everyone the same means actually being unfair to those that don’t fit the mold you’re trying to make.
Great idea I'll tell GW I need to be able to take a bigger squad of single model datasheets.
Good luck! You've probably got more chance than telling them you want to go back to spam city
It is not like there do not exists such models. Carnifex and Malanthrope comew in 3 on one sheet. With 3 different flavours of carnifexes you can bring 27 carnifexes withinthe rules.
If leman russes are good you can bring 9 of them. (Not you GSC!) And 3 Leman russ command tanks. Do forge world have any leman russes entries?
mrhappyface wrote: This thread isn't for discussing why you hated it or why it actually helped with balance, there are many other threads for that, just a simple did you like it/didn't you like it. While arguing about the new rules is for a different thread, feel free to state the biggest things in the FAQ that will effect your army, for example:
The deepstrike nerf will make my bloodletter bomb and terminators less tactically versatile.
The warptime nerf will mean my terminators will have a lower chance of making the charge when they come down.
The Battalion buff will give me +6CP but I will no longer be able to spend that so freely on Tide of Traitors, spending them on Daemon Deepstrike is not as good (see above) but I may be able to use the attack twice stratagem more often.
Bonus Question: will you play using the new rules or will you ignore them until the next FAQ?
What Warptime nerf? I can't find anything about it.
Edit: Found it. That "nerf" isn't really a nerf for me, I've never DS a unit then warp it. I usually just DS the sorcerer(with jump) near the unit I need to fling.
The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.
Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.
MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”
Yeah, poor Deathwing, such limited unit choice. Between Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Cataphractii Terminators, Deathwing Tartaros Terminators, Deathwing Knights, Deathwing Champion, Deathwing Apothecary, Deathwing Ancient, Deathwing Termie Master, Deathwing Master in Cataphractii Armour, Deathwing Librarian, Deathwing Chaplain, Deathwing Chaplain Dreadnought, Belial, Deathwing Dreadnought, Deathwing Venerable Dreadnought, Deathwing Contemptor Dreadnought, Deathwing Land Raider, you totally have zero choice that is totally not larger than what most armies in the game get, and that's without even considering Forge World units
Yeah, and with how expensive everything is, Ravenwing and Deathwing are still absolutely playable.
I have seen 0 Ravenwing lists with more than 3 copies of the same unit. Sammael+Talonmaster are already a ton of points. A blob of 10 Ravenwing Knights for stratagems and buffs consumes a ton of points, and who was using more than 3 squads of Ravenwing Bikers or Knights or Land Speeders?
The only unit Ravenwing armies used more than 3 copies of it where the flyer that they nerfed in this FAQ.
I will definitely try the Beta Deepstrike rules out I do use 3 units of Oblits in my Competitive Chaos lists, so it will be a change.
The only real issue is having to use power levels as a guide to Reserves manipulation.
Are we really gonna be double checking opponents lists and adding up their Power Levels?
This seems to encourage Battlescribe over Codex usage even further.
What I mean to say is: I often give my opponents benefit of the doubt as to what their lists have. I dont want to have to double check every single Daemons/Grey Knights/Scion/Webway lists to make sure they have half their Power Level on the field.
Now I get why it was done, but its much easier to count by units than power level. I gotta double check my own list that has 8 units in reserve, and 9 units on the field turn 1.
From a fluff perspective, I could see not letting Imperium armies be in the same detachment as they seem to be very proud of their chapters and want to stick with them (with the exception of maybe Deathwatch). Yes, you will see multiple chapters on the same battlefield, but at least in the books I've read, there has been a distinct separation.
When it comes to Chaos... it makes ZERO sense for CSM and Daemons not to be allowed in the same detachment if they are aligned to the same god. Makes absolutely no sense.
Same with the Aeldari... the entire story behind the Aeldari is the uniting of all of the Eldar factions into one. Completely goes against the fluff.
I understand that game balance needs to be there, but the way GW did it was just about the opposite of the best way.
ServiceGames wrote: From a fluff perspective, I could see not letting Imperium armies be in the same detachment as they seem to be very proud of their chapters and want to stick with them (with the exception of maybe Deathwatch). Yes, you will see multiple chapters on the same battlefield, but at least in the books I've read, there has been a distinct separation.
When it comes to Chaos... it makes ZERO sense for CSM and Daemons not to be allowed in the same detachment if they are aligned to the same god. Makes absolutely no sense.
Same with the Aeldari... the entire story behind the Aeldari is the uniting of all of the Eldar factions into one. Completely goes against the fluff.
I understand that game balance needs to be there, but the way GW did it was just about the opposite of the best way.
SG
Well, with Chaos at least, there doesent seem to be any reason why you couldnt use Chaos, Khorne or Chaos, Nurgle as your Faction keywords.
The Chaos part isnt enough, but the (God) should be. I could be wrong in my interpretation though.
And most players are separating detachments anyway to gain a Locus/Legion trait anyhow.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Well, with Chaos at least, there doesent seem to be any reason why you couldnt use Chaos, Khorne or Chaos, Nurgle as your Faction keywords.
The Chaos part isnt enough, but the (God) should be. I could be wrong in my interpretation though.
And most players are separating detachments anyway to gain a Locus/Legion trait anyhow.
So, I love Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Harlequin models. Would probably have some Corsairs as well if they weren't essentially non-existant on FW's site anymore. Anyway, it was the models in the Dark Eldar army in 7th Edition that really drew me to Eldar. During Coming Storm when the Ynnari was formed, I went a little crazy buying Eldar models and a couple of Harlequin models to build out what was then an 1850 point Ynnari army. But, I only have one unit of Skyrunners and one Voidweaver from Harlequins. That isn't enough models to build any Battle Forged detachment in 8th (post FAQ), and Harlequin models aren't cheap. Seeing that I'm getting married soon, my priorities as well as where my money and time goes has changed dramatically. So, I won't be buying any new Harlequin models. Now, the ones I have are completely and totally useless in Matched play (which is all I intend to play).
Hmmmm.... while I don't like the way a couple of dice rolls turn 1 can decide the battle (charge moves after a 9.1" T1 deepstrike), I also don't like the way GW is "fixing" things by adding more rules preventing players from doing stuff.
It will not be a good experience for new players to find, after reading the rules and their codex, that there are 10 pages of things that they are now banned from doing, or penalised for doing. It would have been more satisfying to be able to fix balance with buffs rather than nerfs...
Also a bit miffed that the Smite nerf is confirmed, but all squads of psyker troops get an exception from it EXCEPT horrors...which were weakest anyway and now their psychic ability actually makes things worse on average when used...
The stacking ignore wound saves was one of the best ways to use iron hands. Their chapter tactic isn't terrific in comparison to other chapters and the ignore wound save made venerable dreads really good as well as captains. Bummed about that especially because GW explicitly declared it was intentional during the marine codex rules leaks.
Other than the Warptime trick being squashed, going out of their way to invalidate one of my Dark Vengeance Chosen models (which I don't use much anyways) and me picking Unholy Fortitude (for the second roll) on my Warlord the FAQ hasn't really changed anything for me. I never even got to try the Warptime thing which after failing more than my fair share of deep strike assaulty chaos terminators charges felt it might finally allow me to gap the distance. Oh well, I already had an empty land raider that I guess I load up with those terminators now.
As for the micro faction allies thing (assassins, Sisters of Silence, Fallen, Cypher, etc.), I think GW will get around to informing us that these units are indeed exceptions to the detachment restrictions (which I think the restriction or something like it will go into full effect next rules patch). Strangely enough, when I plan on using Cypher and Fallen in my list, I was already going to make them into a Vanguard Detachment as I needed the 4th HQ slot and have 3 Fallen squads.
The warlock nerf was unnessisary, ecpecilly considering they forgot to exempt Destructor from the smite change like they did for GKights, and TSuns.
IG now has a hard time fielding enough officers to order their whole army. Now max of 9 orders a turn. Heavy Weapon Squads are now limited to three.
Sisters. They have 3 HQ. Two are special characters. They have limited selections for everything but troops, which puts a hard cap on sisters armies. Granted it's still a high one, but the limited choices, combined with the fact that most of them are very low in competitive value makes it hard to keep a force going. Especially considering how much the models cost. People who found half their armies are now unusable are taking it in the teeth. It's not quite like the Deathwing situation where there's tons of support units to back up the limited size of the army's core (though I have all the sympathy for people who want to, and built a deathwing army that actually has more than 15 deathwing in it).
Inquisitors, assassins, and Cypher. Unless you like spending CP, you have to field whole detachments to get these in. Enjoy your three assassins when you only wanted on. Cypher is flat out fallen, auxiliary, or not at all. He only has Imperium, chaos, and Fallen for faction keywords. So yeah...
Inquisitors and assassins should have had a rule that let them slot into any imperial army without stripping traits, like auxiliaries for IG.
IG now has a hard time fielding enough officers to order their whole army. Now max of 9 orders a turn. Heavy Weapon Squads are now limited to three.
You can get that up to 13 orders a turn but it means going cadian (creed+kell), generic army's can get more order's via laurels of command and cadian army's get superior tactical training to help spread those orders around a little more, there's also the inspired command strat that gives an extra order as well, giving a cadian army the ability to issue 56 orders a turn (2 orders each on 28 units) whereas a generic army gets 20 orders (2 orders each on 10 units). Honestly I don't think order coverage will be a massive issue for any but the largest of infantry lists, you kinda want less orders than you have units anyway due to the inevitably casualties you'll suffer.
If leman russes are good you can bring 9 of them. (Not you GSC!) And 3 Leman russ command tanks. Do forge world have any leman russes entries?
They have a bunch, someone over in the guard tactic thread mentioned you could get around 30 russes at least, at that point it's less armoured company and more armoured companies.
Edit: having had a look, there's 4 forge world variants(Annihalator, Conqueror, Stygies pattern vanquisher, and the death korps Mars alpha pattern LR. Assuming all of those are separate sheets and have the squadron rule that's 36 russes + the 13 you can get from the codex for a grand total of of 49 Leman russes. Forget company's, you're running a regiment at that point.
Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).
Ah yes. FAQ that makes game more unbalanced is right direction for more balanced game. Good logic there.
I like it, with the exception of the beta 1st turn DS rule. That feels rushed and imbalanced, as there is no recognition, through other rule/point changes, that this severely gimps a lot of units in the game. It also buffs gunline to silly levels. I struggle to see how I avoid stuffing my lists with artillery now, given how impossible it will be to shut down via its normal means, i.e CC.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).
Ah yes. FAQ that makes game more unbalanced is right direction for more balanced game. Good logic there.
I'm so glad you've played the games to back this statement up.
Galas wrote: If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?
Like. Wasn't is original intention?
"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.
This option could work if auxiliary detachments did not count towards detachment limit, or if there was a separate limit for auxiliary detachments. Paying -1 CP for one unit is acceptable, but losing an entire detachment slot for it as well is a bit much, in my opinion.
It takes a lot to hammer this game into a balanced state. This was a step in the right direction. Needing to take full detatchments to bring soup together was inspired.
More detachments for batallions means more troops on the board, often the heart and soul of a codex. I welcome this.
Deep strikers being limited means if I lose initiative to a drop army, I'm not dead before I get to act. I welcome this as well.
Galas wrote: If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?
Like. Wasn't is original intention?
"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.
This option could work if auxiliary detachments did not count towards detachment limit, or if there was a separate limit for auxiliary detachments. Paying -1 CP for one unit is acceptable, but losing an entire detachment slot for it as well is a bit much, in my opinion.
I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.
I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.
Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.
I have yet to see how this game is more unbalanced with the FAQ. Out of all my normal opponents, the only thing affected was now one of the T'au players can't bring his 4 Stealthsuit units. He has to put more in each one and worry about Leadership.
It hasn't affected me at all, because the only datasheets I would've spammed would be Troops anyway (But I'm a Necron player so what can you expect?). I look forward to playing with these rules.
I'm still railing against the PL for deepstrike reserves.
A unit of 4 deepstriking plasma interceptors cost 20 PL. For a unit that cost somewhere around 200 points that seems off as a storm raven is only 15 pl for around 300 points on the table.
Or I can build a crusader squad (5) +1 neophyite (+3) plus one additional marine (+4) for a 12 PL squad that only costs around 90 points or scout squads of 6 60ish points that give 10 PL.
It is weird and I really hope they change the beta to points instead of broken PLs
However, this is something that really shouldn't have been necessary for the most part. Codices should have simply had the classic limitations applied to units - listed directly on the datasheet. This post-codex blanket 'fix' is going to cause numerous problems (some of which have been listed in this thread already I'm sure).
While it goes against GW's "sell all the plastic!" mantra, all pertinent codices should have had these things instituted originally. It was a silly oversight initially. Does it impact me? No, I don't think I own more than three of anything, and the few things I have three of are all troops.
I'm not overly enthused by the points increase on Warlocks (they're gak units), but 'eh'. I don't think the Dark Reaper points increase will change the way Eldar armies are constructed.
I was quite surprised when I found out in my first game of 8th Ed that you could assault out of deep strike. I am not surprised that they have introduced the beta rules to reel that in. So-called "assault armies" should not expect to be able to avoid all shooting (less overwatch) by simply beaming in turn 1. I think its a good thing, even if some folks are upset right now that their trick-play has been nerfed.
The limits on numbers of non-troops datasheets is a good thing, as are the restrictions on so-called soup. Spam, soup and alpha-strike were three issues that the community was talking about in the months since 8th released, and this FAQ seems to be a real attempt to address those issues.
I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.
Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.
Or an entirely new limit on them...say you can only have one aux per other detachment, Aux do not count towards max number of Detachments...Subtle difference...But in a tourny you could not have 3 aux and 1 battalion...the way you said it you could...
I can't remember if I posted on this thread or not but here goes.
- Expected a Guilliman nerf to his "reroll all" ability. I giess a points increase is still a nerf but not the nerf he needs
- REALLY expected a Cawl nerf after his points drop in CA 2017 and am still a bit confused that it didn't happen
- expected a Dakkabot nerf also and again, confu- You know what, theres so much gak I'm confused about.
I guess they're just trying to fix the main gameplay and tweaks will come later I guess? Stuff like Dakkabots, Slamguinius, Missile Sniper Exarchs, overpowered reroll auras, monsterous rending claws are problems themselves. Also the almost complete abscense of buffs to underpowered units like lictors and terminators is just weird.
As I said, I hope this is them trying to get the major kinks in the gameplay worked out before focussing on the minutae of the individual units.
Sim-Life wrote: I can't remember if I posted on this thread or not but here goes.
- Expected a Guilliman nerf to his "reroll all" ability. I giess a points increase is still a nerf but not the nerf he needs
- REALLY expected a Cawl nerf after his points drop in CA 2017 and am still a bit confused that it didn't happen
- expected a Dakkabot nerf also and again, confu- You know what, theres so much gak I'm confused about.
I guess they're just trying to fix the main gameplay and tweaks will come later I guess? Stuff like Dakkabots, Slamguinius, Missile Sniper Exarchs, overpowered reroll auras, monsterous rending claws are problems themselves. Also the almost complete abscense of buffs to underpowered units like lictors and terminators is just weird.
As I said, I hope this is them trying to get the major kinks in the gameplay worked out before focussing on the minutae of the individual units.
This explains it best:
Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.
This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.
I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.
Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.
Or an entirely new limit on them...say you can only have one aux per other detachment, Aux do not count towards max number of Detachments...Subtle difference...But in a tourny you could not have 3 aux and 1 battalion...the way you said it you could...
I would be fine with your one per other detachment limit, although I personally think if someone really wants to pay -3 CP out of their 8CP to run 3 aux's with a battalion I really would not mind too much.
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
I play Blood Axe Kommandos, I am now limited to playing a MAX of 45 Kommandos in my army which is a grand total of 405pts. I agree that stupid things like the 7 hive tyrants and 5 stormravens needed to go, but it really hurt other armies for no reason other than needing to stop people spamming OP crap. I think a better way to do that would have been to put restrictions on certain units rather then a far reaching band aid that hurts more then helps other armies.
IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
It varies in fairness from army to army. Its pretty silly that space marines have multiple datasheets for captains and Tau only have 1 datasheet for the 3 types of Tactical Drones. The whole only waac players spam more than 3 of a unit thing seems unwarranted towards armies with smaller rosters or datasheets that have lots of options. You can have up to 6 daemon princes because they have different datasheets for their winged variant, but Hive Tyrants only get 3 regardless of wings? Seems pretty unfair to me. A tau player is a spamming WAAC scumbag because they want 3 units of shield drones for their big suits, and some marker drones on the side? Meanwhile the index gives Eldar access up to 16 Autarchs from the 12 possible in the Codex.
Edit: To put that into context. There are more datasheets for Autarchs then GW currently sells. Both Codex and Index.
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
It varies in fairness from army to army. Its pretty silly that space marines have multiple datasheets for captains and Tau only have 1 datasheet for the 3 types of Tactical Drones. The whole only waac players spam more than 3 of a unit thing seems unwarranted towards armies with smaller rosters or datasheets that have lots of options. You can have up to 6 daemon princes because they have different datasheets for their winged variant, but Hive Tyrants only get 3 regardless of wings? Seems pretty unfair to me. A tau player is a spamming WAAC scumbag because they want 3 units of shield drones for their big suits, and some marker drones on the side? Meanwhile the index gives Eldar access up to 16 Autarchs from the 12 possible in the Codex.
Edit: To put that into context. There are more datasheets for Autarchs then GW currently sells. Both Codex and Index.
Yeah, limiting things by datasheets is a terrible idea. Some armies have vastly more options than others.And it is pretty damn arbitrary which things gets a separate datasheet and which things are just option in one datasheet. For example, there are six different datasheets for Space Marine Captain in the vanilla codex alone, and that's not counting the special characters.
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
The deepstike changes positively boost my Guard.
The deepstrike changes negatively affect my Deathwing units and drop pods.
The rule of 3 means less spam in the game, which is nice.
The rule of 3 doesn't cut down on other spam with mixed results for my army and others.
The rule of 3 could mean some units which need to be used en Masse to be effective, or even in a lore friendly way, now cannot be.
Battle brothers will make it harder to run some of my lists, but shouldn't affect me overly much.
FAQ attempted to fix some issues which while I think is admerable but the execution is a bit hamfisted and doesn't really get to the root of the problem. The core rules of 8th are really the issue here and it's gonna keep rearing its ugly head with every release and change they make.
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
To take a Kommando Squad in reserve you have to field 1 unit not in reserve, to field 90 Kommandos in reserve for that trick you also needed to field 7 units on the table to compensate for them, to add to that, a Kommando is literally a WEAKER version of a boy model, I say weaker because it costs 50% more and has literally the same stats except doesn't benefit from +1 to attack for having big squads, but does gain +1 to cover...which is basically irrelevant since you want them charging as soon as they arrive so you don't put them in cover. You are comparing a spam list that wins tournaments by itself to a spam list that CAN NOT win by itself and requires several additional items to be even competitive, those being weirdboyz, Boyz and usually a buffing character, either a Painboy for durability or Ghaz to give them that +1 attack they desperately need.
To add to that even further, Blood Axes are a Klan and rely heavily on Kommando squads as a style, you can't do that with these restrictions. Like I said earlier, these restrictions make a lot of sense on units that are just ridiculous like Stormravens and such, but on a model that is a more expensive boy with a deep strike ability? no.
Nature's Minister wrote: Kind of hate the faq for invalidating deep strike armies. Lots of gunlines in my store's meta and usually don't play with a ton of terrain.
So now I am rebuilding my army as a chaos gunline. Prolly won't work out that well.
thing is GW expects you to be using a bunch if LOS blocking terrain. I do like the 50% rule and staying in own deployment zone.
I don't play a gunline currently and I have yet to see one in my local meta.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad And no one wants to start the old debate once again.
Some troops with no codex are currently bad like gretchin or blood claws, but when their codex is out they'll probably get some buffs. Wyches were the worst troop in the game, now they can even be competitive.
WAAC people spammed flyrants even with 3 kinds of good troops available. Ork boyz are generally considered good but someone spammed kommandos anyway. Fixing bad troops doesn't help in this matter, the limitation on the number of the same datasheet is a very good thing.
I think Necron Warriors are pretty bad, but that might partly be because I want them to be bad as I prefer the look/mechanics of Immortals in every facet. >.>
That being said, they ARE pretty toothless with their glorified boltguns and are surprisingly easy to kill due to the 4+ save and the requirement to run max squads. The only reason I'm not certain that they're terrible is because Necrons got a morale immunity warlord trait for some reason.
The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
The beta deepstrike is a promotion for Guilliman castle & co or other similar list while it hit armies that needed that turn one charge (Grey Knights, Death Wing and maybe Custodes) ; also it is NOT a fix for the turn one issue
By the way are dark reaper point fixes that game changing?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
Right but we horde players want to be able to take specialized troopz and in our ork army you have to take more then you need in order for any to get to their desired target. Take my love of the aforementioned Kommandos. I can run 3 units of 15, but I know they won't impact the game in the same way I want them to, as a Alpha Strike force to be augmented by 30 Ork Boyz being Jumped into range with them. Even when doubled and I take 90 it is still not a game breaking unit, what it does do though is force my opponent to bunker up in a corner and rely on his meatshields FAR more then he would like to.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
The nerf of the possiblity of bringing 3+ of the same datasheet doesn't have a huge impact in real metas, even competitive ones. It only affects major tournaments.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
The nerf of the possiblity of bringing 3+ of the same datasheet doesn't have a huge impact in real metas, even competitive ones. It only affects major tournaments.
Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.
Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.
Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is
Spoiler:
but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
AdeptiCon is one of the largest 40k Tournaments in the U.S.. It has a major impact on American's and GW's perception of the game. And it is the reason the Big FAQ was delayed by several weeks.
Nature's Minister wrote: Kind of hate the faq for invalidating deep strike armies. Lots of gunlines in my store's meta and usually don't play with a ton of terrain.
So now I am rebuilding my army as a chaos gunline. Prolly won't work out that well.
thing is GW expects you to be using a bunch if LOS blocking terrain. I do like the 50% rule and staying in own deployment zone.
I don't play a gunline currently and I have yet to see one in my local meta.
If this were even remotely accurate GW would have released a vastly different set of rules for terrain, or redone most of their terrain to bock LoS. As it is precious little terrain actually blocks LoS completely or even partially. Looking at the rules and the terrain they sell, I’d say it is the opposite expectation. They want you to use lots of terrain to make it look cool, but don’t want it to have much effect on the game.
Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.
Why would I? I'm not a beginner, the 2000 points format is fine to me. And I'd rather have a single game at 2000 points that 2-3 at lower formats. If someone spams OP units at lower formats he will soon run out of opponents since no one will accept playing against him anynmore.
And tyranids don't need 7 flyrants to be competitive, there are very good lists with 0-3 of them. Like eldar, that can be very competitive even without a single dark reaper. Or AM without plasma scions.
But of course on dakkadakka if something isn't the most overpowered list of the moment, it's garbage
Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.
Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.
Those lists may not be optimized now, but when the SM codex dropped the Guilliman's gunline was overpowered. In fact several units like twin ass razorbacks, stormravens and Guilliman himself (even twice!) got a price hike. That list won major tournaments and it had tacs.
Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.
Why would I? I'm not a beginner, the 2000 points format is fine to me. And I'd rather have a single game at 2000 points that 2-3 at lower formats. If someone spams OP units at lower formats he will soon run out of opponents since no one will accept playing against him anynmore.
And tyranids don't need 7 flyrants to be competitive, there are very good lists with 0-3 of them. Like eldar, that can be very competitive even without a single dark reaper. Or AM without plasma scions.
But of course on dakkadakka if something isn't the most overpowered list of the moment, it's garbage
Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.
Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.
Those lists may not be optimized now, but when the SM codex dropped the Guilliman's gunline was overpowered. In fact several units like twin ass razorbacks, stormravens and Guilliman himself (even twice!) got a price hike. That list won major tournaments and it had tacs.
If you play against 3 flying hive tyrants in a 1k or 1.5k game you would get the same effect as facing 7 at 2k. Playing at 1k or 1.5k games doesn't make you a beginer, it changes the balance around. So you admit that spamming one OP unit is bad then?
So marines are fine because their codex beat index lists 6 months ago.
Tacs suck ass they only won because they where one of a very limited number of codex's.
No major tournament has seen a high placement of any vanilla marine force for a while for a reason, they have been rendered obsolete by power creep.
It like saying dark reapers are OP as heck because they killed everyone at LVO, guess what in a living ruleset data 2 or 3 major rule changes ago are irrelevant.
Of course spamming one OP unit is bad. IMHO cheesy lists and ultra competitive game are bad
I like playing with the entire codex, changing lists every time. That's how I think 40k should be, a game among friends with lists on the same level. Toning up and down the lists in order to have a fair game, it doesn't matter if both lists are casual or ultra competitive, I'm only interested in a game that can be open to any result. That's why I don't care about tournaments or pure TAC lists, but I like playing a single match against a tournament list if I can field something that has decent odds to compete.
The limitations on the max units of the same datasheet was something very needed and I'm glad that tyranids players can't spam their hive tyrants anymore. I was only saying that lists with that many hive tyrants weren't that common, their codex is among the most competitive ones with lots of efficient options. And the army is very expensive, that's why even veterans who own 5000+ points armies usually don't have more than 3 hive tyrants. 5000 points for tyranids means that there are a lot of other things to buy to try all the combinations.
I also think that tacs are not bad even now and the real reason why they don't perform is because everyone has a SM army and they're the most common faction at tournaments. In the most popular events lists that end up high and even win the tournament don't represent the real state of 40k. I'm not seing lots of pure AM list winning events in the last few months but I don't have to assure you that AM is still very competitive, probably the best army in the game.
Marines are fine because in any real meta, where things like 30+ dark reapers or 7 hive tyrants don't exist, they do fine. Ultramarines and ravenguard at least, plus the independent chapters with their dedicated codex like BA and DA.
I think it worked out really well for me as a guard player. I can't take as many company commanders, which means I'll be taking one less, but it worked out perfect by now allowing a cheap and useful lord commissar to fill that slot.
I went from 16 CP to 21 CP.
I wasn't getting through all 16 before since I took relics that helped preserve them. Now I'll probably just take relics to give my leaders better beatsticks.
-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer
Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.
-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer
Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.
How in the hell did it kill those things?
Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...
-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer
Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.
How in the hell did it kill those things?
Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...
wow hyperbole.
HWS and SWS ?
And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?
Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time
(edit)
And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?
-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer
Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.
How in the hell did it kill those things?
Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...
wow hyperbole.
HWS and SWS ?
And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?
Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time
(edit)
And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?
HWS/SWS are fine.
Multiple smaller units of Ogryn isn't how an Auxilia regiment would be organized anyways - they'd likely only be divided up into smaller units for doling out to other regiments. There's no reason for a whole Auxilia regiment to be divided into tiny 3-man squads.
Airborne regiments absolutely should use normal troops. There's no indication that Veterans are required for an airborne unit. Even Elysians, the elitest of the elite of airborne regiments, still use basic Infantry Squads. Why the fixation on veterans?
And the list limits scale with size. 2001-3000 point games use 4 detachments and 4 datasheets.
And do you know what? These are rules for organized events, not narrative play. So if you're playing a "fluffy fun list" then you don't even have to use these restrictions.
Whether the FAQ is good or bad, it killed my desire to play 40k.
For a few reasons:
1. My army saw nerfs based on Adepticon, which is a joke.
2. Beta Rule.
3. No adjustment to Imperial Guard.
I will wait this out. As much as i love miniature gaming, it's a good opportunity to dip my toe into the AOS pond, and focus on narrative gaming.
I have little interest in totally reworking my list because of those 3 items listed above, which is what i would have to do, despite the fact that i spammed nothing and played a non-meta Tyranids list, and it was totally gutted.
-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer
Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.
How in the hell did it kill those things?
Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...
wow hyperbole.
HWS and SWS ?
And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?
Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time
(edit)
And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?
HWS/SWS are fine.
Multiple smaller units of Ogryn isn't how an Auxilia regiment would be organized anyways - they'd likely only be divided up into smaller units for doling out to other regiments. There's no reason for a whole Auxilia regiment to be divided into tiny 3-man squads.
Airborne regiments absolutely should use normal troops. There's no indication that Veterans are required for an airborne unit. Even Elysians, the elitest of the elite of airborne regiments, still use basic Infantry Squads. Why the fixation on veterans?
And the list limits scale with size. 2001-3000 point games use 4 detachments and 4 datasheets.
And do you know what? These are rules for organized events, not narrative play. So if you're playing a "fluffy fun list" then you don't even have to use these restrictions.
why ? No, sws and hws are not "fine" I wanna use lots of them like in the books, they are needed for footguard.
There is a reason, I wanna play them like that
uhhhhhh because they are my favorite unit that offer more options than regular squads ? They are required because I like them.
And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?
Marmatag wrote:
3. No adjustment to Imperial Guard.
General Orange wrote:why ? No, sws and hws are not "fine" I wanna use lots of them like in the books, they are needed for footguard.
There is a reason, I wanna play them like that
uhhhhhh because they are my favorite unit that offer more options than regular squads ? They are required because I like them.
And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?
In This Thread:
"No adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."
"Too many adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."
I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.
Resipsa131 wrote: I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.
Or solve the real issue which was giving the faction with the cheapest access to comand points the ability to refund on a 5+ and steel on a 5+. But as usual GW's rules team missed the glaring obvious.
Both of those should be 6+ if not just removed.
Resipsa131 wrote: I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.
Or solve the real issue which was giving the faction with the cheapest access to comand points the ability to refund on a 5+ and steel on a 5+. But as usual GW's rules team missed the glaring obvious.
Both of those should be 6+ if not just removed.
I don't necessarily disagree with you as both of those are the most potent Warlord Traits and heirlooms that the Imperium can take, I'm merely concerned with Command Points and Strategems that are supposed to be special. I didn't have to think twice about spending 3CP to fight again in the fight phase. I think the Meta will go to every IMperium army taking a Brigade or 2 Battalions and then putting the meat of their Army in 1 or 2 Vanguard/Spearhead Detachments.
Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.
tjnorwoo wrote: Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.
I think increasing the CP from Battalions and Brigades increases the odds of strong soup armies while leaving armies like the inquisition behind because you can’t just throw in Greyfax and make a Battalion. I think 2 AM Battalions at 360 points with a Guilliman detachment will be super strong.
tjnorwoo wrote: Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.
No, they'll be a gatekeeper. Only those that can beat them will advance to the top tables, but pure Guard won't be there.
And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?
Bro...
ORGANISED EVENTS
If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length, the number of Detachments each player can take in their army is restricted, as is the number of times a player’s army can include a particular datasheet. Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc. You can only include the same datasheet in a Battle-forged army up to a maximum number of times, depending upon the points limit for that game, as described below.
It's a suggestion/guideline for TOs. It even tells you to tweak it if you want to...
My theory is the vast majority of 40k players have never read the rules or background. They simply absorb what they can through osmosis from other players and memes.
And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?
Bro...
ORGANISED EVENTS
If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length, the number of Detachments each player can take in their army is restricted, as is the number of times a player’s army can include a particular datasheet. Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc. You can only include the same datasheet in a Battle-forged army up to a maximum number of times, depending upon the points limit for that game, as described below.
It's a suggestion/guideline for TOs. It even tells you to tweak it if you want to...
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.
Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"
PiñaColada wrote: Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.
Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"
Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.
Sim-Life wrote: Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.
I feel like a lot of people complain about pure guard but maybe you're right. Other than that it's a detachment issue. I personally would like to see soup reigned in by having one available detachment that does not align with your warlords. So basically you can have a detachment of guard if your army is Blood Angels but it's just that one detachment and it does not grant any CP.
The detachment itself can be pretty open in regards to slots, maybe 0-2 HQ, 1-3 Troop, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Elite, 0-3 Heavy Support. I like the idea of allies, I hate the idea of there being no downside to taking it. Units from another chapter than your warlords would also have to go in this detachment (for example, an ultramarine warlord wouldn't be able to take a salamander detachment outside of this specific detachment)
PiñaColada wrote: Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.
Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"
Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.
I agree, the Guilliman's gunline is the worst built of 8th edition. Now not overpowered anymore, but quite good anyway. Still so boring and stupid.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
Sim-Life wrote: Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.
I feel like a lot of people complain about pure guard but maybe you're right. Other than that it's a detachment issue. I personally would like to see soup reigned in by having one available detachment that does not align with your warlords. So basically you can have a detachment of guard if your army is Blood Angels but it's just that one detachment and it does not grant any CP.
The detachment itself can be pretty open in regards to slots, maybe 0-2 HQ, 1-3 Troop, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Elite, 0-3 Heavy Support. I like the idea of allies, I hate the idea of there being no downside to taking it. Units from another chapter than your warlords would also have to go in this detachment (for example, an ultramarine warlord wouldn't be able to take a salamander detachment outside of this specific detachment)
Isn't that the whole point of Auxillary Detachments?
And with the boost the CP values, you can take them without worrying.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Blndmage wrote: [quote=PiñaColada 755015 9946811 null Isn't that the whole point of Auxillary Detachments?
And with the boost the CP values, you can take them without worrying.
Yes, and no. I'm saying that this would be the only way of taking soup, even within the codex as opposed to what it is now where armies can be souped to whatever extent you want as long as th detachments themselves aren't mixed. The CP thing isn't big but it'd remove the guard CP battery and preferably stratagems specific to this soup detachment wouldn't be available to them either. Just remove the no-brainer aspect of taking soup from a competitive standpoint and the mechanic itself is actually quite fun.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
To me it is just them trying to appeal to different people. I think the beta tag is meant to tell players that they are seeking lots of feedback on those rules. I would prefer them to say that people should use them though because some groups do in fact decide not to use them (my LGS is one such group.). As for separate organized play guidelines like the 0-3 limit I have no issue with that, I think GW should publish tournament standards, I would like to see more of them, if casual play adopts the tournament rules that is entirely on the players.
Crimson Devil wrote:My theory is the vast majority of 40k players have never read the rules or background. They simply absorb what they can through osmosis from other players and memes.
Considering how many people believe Grimgor actually headbutted Archaon in the junk, you're probably right.
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm.
Again, nothing about the detachment/datasheet rules are required at all, GW has made that very clear. YOU are the one choosing to use them. There is nothing wrong with either liking or using these rules, but getting on GWs case for ruining "regular players' " games is not honest. And let's be real here, GW never wanted this restriction in the first place at all. But they were forced to do something after watching tournaments butcher their vision of the game. They don't want this restriction as a hard and fast rule so they made it a suggestion for events. It's a tournament house rule if anything.
So like I said, it's on the players to self regulate. If you use the rule of 3 because you like it then all the power to you. But if you use them despite not liking them at all, then please stop using it. People really need to actually read the rules to know exactly what you can and can't do. Assuming that the rule of 3 is an actual rule is being ignorant of the rules. Do you use Cities of Death rules for all your games?
To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
Then why are you using them now? They're not rules and they are not required at all. The same rule that gives you the guide tells you to change the maximum amount of datasheets to better suit your own needs. They are meant to be flexible. Just because players can't handle freedom doesn't mean GW is wrong to offer it.
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
new from this FAQ
It's always been able to do it, it just wasn't obvious unless you had read the entry a lot. Though it is nice to have an faq to point to when people get salty.
Q: When an XV109 Y’vahra Battlesuit uses its Nova Reactor ability to do an Overcharged Burst, do I use the Nova Reactor profile on only one of its applicable weapons, or on both of them? A: You use the Nova Reactor profile on both applicable weapons.
Pretty sure this is new information or I just missed it in the past. In ether case - it's still really stupid. This was already one of the most overpowered units in the game.
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
Previously it specifically only worked for Rip Tides.
This isn't the stratageum that still only works for riptides.
This is just clarifying that the nova charge weapons for Y'varah works on both weapons in the same turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Q: When an XV109 Y’vahra Battlesuit uses its Nova Reactor ability to do an Overcharged Burst, do I use the Nova Reactor profile on only one of its applicable weapons, or on both of them? A: You use the Nova Reactor profile on both applicable weapons.
Pretty sure this is new information or I just missed it in the past. In ether case - it's still really stupid. This was already one of the most overpowered units in the game.
Why is it stupid its still outperformed by hive tyrents and a number of other units for its points it's a 400 point suicide unit.
It's a strong unit but not exactly over powered.
If your killing 2 hive tyrents a turn, I would be asking how?
A Y'varha only avarages 9 wounds from a both nova profiles a turn against a Hive tyrent. It can take one with some above avarage roles but not 2.
I agree with Xenomancers and I'm a Tau player. This FAQ made an already great unit more powerful. Even if you were one of the few players who didn't believe the y'vahra was undercosted, it's become rather hard to justify that position now.
The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.
I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.
kombatwombat wrote: The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.
I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.
Yes it is blatantly undercosted.
But it's not like true assault armies were competitive in the meta, even before this FAQ.
kombatwombat wrote: The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.
I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.
Try charging it from outside LOS if you can. Force FTGG to disable overwatch. If there are 2 of them do not multicharge them. Basically it goes like this, charge one and force the other to help. The one that helped can no longer overwatch even for itself. Now you charge that one. Y'Varhas are actually in a worse place right now then they were pre-faq since drones cannot be aggressively deployed via deep strike. Don't get me wrong they are very good for their price, but they are far from unbeatable.
Almost like dealing with it requires some thought to positioning and planning instead of running straight at it. But this is 40k. Stuff like that doesn't exist.
tneva82 wrote: With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???
Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
tneva82 wrote: With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???
Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.
You would need some specifically custom made scenery to work(nothing GW produces would certainly be useless) and then have tau player dumb enough to do that.
That thing is huge and with all the windows etc making for example GW made terrains useless for LOS blocking not many tables have anything to LOS block LEMAN RUSS let alone that big suit
And yet i have a feeling that we are not going to see many Y'Varha around. You know, it's pretty clear by now that nothing FW can be competitive for long.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
tneva82 wrote: With 8th ed rules how you charge it out of LOS when tiniest piece visible from any part of the huge model is enough???
Flying units are really helpful for this. Snuggle up next to terrain or big blocky things as much as possible. Chances are the Y'Varha is going to position itself in a way to reduce incoming long range AT which means something is blocking LOS. If you have literally 0 long range AT then you kinda deserve what is about to happen. Even smite is better than nothing. At the very least kill the drones so it has to tank its own damage.
You would need some specifically custom made scenery to work(nothing GW produces would certainly be useless) and then have tau player dumb enough to do that.
That thing is huge and with all the windows etc making for example GW made terrains useless for LOS blocking not many tables have anything to LOS block LEMAN RUSS let alone that big suit
That's why you have to get your units as close as possible to the terrain or piece you are using to block LOS. It works much better with elites or single model units. It is not ideal by any means, but it is a tool you can use. The Munitorum containers stacked on top of each other are probably the best GW terrain for this. Moving on from that, The picture was good and it clarified intent. The problem is like you said they need to go one step further and its more or less a perfect way for dealing with beta rules.The laziness is "nah we aren't going to change the text of the rule until its finally released."It is important though that people stay civil during all this. The one consistent thing I have noticed is how many insults have been thrown my way either through passive aggressive implications or outright insults. C'mon people you can call me wrong all you want that is fine, and honestly helpful. As long as you do so in a way that uses evidence besides "U SO DUMB ITS SO OBVIOUS I DONT HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OMG" That is how you make beta rules better. Polite discourse.
True you can charge from out of LOS. It's very easy for the tau player to predic that and shut it down too. ESP with the +6" range sept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: And yet i have a feeling that we are not going to see many Y'Varha around. You know, it's pretty clear by now that nothing FW can be competitive for long.
This one in particular has been competitive for about 3 years.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Why not though? It's literally as simple as going into the FAQ file - making changes to the text about beta reserves and saving it. It is really that simple.
It's actually easier than drafting a series of images and pointing out each individual change and posting it on Facebook (what they actually did).
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.
The 40k tournament scene is made awful by poor rules and imbalance.
I would happily play in a tournament where each list was defined prior to entry. So if I wanted, for instance, to play Tyranids, I had to play the exact copy of the Tyranid list they defined for the event.
I would also happily play in a "highlander" format where no unit could be repeated.
GW could publish guidelines and they would immediately be used to frame events. If they published highlander rules, people would play them. If they published "fixed lists" people would play them.
The playerbase will get pulled in all kinds of different directions, and that will cause disagreements, etc, because we're sort of making it up as we go along.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW. As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.
Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.
WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.
Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.
WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!
Is this a joke? Are you joking? You're probably joking. You're joking right?
I've always considered WH (40k and formerly FB) to be the D&D of wargaming. It's not designed to be competitive. It's designed to allow people to craft their personal characters and armies, and have a good time arbitrated by dice. (Better balance would still be good, though.)
I'd consider WMH more similar to MTG, in that they write a rulesset to be competitive and specific over immersive and fluffy.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW. As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
Probably because warmahordes has a real playtesting team/community. 40k's most play tested edition ever is actually just a beta test and large tornaments are their testing ground.
Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.
WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!
Is this a joke? Are you joking? You're probably joking. You're joking right?
No jokes, I've played that game for years, but now my Everblights have been taking dust on a shelf for quite some time. Admittedly i have no idea if MK3 fixed the problems of that game, but MK1 and MK2 were a disaster, in my area (Rome) it completely died and i'm not surprised. I don't understand why it is used as a meter of what GW should do, it had literally all the same problems of 7th (terrible balance, power creep, rules creep, unapproachable by new players...). At least 7th had good looking minis.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
Making that picture to FB post took lot longer than it would have been putting note about it on warhammer community's faq&errata section(you know the one GW USED to treat as only official source until they decided in their stupidity to fall back on one of the best&most customer friendly decisions they have ever made) would have taken.
They are just lazy unprofessional guys who have no idea how to do things PROFESSIONALLY.
So what's your end goal? Guys like you keep putting yourselves into this rhetorical box, where if you took it seriously, no rational person would continue to be involved with GW. How can we take your and other's argument that GW is unprofessional, incompetent, and greedy and not look like morons for our continued support of 40K? There is no silver lining in your scenario.
I agree his hyperbole is a bit silly and excessive, but he isn't wrong that it seems counter productive to make an image explaining your intent, but not clarify your intent in the rule itself. If they had just adjusted the rule while releasing the image then it would have been an essentially perfect way of handling a simple miscommunication. The silver lining in his scenario is GW gets called out for being lazy in this one instance and goes to fix the text itself to match. Personally I think an unspoken reason why people care so much about making sure it is written correctly is due to GW's terrible track record for getting things right on the first try. Look at Savior Protocols and how many attempts that took. Look at how Longstrike has been rebroken in the new Tau Codex in the exact same way he was during Index. Look at how the Coldstar used to be able to take any 4 weapons + Missile pod or HOBC. The coldstar still doesn't work by the way, the current phrasing makes it so you can only take the HOBC if you also take a missile pod. These examples are all Tau since that is what I am familiar with, but I am sure there are many more cases just like it in other armies.
The wording will likely change if/when the rule becomes official. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding. They are not going to repost 1000 changes to the rule as people test it and notice issues with it. They are going to take our feedback and adjust the rule (and its wording) after we've had sufficient time to test it.
No, I fully understand they are going to change it once it becomes official. The fact that beta rules are morphing into defacto standards due to ITC and the various GTs adopting them on day 1 is one reason why RAI isn't good enough here. The other reason is GW tends to need several tries to get rules right whenever they have a RAW vs RAI problem. I gave 3 clear examples of that including one example where the back and forth is still in progress. One example is literally a failure to copy and paste a fix they already did. Adding to this, if GW is going to change it at the end there is a decent chance that it will be broken RAW there too. I agree they should not change it constantly, but that is why I think changes should be reserved for strictly language issues and not balance issues. Language issues shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 revisions at most. If it does, then there is even more reason to do it in the first place.
Bolded the section that's relevant as this forum hates me editing its quote chains on my phone.
Then that's an issue with ITC and TOs being stupid and nothing to do with GW.
As I said before on this subject, Warmahordes has a beta rules system for community rules testing and they have far more professional and well written tournaments. They don't adopt rules before they're officially in place, so why do 40k tournaments?
(Himt: because the 40k tournament scene is awwwwwwful)
GW owns the game and controls the rules. It may absolutely be the fault of ITC and other tournament organizations, but that doesn't change that it is still their game and GW is the only group that is any position to fix it. Even if it became the defacto standard regardless of outside tournaments influence it is still only GW that can really fix it. Even if every tournament organization around the world came up with their own additions to the beta rules to perfectly fix all clarifications it would not solve the problem. Anyone outside of a tournament will not be effected. People then try to argue "well figure it out with your opponent beforehand" like that is a normal acceptable thing for a game. It can create awkward unnecessary social tension. Do I let the guy ignore beta rules so I can play a game? Did the winnner only win only because I did or did not allow them to T1 deepstrike? It sours the mood either way and can be completely eliminated by GW adding in one or two lines of text. They know it was a problem, but made some intern create a picture to post on facebook instead and said "nah we aren't going to fix things this is close enough." There are literally zero drawbacks to them clarifying the rule. What does status quo actually accomplish here?
Please tell me that was badly expressed sarcasm. Warmahordes is a broken mess, 40K 8th is at a much higher level than that. In WH you will probably have a cleaner ruleset, true, but it generates completely abstract situations, you can't even understand what that rule is trying to represent most of the time, and the internal balance of the factions is simply nowhere to be found.
WH is the MtG of the miniature games, that game is so broken that the game is BASED around things being broken!
Spoletta wrote:
No jokes, I've played that game for years, but now my Everblights have been taking dust on a shelf for quite some time. Admittedly i have no idea if MK3 fixed the problems of that game, but MK1 and MK2 were a disaster, in my area (Rome) it completely died and i'm not surprised. I don't understand why it is used as a meter of what GW should do, it had literally all the same problems of 7th (terrible balance, power creep, rules creep, unapproachable by new players...). At least 7th had good looking minis.
How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you follow the 1st statement with the admission you have no idea about Mk3? Simply bizarre.
Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.
Spoletta wrote: Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.
You said "Warmahordes IS a broken mess" Don't you see how I might regard your latest statement as bizarreness squared? How can you not see that admitting to know nothing about the game for the last 2 years of a new edition might put into question the validity of the statement "Warmahordes is a broken mess" I can't even........
Spoletta wrote: Because as i've said i've left that game years ago, before MK3, so if it was somehow fixed by that edition, then good for those that still play it, but it doesn't in any way invalidate what i say since the "GW sucks, PP rocks" is an argument as old as MK1. I doubt that it was fixed though if i have to believe the feedbacks that i'm receiving on MK3.
You said "Warmahordes IS a broken mess" Don't you see how I might regard your latest statement as bizarreness squared? How can you not see that admitting to know nothing about the game for the last 2 years of a new edition might put into question the validity of the statement "Warmahordes is a broken mess" I can't even........
To be fair, Mk 3 is a broken mess too. In order to avoid the thread derail I will just say this...
... want to buy a Khador 'jack-only army led by Karchev? I'm selling.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.
I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.
Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. "Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea" is a gross oversimplification.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.
I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.
Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.
But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"
Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.
I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.
Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.
But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"
Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.
This used to be my argument until practically everyone I know was using the beta rules like they were a core rule. I can't explain it - it's just the way it is. It probably is because people would just rather not argue about rules before the game starts and this is just the easiest solution for them.
The majority also likely want to play with the same rules all the time so if any are likely to play somewhere that might adopt the beta rules they want to play them all the time so they don’t get mixed up.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.
I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.
Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.
But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"
Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.
This used to be my argument until practically everyone I know was using the beta rules like they were a core rule. I can't explain it - it's just the way it is. It probably is because people would just rather not argue about rules before the game starts and this is just the easiest solution for them.
Pretty much exactly that. If I can eliminate an unnecessary source of conflict then I would much rather do so. Instead of just asking "beta rules or nah," you also have to make sure they are on the same page with what the current interpretation is. It's just one more way things could go wrong that is easily fixed. All the personal insults that people have been throwing back and forth is pretty strong evidence why I would like to eliminate sources of conflict. People aren't even arguing over how it is meant to be played, it is literally over whether or not GW should update the text to match author's intent. I can only imagine how much worse it is when you explain to someone that "yes my orks can charge you with da jump turn 1" and they thought the FAQ made them safe. Talking beforehand also isn't a magic cure, cognitive dissonance is a thing.
