This seem pretty fair to me so far, unless I'm missing something.
My Crons now get more CP, I can still use my TS/Tzeentch Daemons.
Nids got hit hard, only being able to take a single hive fleet now kind of sucks. The points increases are fair, but the non-mixing of hive fleets is a huge nerf.
EDIT: Looks like I may have misread the detachment wording.
_Ness wrote: Hmmm i dont quite get it. Do they contradict themselves?
"This means that you can still include appropriate allies, but now they might need to be included in a different
Detachment. "
vs a few lines later
"BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your
Army Faction."
so i cant play celestine with my admech or genestealer & tyranids?
You can, just need different detachment.
A battalion Genestealer Cult and a Spearhead Tyranids or something is fine. Just not in the same detachment.
Celestine would need to bring her own little posse of sisters for a Sisters Detachment or you use her in the -1 CP Auxiliary Detachment.
So do we call this a soup strainer, because it doesn't really get rid of soup, just makes some varieties of it not work. The two big losers I see are chaos and ynarri,
Pox walker farm is harder now that tide of traitors is once a game. The battle brothers changes makes mixed chaos detachments a thing of the past.
Ynarri can no longer mix and match flavors of eldar in a single detachment. And going from a warp charge of 6 to 8 is a big deal for WotP. They didn't increase the cost of the dark reapers much because they didn't have to after these changes.
Related Errata
Index: Imperium 1 Page 87 – Damned Legionnaires, Abilities
Add the following ability:
‘Saviours From Beyond: As long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard
Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So... You can now take a Vanguard Detachment without taking a HQ?!?!?!?! Or am i missing something here?
Legion of the Damned have no HQ and are an Elites choice. This allows you to take a pure LOTDHQ-less Vanguard Detachment without taking a CP hit (via Auxiliary Detachmebts), but you don’t gain any CP from it either. It doesn’t apply to anything else other than LOTD.
Related Errata
Index: Imperium 1 Page 87 – Damned Legionnaires, Abilities
Add the following ability:
‘Saviours From Beyond: As long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard
Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So... You can now take a Vanguard Detachment without taking a HQ?!?!?!?! Or am i missing something here?
Legion of the Damned have no HQ and are an Elites choice. This allows you to take a pure LOTDHQ-less Vanguard Detachment without taking a CP hit (via Auxiliary Detachmebts), but you don’t gain any CP from it either. It doesn’t apply to anything else other than LOTD.
And like. Assassins. Litterally in the next paragraph.
Related Errata
Index: Imperium 1 Page 87 – Damned Legionnaires, Abilities
Add the following ability:
‘Saviours From Beyond: As long as your Warlord is from the Imperium, you can include this unit in a Vanguard
Detachment even if that Detachment contains no HQ units. However, if you do so, that Detachment’s Command
Benefits are changed to ‘None’.’
So... You can now take a Vanguard Detachment without taking a HQ?!?!?!?! Or am i missing something here?
Legion of the Damned have no HQ and are an Elites choice. This allows you to take a pure LOTDHQ-less Vanguard Detachment without taking a CP hit (via Auxiliary Detachmebts), but you don’t gain any CP from it either. It doesn’t apply to anything else other than LOTD.
Except those 2 other armies that also got that. The SoS and the Assassins.
Grimgold wrote: So do we call this a soup strainer, because it doesn't really get rid of soup, just makes some varieties of it not work. The two big losers I see are chaos and ynarri,
Pox walker farm is harder now that tide of traitors is once a game. The battle brothers changes makes mixed chaos detachments a thing of the past.
Ynarri can no longer mix and match flavors of eldar in a single detachment. And going from a warp charge of 6 to 8 is a big deal for WotP. They didn't increase the cost of the dark reapers much because they didn't have to after these changes.
Pox walker farm is impossible. Check the death guard FAQ, they cost reinforcement points now.
Grimgold wrote: So do we call this a soup strainer, because it doesn't really get rid of soup, just makes some varieties of it not work. The two big losers I see are chaos and ynarri,
Pox walker farm is harder now that tide of traitors is once a game. The battle brothers changes makes mixed chaos detachments a thing of the past.
Ynarri can no longer mix and match flavors of eldar in a single detachment. And going from a warp charge of 6 to 8 is a big deal for WotP. They didn't increase the cost of the dark reapers much because they didn't have to after these changes.
7 points per model is a lot when you combine it with the psyker points increases. Nick's LVO list went up 169 points.
_Ness wrote: Hmmm i dont quite get it. Do they contradict themselves?
"This means that you can still include appropriate allies, but now they might need to be included in a different Detachment. "
vs a few lines later
"BATTLE BROTHERS All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your Army Faction."
so i cant play celestine with my admech or genestealer & tyranids?
You can, just need different detachment.
A battalion Genestealer Cult and a Spearhead Tyranids or something is fine. Just not in the same detachment.
Celestine would need to bring her own little posse of sisters for a Sisters Detachment or you use her in the -1 CP Auxiliary Detachment.
nevermind
hmm?
so assasins and lotd are THE ONLY Imperium allies left ?! wtf
‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you
can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their
respective codexes), provided that the Detachment does not include any of the following: Urien Rakarth, Drazhar,
Mandrakes, the Avatar of Khaine or any
<Haemonculus Coven>
units. You can include these models in the
Detachment even if you are using the Battle Brothers matched play rule.
If Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne is included in a Detachment, all
Aeldari units in that Detachment gain the
Ynnari keyword. These units cannot use any of the following abilities, and are not considered to have them: Ancient
Doom, Battle Focus, Rising Crescendo, Power From Pain. Instead,
Ynnari Infantry and Biker units gain the
Strength from Death ability, as described below. The Detachment is still considered to be a Craftworlds, Harlequins
or Drukhari Detachment, and so can use Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Stratagems, Warlord Traits and
Relics respectively. Note that these units will not, however, gain any of the Detachment abilities listed in their
respective codexes (such as The Path of War, Craftworld Attributes, Masque Forms, Drukhari Obsessions, etc.).’
So how can we understand this? We get unlocked stratagems for sure, but what are they trying to tell us with the warlord trait and relics? Atleast in my craftworld codex both of those require the warlord to be a craftworld character model. Does yvraine being in a craftworld detachment imply her gaining the craftworld keyword? Or is the bold part with warlord traits and relics just to taunt us? I guess we ned a FAQFAQ!
docdoom77 wrote: Did they say what the reasoning was behind increasing command points for Battalions?
It sure does make my Drukhari patrol detachment rule a lot less appealing.
The rationale was that single-codex armies had a hard time filling detachments and gaining command points.
I would have preferred a bonus for single-codex armies vs. an increase across the board. Such as giving the stock +3 command points to single faction armies.
docdoom77 wrote: Did they say what the reasoning was behind increasing command points for Battalions?
It sure does make my Drukhari patrol detachment rule a lot less appealing.
They said that limiting yourself was not rewarding enough in terms of CP, and that those factions that can spam cheap battalions already have a lot of CPs, so this doesn't empower them as much as we think.
_Ness wrote: so assasins and lotd are THE ONLY Imperium allies left ?! wtf
No, you can still have multiple Imperium Detatchments in one army, you just cant have Guard in the same Detatchment as Custodes.
So you say "All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common." means only the units in the seperate detachments must have a common keyword? every detachment for himself (didnt know that was a thing, since bscribe wouldnt allow me do that)
OR do they mean every unit in the whole army, same detachment or not, has to have the same keyword. english is not my native language, so im a bit confused about this.
nvrmind i got it, german version cleared things up.
Well, it just makes it even more compelling to get 60 brimstones and some cheap Heralds to include them into literally every Daemon army.. Same with every other army that has cheap choices I guess.
_Ness wrote: so assasins and lotd are THE ONLY Imperium allies left ?! wtf
No, you can still have multiple Imperium Detatchments in one army, you just cant have Guard in the same Detatchment as Custodes.
So you say "All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common." means only the units in the seperate detachments must have a common keyword? every detachment for himself (didnt know that was a thing, since bscribe wouldnt allow me do that)
OR do they mean every unit in the whole army, same detachment or not, has to have the same keyword. english is not my native language, so im a bit confused about this.
You CAN use Imperium to link an ARMY together.
You CANNOT use Imperium to link a DETACHMENT together.
_Ness wrote: so assasins and lotd are THE ONLY Imperium allies left ?! wtf
No, you can still have multiple Imperium Detatchments in one army, you just cant have Guard in the same Detatchment as Custodes.
So you say "All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common." means only the units in the seperate detachments must have a common keyword? every detachment for himself (didnt know that was a thing, since bscribe wouldnt allow me do that)
OR do they mean every unit in the whole army, same detachment or not, has to have the same keyword. english is not my native language, so im a bit confused about this.
You must have a single keyword that unifies your army. For example [IMPERIUM.]
Your army will consist of a number of detachments. All the units in these detachments must share this keyword [IMPERIUM.]
In addition, each detachment must consist of units that all share a second keyword that is _Not_ Imperium. [Or Chaos, or Eldari, etc.]
So for example an Imperium Army could consist of -
A detachment of sisters.
A detachment of guard.
A detachment of Space Marines.
It could _Not_ consist of
A detachment of sisters
A detachment of guard
A detachment of space marines with an Inquisitor thrown in and Sly Marbo. <-- This detachment is illegal because the only keyword in common is IMPERIUM.
_Ness wrote: Hmmm i dont quite get it. Do they contradict themselves?
"This means that you can still include appropriate allies, but now they might need to be included in a different
Detachment. "
vs a few lines later
"BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your
Army Faction."
so i cant play celestine with my admech or genestealer & tyranids?
You just need to put them in different detachments. So Celestine could go in a separate Sisters of Battle detachment - or an Auxiliary Support detachment of just her if you don't have any other SoB.
docdoom77 wrote: Did they say what the reasoning was behind increasing command points for Battalions?
It sure does make my Drukhari patrol detachment rule a lot less appealing.
The rationale was that single-codex armies had a hard time filling detachments and gaining command points.
I would have preferred a bonus for single-codex armies vs. an increase across the board. Such as giving the stock +3 command points to single faction armies.
Since the Drukhari ability is just a patch to let us field all of our models without losing the benefits and they thought 4 CP was correct, when a Battalion provided 3 CP, they should have upped the 3 patrol CP to 5 or 6 to match.
They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.
That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.
Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.
But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.
Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.
necrontyrOG wrote:Beta rules Alpha Strike nerf is crazy. I like it.
I don't. that rule kill the only gk strategy.
CaptainBetts wrote:
Sums up my thoughts perfectly.
I agree. it is another nerf.
and still no faq for GK.
Am I correct in seeing that you can't use an Inquisitor in a Sisters of Battle detachment according to these rules? In order to field an Inquisitor you must have a full detachment with the INQUISITION or ORDO <Something> keywords? I can totally see it work for other soup tastes, but for Inquisitors it seems a bit weird. They even have rules that allows them to board any Imperium transports...
Not a fan of the T1 change of the deepstrike rules, the rest looks very reasonable.
Any reason why DG (and presumably TS (don't own their codex, so I can't check if they can do it anyway), as it is absent from their FAQ too) Dreads can't take twin Scourges/Hammers and CSM ones have been FAQed to be able to do so?
So am I correct in thinking that each yannari detachment must be wholly from either craftworld, drukhari, or harlequins? It states that each detachment must share a single keyword but it cannot be Yannari or Aldari. So if you were to put craftworld and drukhari together in the same yannari detachment they would not share a usable keyword correct?
nintura wrote: Thousand Sons Tzaangor bomb is dead. Units can no longer be Warptimed after deepstriking.
Where did you find this?
Thanks!
Same comment sent me scrambling to find it. It's in the main rulebook FAQ, pg 5 left column. Can no longer use abilities that grant movement on units the same turn that they arrive from reserves. Can still charge though.
Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
That SOUNDS right but I haven't parsed it enough to see if I could take two Ynnari characters, put each in a different detachment and have both detachments be Ynnari.
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
In the same detachment. You can't mix units based in the Aeldari keyword in the same detachment, not list.
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
If you are using those beta rules, you cannot mix Dark Eldar and Craftworld in the same army, Ynnari or no Ynnari. The only shared keyword they have is Aeldari, and even if they both get the Ynnari keyword, that's also on the list of naughty keywords.
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
If you are using those beta rules, you cannot mix Dark Eldar and Craftworld in the same army, Ynnari or no Ynnari. The only shared keyword they have is Aeldari, and even if they both get the Ynnari keyword, that's also on the list of naughty keywords.
You cannot have CWE and DE in the same DETACHMENT, not army.
you only need to share an additional keyword within detachments. Between detachments, aldari is an acceptable keyword to share right? Therefore, you can have a crafworld detachment and a DE detachment in the same army but within the detachments, they must be wholly CWE or DE. That's how I read it at least.
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
In the same detachment. You can't mix units based in the Aeldari keyword in the same detachment, not list.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
In the same detachment. You can't mix units based in the Aeldari keyword in the same detachment, not list.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
Cinderspirit wrote: GKs atleast got a small fix, Brotherhoods of Psykers can again always Smite on 5+.
They didn't get a fix. They just ignored some parts of a nerf.
Their librarians etc. don't have the brotherhood of psykers special rule, but still cast the weakened form of smite (1MW at 12"). These units are still affected by the smite change.
It's only our squads (not single man units like dreadknights, librarians and our characters) that avoided the nerf.
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
In the same detachment. You can't mix units based in the Aeldari keyword in the same detachment, not list.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
-
I think you are right. If you want to go even further with that, it is implied that you can only have one ynnari character, because he has to be the warlord, and you can only have one. So no triumvirate anymore! This is all Beta rules though!
Galef wrote: Did I read it right that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list?
It allows you to take one of the 3 characters in a detachment and make units in that detachment Ynnari.
So if you take a CWE detachment and a DE detachment and put Yvraine in the CWE on, it will give the <Ynnari> keyword to units in the CWE detachment, but cannot be given to the DE detachment.
So you can only ever take a single Ynnari detachment. What did I miss?
-
In the same detachment. You can't mix units based in the Aeldari keyword in the same detachment, not list.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
-
Wouldn't they both have the "Ynnary" faction keyword?
Cinderspirit wrote: GKs atleast got a small fix, Brotherhoods of Psykers can again always Smite on 5+.
They didn't get a fix. They just ignored some parts of a nerf.
Their librarians etc. don't have the brotherhood of psykers special rule, but still cast the weakened form of smite (1MW at 12"). These units are still affected by the smite change.
It's only our squads (not single man units like dreadknights, librarians and our characters) that avoided the nerf.
At the same time - all our units get a blanket nerf of no out of deployment zone deep strike. Basically the only strategy the GK have left. It's gone.
dan2026 wrote: They better of nerfed Imperial Guard and their ridiculously overpowered double shooting tanks.
They haven’t, but they nerfed Baneblade-type vehicles as they are back to being unable to fire Overwatch if enemy models are within 1”.
That's crazy. I don't know how anybody is supposed to fight against massed leman russes.
It's impossible.
Dealing with a bunch of leman ruses is way easier than you think.
If you say so dude. Unless you devote your whole army to just anti tank to combat them I dunno.
You do realize leman Russ units are also limited to 3 per detachment as well?
No, they're limited to three 'Datasheets' per detachment, and the ridiculous squadron rule, which is part of the datasheet, each datasheet is 1-3 leman russes.
Just in the same way a Datasheet of tactical marines is a squad of 5-10 marines, a datasheet of Russes is 1-3 Russes.
So you can hit 9, + 3 Tank Commanders, + Ally in some Forgeworld ones that are on different datasheets.
Cinderspirit wrote: GKs atleast got a small fix, Brotherhoods of Psykers can again always Smite on 5+.
They didn't get a fix. They just ignored some parts of a nerf.
Their librarians etc. don't have the brotherhood of psykers special rule, but still cast the weakened form of smite (1MW at 12"). These units are still affected by the smite change.
It's only our squads (not single man units like dreadknights, librarians and our characters) that avoided the nerf.
At the same time - all our units get a blanket nerf of no out of deployment zone deep strike. Basically the only strategy the GK have left. It's gone.
You could still get a couple units in their face turn 1 right? Take 1 GMDK in DS reserves, drop in your own zone turn 1, gate of infinity into opponents face, then a unit or two of interceptors can 1 shot shunt in right behind him? Would be expensive, but doable, I imagine... Unless that FAQ rule also includes powers / abilities that remove and re-set up a unit (from latest update to BRB):
"The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No."
Shinymarine wrote: For the Ynarri Rules i think it means you cant have a mixed detachment of drukhari and craftworld stuff, instead its either a ynarri,craftworld detachment, or a ynarri drukhari detachment,
battle brothers states you have to share a keyword that isnt aeldari or ynarri,
I am so happy they kept the largest changes as for matched play only and didn't decide to mess with people's narrative and open games based on tournament data.
I think many people don’t realize there is more changes then that 6 page tourney rule sheet. You need to check your army faq on the community page. A lot has changed
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
But you can have three Ynnari characters. So you can have up to three Ynnari detachments.
Elhazard wrote: Do you guys think that Tau homing beacons override the new turn 1 deepstrike restriction?
Why would they? They don't extend your Deployment Zone, they just change the normal area where you can drop. You can drop there on turn 2 now, still within 9" of enemy possibly.
Pretty glad I didn't go buying that Ynnari triumvirate box. There's very little incentive to play pointy ears as them now vs their original factions. Weird that the new Battalion CP messes with the just released DE Patrol thing too. Doesn't totally invalidate it, at least, but seems like a peculiar choice.
For Imperium, we can only use Assassins and Legion of Damned as non-standard allies without building a whole detachment? Makes Inquisition forces and Sisters of Silence seem difficult to include.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
But you can have three Ynnari characters. So you can have up to three Ynnari detachments.
Correct.
It's just worded strangely. Galef, I can see why you think you can only have one, but it's really saying that if one of the three is your Warlord, you can include ANY of the 3 in ANY Detachment and including them in said Detachment makes that Detachment Ynnari.
Necrons aren't punished as badly for not having scouts because of the new deep strike rules. Overall I think Necrons will be sitting pretty in the post-faq meta.
Elhazard wrote: Do you guys think that Tau homing beacons override the new turn 1 deepstrike restriction?
Why would they? They don't extend your Deployment Zone, they just change the normal area where you can drop. You can drop there on turn 2 now, still within 9" of enemy possibly.
I agree with your logic. I just don't know the wording on homing beacons. Thanks for the help.
craggy wrote: Pretty glad I didn't go buying that Ynnari triumvirate box. There's very little incentive to play pointy ears as them now vs their original factions. Weird that the new Battalion CP messes with the just released DE Patrol thing too. Doesn't totally invalidate it, at least, but seems like a peculiar choice.
For Imperium, we can only use Assassins and Legion of Damned as non-standard allies without building a whole detachment? Makes Inquisition forces and Sisters of Silence seem difficult to include.
Sisters of Silence also get the option to take a Vanguard list with out the HQ, its right there in the FAQ.
Yes, you can have CWE and DE in the same list, but my question was that it appears since they need to be in a separate detachment, and a Ynnari character can only make ONE detachment <Ynnari>
Ergo, I came ot the conclusion that you cannot have both Ynnari CWE and Ynnari DE in the same list
But you can have three Ynnari characters. So you can have up to three Ynnari detachments.
I had to reread it. I thought since the warlord had to be one of the 3 characters that only units in the Warlord's detachment can have the <Ynnari> keyword.
But it appears that you can indeed add any of the 3 to any detachment and those units can be <Ynnari>
So as long as you have separate detachments for CWE, DE or Harlies and each detachment has a Triumverate character (one of which has to be WL), you can indeed have CWE and DE be Ynnari in the same list. But only units in detachments with a Triumverate character can be Ynnari.
craggy wrote: Pretty glad I didn't go buying that Ynnari triumvirate box. There's very little incentive to play pointy ears as them now vs their original factions. Weird that the new Battalion CP messes with the just released DE Patrol thing too. Doesn't totally invalidate it, at least, but seems like a peculiar choice.
For Imperium, we can only use Assassins and Legion of Damned as non-standard allies without building a whole detachment? Makes Inquisition forces and Sisters of Silence seem difficult to include.
Sisters of Silence also get the option to take a Vanguard list with out the HQ, its right there in the FAQ.
But this means you have to take 3 assassins or 3 SOS units, correct?
The whole soup nerf is stupid. Soup detachments were not a problem at all. This only hurts fluffy stuff like the Inquisition.
DS nerf is bad too. Reivers and Inceptors were questionable to begin with, now they're even worse.
The thee unit limit is thankfully only tournament recommendation, but it is still a bad rule. It punishes armies which have limited selection of units, or players who want to build a tight thematic armies, while armies with a lot of good units are unaffected. And yes, you can have three Leman Russes per datasheet, (plus three tank commanders) so you can still have twelve twice shooting Leman Russes, but it is really good that I no longer can have more than 18 Inceptors in my Primaris only army, those guys are such a menace!
craggy wrote: Pretty glad I didn't go buying that Ynnari triumvirate box. There's very little incentive to play pointy ears as them now vs their original factions. Weird that the new Battalion CP messes with the just released DE Patrol thing too. Doesn't totally invalidate it, at least, but seems like a peculiar choice.
For Imperium, we can only use Assassins and Legion of Damned as non-standard allies without building a whole detachment? Makes Inquisition forces and Sisters of Silence seem difficult to include.
Sisters of Silence also get the option to take a Vanguard list with out the HQ, its right there in the FAQ.
But this means you have to take 3 assassins or 3 SOS units, correct?
Yes, all limits of the Vanguard list, other than the one for an HQ apply.
Necrons aren't punished as badly for not having scouts because of the new deep strike rules. Overall I think Necrons will be sitting pretty in the post-faq meta.
Certainly doesn’t seem to have hurt us any.
Generally with Necron deepstriking, you’ll be dropping them in around turn 2 anyways, and they tend to rely on vehicles to do so,
My own Necron army is all about the firepower, and always has been. In previous editions I never quite got my head round the fliers, so didn’t bother. And my sodding Monolith fell apart thanks to a dodgy batch of glue which also wrecked my Lychguard and Skullvane Manse.
craggy wrote: Pretty glad I didn't go buying that Ynnari triumvirate box. There's very little incentive to play pointy ears as them now vs their original factions. Weird that the new Battalion CP messes with the just released DE Patrol thing too. Doesn't totally invalidate it, at least, but seems like a peculiar choice.
For Imperium, we can only use Assassins and Legion of Damned as non-standard allies without building a whole detachment? Makes Inquisition forces and Sisters of Silence seem difficult to include.
Sisters of Silence also get the option to take a Vanguard list with out the HQ, its right there in the FAQ.
But this means you have to take 3 assassins or 3 SOS units, correct?
Yes, all limits of the Vanguard list, other than the one for an HQ apply.
Thanks Victor. Having 3 assassins is just odd... Prevents the auto-Cullexus inclusion though.
Cinderspirit wrote: GKs atleast got a small fix, Brotherhoods of Psykers can again always Smite on 5+.
They didn't get a fix. They just ignored some parts of a nerf.
Their librarians etc. don't have the brotherhood of psykers special rule, but still cast the weakened form of smite (1MW at 12"). These units are still affected by the smite change.
It's only our squads (not single man units like dreadknights, librarians and our characters) that avoided the nerf.
At the same time - all our units get a blanket nerf of no out of deployment zone deep strike. Basically the only strategy the GK have left. It's gone.
Da-Rock wrote: Is the Inquisition nerfing more geared towards "what is to come" rather than a nerf because they caused an issue in the current meta?
I know their codex is coming. Is this FAQ to create a disconnect for future Imperium/Chaos and Aeldari?
Probably.
It’s also entirely possible Inquisition will come with an Exception Rule. Which is somewhat fitting, given their place in the Imperium.
Ynarri May get similar. For instance, you may be able Soup, but replacing <Kabal>! <Masque> and <Craftworld> etc with <Ynarri>. Alternatively, the Ynarri take on those three (internal faction stuff) may dictate which units can be Souped.
This is all just speculation though, and is not to be treated as a rumour. Even if I turn out to be spookily prophetic
So the imperial armor index Xenos has all the data sheets for models no longer made but usable in open play but still doesn’t have the data sheet for the mega dread which is still made and sold but doesn’t have a datasheet!
Never mind I see what hey did they combined the data sheets with Meka dread options
Am I missing something or did they just give Tyranids a massive buff to offset the Reserves nerf?
"Page 120 – The Enemy Below
Change the third sentence to read:
‘Whenever you set up a unit of Raveners, a Mawloc,
Trygon or a Trygon Prime at the end of your
Movement phase (a burrowing unit), you can also set up
any number of units you set up within the tunnels.’"
So in short, I can have a Mawloc pop up and bring with it every unit I have in the tunnels that'll fit.
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
Also, glad to have clarification on this, for sure! So, the units in your transports do count toward your unit total re: Tactical Reserves.
Games Workshop wrote:Q: The Tactical Reserves matched play rule states that at least
half the total number of units in my army must be set up on the
battlefield during Deployment. If I have units embarked in a
transport, do they count against the number of units I have to
set up during Deployment? If, for example, I have a Valkyrie
with three units embarked inside it that will arrive on the
battlefield during the game, how many other units do I need to
set up during Deployment to satisfy the Tactical Reserves rule?
A: Yes, embarked units count as units in your army,
so must be counted when referring to this rule. If you
have three units embarked inside a transport that will
arrive during the game, you need to set up at least four
other units on the battlefield during Deployment –
equivalently, if you set up three units in a transport on
the battlefield, you could set up four other units to arrive
during the game.
Seemingly yes, as they share the <Astartes> keyword over the <Imperium> keyword.
That is not even needed (though it means you could mix them in one detachment too.) The limitation of 'IMPERIUM' keyword only affects the detachments, not the whole army. So you can still have a Space Marine detachment and an Astra Militarum detachment in the same army.
Sumilidon wrote: Am I missing something or did they just give Tyranids a massive buff to offset the Reserves nerf?
"Page 120 – The Enemy Below
Change the third sentence to read:
‘Whenever you set up a unit of Raveners, a Mawloc,
Trygon or a Trygon Prime at the end of your
Movement phase (a burrowing unit), you can also set up
any number of units you set up within the tunnels.’"
So in short, I can have a Mawloc pop up and bring with it every unit I have in the tunnels that'll fit.
It always could.
It doesn't change the 4th sentence though. To be honest, I am not even sure what exactly changed (only bolding the keywords?).
Jacob29 wrote: So Psychic Phase got a fair bit worse and all of Craftworlds Psykers go up in points? except the Jetbike Farseer and Eldrad?
This annoys me a bit, because the jetbike Farseer was already the better option, and now it is even more obviously so. But Farseers look better on foot, robes and jetbikes just don't go so well together. Also, poor Warlocks, why?
Jacob29 wrote: So Psychic Phase got a fair bit worse and all of Craftworlds Psykers go up in points? except the Jetbike Farseer and Eldrad?
This annoys me a bit, because the jetbike Farseer was already the better option, and now it is even more obviously so. But Farseers look better on foot, robes and jetbikes just don't go so well together. Also, poor Warlocks, why?
Warlock Skyrunner also stayed the same?
Not sure if it's the reason, but with Guardians/Rangers/Wave Serpents being pretty good, I guess it's an acceptable tax to raise the minimum price for HQs for the new and CP-improved Battalions.
Taking this as serious and not as a troll. Star Wars Legion has 2 factions each with 4 units. Seems likely to be very boring inside a week. Frankly its the same problem with all Star Wars games. Two factions, ho hum. Sure its a more balanced game. When you have only two factions its probably a billion times easier to balance. Also proprietary dice.... sigh.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Except those aren't comparable. Gaming balance works on finding exploits and stress testing, it's more like figuring out the effectiveness on safety features in a particular car, and you can't find that our if you throw out any data that involves crashes because "it doesn't represent the whole".
Finding expoits and stres testing is not how gaming balance works. That's how stres testing works. Wich is an important part of game balance, wich is an important part of game design, wich is an important part of GW's product.
A game is more than it's balance. If I want to play a perfectly balanced game I'll go play checkers or chess. Warhammer moslty need to fullfill the fantasy of recreating the fantastical battles of the 41st millenium. That is why balance is good for the game, but not everything good for the game is good for balance. And blanacing the different needs of the game and hobby is an important thing for Gw to do. That's why you can't just rely on tournament game(r)s for playtesting. It's not just about them or their playstyle, it's about everyone's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Making the game better for one set of people does not automatically make it better or worse for another set of people.
I know this was about ten pages back, but I'd like to quote this so that I can thank Earth127. You made an absolutely fair statement and did so without being rude. We need more people like you in this community.
Taking this as serious and not as a troll. Star Wars Legion has 2 factions each with 4 units. Seems likely to be very boring inside a week. Frankly its the same problem with all Star Wars games. Two factions, ho hum. Sure its a more balanced game. When you have only two factions its probably a billion times easier to balance. Also proprietary dice.... sigh.
But I suspect its a troll.
Not really a troll, more like...respectfully glib. GK got hit super, SUPER hard and weren't in a great spot anyway. The unfortunate truth is that it might be worth it to find a new game if they're going to continue treating GK like this.
MajorTom11 wrote: So, would we say that this FAQ is in fact an actual steamer or is it just a feedback loop? Overall impression yay or nay I wonder?
I was pretty dissatisfied initially when looking at individual changes, but thinking more about how some of the changes work together, I think it's better than I initially thought. It still creates some massive issues and completely breaks at least a few entire factions and iconic builds like Ravenwing/Deathwing.
Why are people claiming GK got hit so hard? Aren't they one of only 2 factions exempt from the smite nerf? Or is it because they can't DS turn one anymore? Like every. Other. Faction.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Why are people claiming GK got hit so hard? Aren't they one of only 2 factions exempt from the smite nerf? Or is it because they can't DS turn one anymore? Like every. Other. Faction.
They're bad currently and didn't really get any better. Didn't completely ignore the smite nerf (HQs still get hit) and mass teleporting was one of their few really cost effective tricks. It's a question of whether or not the difference in the nerf they took vs everyone else is enough to make up the previous power gap. Generally people don't seem to think so.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Why are people claiming GK got hit so hard? Aren't they one of only 2 factions exempt from the smite nerf? Or is it because they can't DS turn one anymore? Like every. Other. Faction.
GK is extremely reliant on being able to deepstrike to do anything, they have no to limited long range weapons and fairly limited mobility outside of DS, the only real other mobility being teleport shunting.
Removing the deep striking hits GK extremely hard and makes the army from being on the wrong side of playable to being a fething disgrace.
Gk completely ignore smite nerf since brotherhood is not like in 7. Everyone got it.
Destite that No one GK has full smite but a nerfed version.
Nevertheless gk currently have only one strategy. Deep strike and hit. Now we haven’t more.
I would have like to see a 0-1 on all LoW datasheet. Sure you can bring a super heavy detachment with three baneblade variants, but it won't be 3 shadowswords.
Just something to note. Now that battallions and brigades provide more cp it actually makes auxillary support detachments less painful to take. So taking a single assassin, inquisitor, lotd squad etc wont actually be as hard as it seems but it does mean that people who want to pump in non faction units do pay for it. In a way things got more granular cp wise. One thing thats im a bit bummed about is warlocks increasing in price and not escaping the smite nerf like GKs did. Not sure why a warlock is worth 55pts..its a shame because I love the model but why would I not take the bike mounted one instead for a pittance extra
quickfuze wrote: I would have like to see a 0-1 on all LoW datasheet. Sure you can bring a super heavy detachment with three baneblade variants, but it won't be 3 shadowswords.
Then I want a 0-1 on anything and everything with "Primarch" in it.
Sure you can bring Magnus or Mortarion, but you can't bring both.
Bharring wrote: Although there are about a half dozen factions where players think they got nerfed out of the game (IH, GK, Corsairs, CSM, Demons, Sisters).
I think the only factions that were viable before that probably aren't going to be viable now are mono-god daemons (Nurgle will probably be fine, mostly thinking Khorne and Tzeentch here) and Thousand Sons. The former is hurt the most by the datasheet restriction, the latter lost the tzaangor bomb with the warptime nerf.
Frankly no one should give a gak that Grey Knights were hurt by this FAQ, the army was already non-competitive so nothing changes for them.
Consensus seems to be solidly more positive than negative.
Although there are about a half dozen factions where players think they got nerfed out of the game (IH, GK, Corsairs, CSM, Demons, Sisters).
Wait what happened to CSM?
I imagine because Oblit spam was a big thing for a little while, plus you can't Warptime out of deep strike now. The only viable alpha strike for CSM is either Heldrakes, Renegade Bikes, Slanaash Maulers, or Forward Ops.
Consensus seems to be solidly more positive than negative.
Although there are about a half dozen factions where players think they got nerfed out of the game (IH, GK, Corsairs, CSM, Demons, Sisters).
Wait what happened to CSM?
I imagine because Oblit spam was a big thing for a little while, plus you can't Warptime out of deep strike now. The only viable alpha strike for CSM is either Heldrakes, Renegade Bikes, Slanaash Maulers, or Forward Ops.
Ah k. Yeah makes sense with the oblits. little cheesed about warptime mostly because of warptalons eating that hot 9 to charge to make their own thing work.
but its hardly the end of the world outside of people that spam oblits.
Consensus seems to be solidly more positive than negative.
Although there are about a half dozen factions where players think they got nerfed out of the game (IH, GK, Corsairs, CSM, Demons, Sisters).
Wait what happened to CSM?
I imagine because Oblit spam was a big thing for a little while, plus you can't Warptime out of deep strike now. The only viable alpha strike for CSM is either Heldrakes, Renegade Bikes, Slanaash Maulers, or Forward Ops.
Ah k. Yeah makes sense with the oblits. little cheesed about warptime mostly because of warptalons eating that hot 9 to charge to make their own thing work.
but its hardly the end of the world outside of people that spam oblits.
I weep for my Bloodletter bomb but that just means I have to transition to having everything on the board and rushing up asap. Might even whip out the Bikes and Heldrake. Hell if this FAQ actually makes me use other units than it was a success.
Presumably someone will work on a kind of summary of the major changes for those of us unwilling/unable to go through a rapidly expanding thread with people yelling at one another?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Presumably someone will work on a kind of summary of the major changes for those of us unwilling/unable to go through a rapidly expanding thread with people yelling at one another?
quickfuze wrote: I would have like to see a 0-1 on all LoW datasheet. Sure you can bring a super heavy detachment with three baneblade variants, but it won't be 3 shadowswords.
Why shouldn't you be able to take multiple of the same variant? Super heavy companies are usually of the same type of tank.
Bharring wrote: Although there are about a half dozen factions where players think they got nerfed out of the game (IH, GK, Corsairs, CSM, Demons, Sisters).
I think the only factions that were viable before that probably aren't going to be viable now are mono-god daemons (Nurgle will probably be fine, mostly thinking Khorne and Tzeentch here) and Thousand Sons. The former is hurt the most by the datasheet restriction, the latter lost the tzaangor bomb with the warptime nerf.
Frankly no one should give a gak that Grey Knights were hurt by this FAQ, the army was already non-competitive so nothing changes for them.
The other problem facing Thousand Sons is that, as we lack significant long-range firepower, not being able to deep strike Rubrics or Terminators outside of our own deployment zone turn one means having to either wait (and have the rest of the army get shot up) or footslog though enemy fire; not much chance to counter-fire without deep strike.
Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is
entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin,
Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end
its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either
because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or
because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper
levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain
rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes.
I seem to recall quite the debate about this one in particular...
I believe you can't run your Nurgle daemons using Nurgle deamons inside the same detachment as your CSM. But two detachments from different codexes is fine.
Just wondering if this was common knowledge? Digital editions of codexes will all be updated to incorporate the faqs.
I have gone all digital so this is good for me. Would this encourage more people to go digital in the future?
NinthMusketeer wrote: So can I not run a Nurgle Daemons detachment and a Nurgle CSM detachment in the same army if using the no-soup beta rule?
Are Chaos Marks a Faction Keyword? If they are you can mix <Nurgle> units in the same detachment.
If they aren't, you can have detachments for them in the same army but not mix them in the same detachment.
This is correct. So you could do like, a supreme command detachment of Ahriman and two heralds of tzeentch (I am never going to be able to remember the new names for them...). Not that you would ever want to do that, but you can!
On page 172 of my digital edition it says every GK psykers gains Brotherhood of Psykers so every single one of them, including characters, smites on a 5.
I know I’m going to get attacked for this, but just in case someone with an open mind is reading.......
I think the reason people have trouble winning with GK is because they are deep striking turn 1. Why would you deep strike when the enemy screens are still up?
GK can’t screen the enemy so no DS T1 and no movement out of DS helps GK much more than it hurts them. Your backfield will be safe T1 as long as you have LOS blocking terrain.
Horde lists took a hit with the lose of poxwalkers and Tide of Traitors only allowed to be used once. Less horde helps GK.
Shining Spears will not be able to deploy out of DS, soul burst and assault. That helps GK.
Dark Reapers are more expensive and won’t be able to Fire and Fade into a Wave Serpent. That helps GK.
Fire Raptors are 90pts more. That helps GK.
Tyrant Spam is gone. That helps GK.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
As long as you can hide a Rhino(s) size T1 you should survive T1 and use smoke to move up, then drop on T2 freely. Remember Scions aren’t coming down T1. Obliterators aren’t coming down T1. You don’t need to come down to kill Poxwalkers before they get their abilities up.
I’m not saying you will roll up to the table with GK and sleepwalk through 5 wins, but the competitive separation has definitely been shrunk because of what other armies can’t do anymore.
DarthDiggler wrote: On page 172 of my digital edition it says every GK psykers gains Brotherhood of Psykers so every single one of them, including characters, smites on a 5.
I know I’m going to get attacked for this, but just in case someone with an open mind is reading.......
I think the reason people have trouble winning with GK is because they are deep striking turn 1. Why would you deep strike when the enemy screens are still up?
GK can’t screen the enemy so no DS T1 and no movement out of DS helps GK much more than it hurts them. Your backfield will be safe T1 as long as you have LOS blocking terrain.
Horde lists took a hit with the lose of poxwalkers and Tide of Traitors only allowed to be used once. Less horde helps GK.
Shining Spears will not be able to deploy out of DS, soul burst and assault. That helps GK.
Dark Reapers are more expensive and won’t be able to Fire and Fade into a Wave Serpent. That helps GK.
Fire Raptors are 90pts more. That helps GK.
Tyrant Spam is gone. That helps GK.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
As long as you can hide a Rhino(s) size T1 you should survive T1 and use smoke to move up, then drop on T2 freely. Remember Scions aren’t coming down T1. Obliterators aren’t coming down T1. You don’t need to come down to kill Poxwalkers before they get their abilities up.
I’m not saying you will roll up to the table with GK and sleepwalk through 5 wins, but the competitive separation has definitely been shrunk because of what other armies can’t do anymore.
Woah, woah, woah. Evaluating changes in a broader context, rather than just yelling about how the sky is falling and setting your models on fire in a fit of kneejerk hysteria? You're in the wrong place, buddy - we don't take kindly to that sort of thing around here. >:|
NinthMusketeer wrote: So can I not run a Nurgle Daemons detachment and a Nurgle CSM detachment in the same army if using the no-soup beta rule?
The FAQ only prohibits soup detachments, not soup armies.
Ahh, shows what I know since I totally thought you couldn't mix factions in a single detachment anyway...
Thanks for the responses guys.
Well, We cannot take Faction: <CHAOS> as the common keyword, but <ALLEGIANCE> and <MARK OF X> are listed as Faction also, so a Herald of Khorne and Berzerkers should be allowed in the same Detachment through <KHORNE>.
We spread his plagues and decimate his enemies across the galaxy.
In a tide of filth we bring ruin to all who would oppose the great Plague Father.
Showing us his favour, he brings his own Daemonic minions to fight alongside us.
We are the... uhh... we are the... damn... once those Nurglings showed up I completely forgot where I was going with this.
Thematically, they are now a Nurgle force and not a Death Guard force...thanks Nurglings.
H.B.M.C. wrote: [i]
We are the Thousand... no, that's not right. The Alpha... no. The Blood Angels! Yes. That's it.
Wouldn't be a T̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶ .. A̶l̶p̶h̶a̶ ...Blood Angels force if it had a bunch of random stuff in it. It would be a [insert keyword here] force.
Raven Guard by themselves can fight war on their terms as ninja space marines of stealthiness. Raven Guard baby sat by conscripts from Cadia are just space marines fighting a war for the Emperor.
A Chaos force lead by a Thousand Sons sorcerer with 2 squads of Plague Marines supported by Iron Warriors Havoc's and reconed with Steeds of Slannesh are a Chaos force. Fluff wise, nobody cares why they came together. They are no longer fighting their respective God's and legion's fighting styles and therefore they shouldn't on the table.
Cherry picked faction armies should fight as if they were one cohesive faction army, not as cherry picked members of their sub factions. You forfeit the individual strengths in a soup army for the combined strengths of various sub factions. Fair trade to me and I don't see any fluff problems with it.
BigbyWolf wrote: Pretty good changes neat that the Commisars got cheaper, a friend of mine will be happy about that...
Even more important re: the Commissar - they are no longer actively detrimental. The Guard FAQ allows you to choose whether you want to reroll the failed morale check rather than make it mandatory, meaning they actually kind of help. I'm not sure whether it makes them hard core competitive, but they are no longer actively working against you. Personally, I intend to use them in friendlier games now... so yeah, happy about that change.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Why are people claiming GK got hit so hard? Aren't they one of only 2 factions exempt from the smite nerf? Or is it because they can't DS turn one anymore? Like every. Other. Faction.
Just because rule is same for all doesn't mean it affects all armies same. Deep strike rule hurts most flamer deep strikers. Then h2h deep strikers with 2d6" charge. Then h2h with 3d6". Then melta deep strikers. The ones it hurts least are plasma deep strikers and long range deep strikers like obliterators.
Now apart from flamer deep strikers nobody uses next biggest ones hurt are h2h deep strikers...Which grey knights are! Also stuff like da jump and kommandos from orks that just died(why take kommandos when you can take more boyz instead and get more reliable turn 2 charge?).
Funnily enough people complain about stuff like plasma storm troopers deep striking but those are actually the ones that were hurt LEAST. So what happened is that alpha shooting while nerfed was nerfed less than alpha h2h. Which wasn't the real problem anyway.
Blanket rule like this actually hurt balance as it hindered units that weren't problem much more than the ones it was actually supposed to bring to balance.
Bring in 2 armies. One is filled with deep striking plasma, one with deep striking h2h units. Plasma wins the day. Even more than before...
edit: Whoops misremembered oblit range so they are hurt about same as plasma scions.
We spread his plagues and decimate his enemies across the galaxy.
In a tide of filth we bring ruin to all who would oppose the great Plague Father.
Showing us his favour, he brings his own Daemonic minions to fight alongside us.
We are the... uhh... we are the... damn... once those Nurglings showed up I completely forgot where I was going with this.
Thematically, they are now a Nurgle force and not a Death Guard force...thanks Nurglings.
Oh, please. Like there weren't a thousand silly quirks in 40k before this happened. The rules are meant to represent, not replicate, and to that end every single 'simulation' game in all of human history has stuff that doesn't make sense. If you really want to criticize 40k for not making sense start at the ground up with basic stats, like wounds representing a scale between healthy and dead. You'd have a encyclopedia before you ever get to this FAQ.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
They will spread out their chaff even MORE making your distance toward the real meat that much harder...It was hard enough to charge anything worthwhile T1 especially without 3d6" charge. With T2 it becomes that much harder.
Anyone remember when you couldn’t control which turn your modes came on, they scattered, and possibly completely died before ever hitting the board?
The DS thing is a bit of a reset to limit the devastation of T1 Alpha Strike without rolling the clock right back to unpredictable 7th Reserves. I will be interested to see how it plays out. Army builds will have to change all round, as leaving a full 50% of your stuff off the board and going second could see you tabled at the end of your opponent’s turn 2. Interested to see what the new builds that come out of this will be, and how it affects the feel of the game.
Myytti666 wrote: Did I get the Death guard daemon prince change right? You can take a plague spewer but if you do, then you're stuck with the standard sword?
"This model may either take a plague spewer, or it may
replace its hellforged sword with a daemonic axe or a
second set of malefic talons."
That's how it reads to me. Wording is a little clunky but an interesting addition that I'm going to give a try.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why not just ban DS'ing on Turn 1 if that was the problem?
chimeara wrote: If you have a CSM detatchment with Daemons in it you'll lose your Legion trait however.
"We bring the power of the Warp to the enemies of Chaos! But in doing so, we forgot which Legion we were part of..."
Dumb rule is dumb.
They've 'fixed' the soup issue with a sledgehammer it seems.
That...is not a change either.
It was like this all along, you only get your faction abilities in a pure faction detachment.
If you got a detachment of CSM and a detachment of daemons you are fine, if you got them mixed up you lose the faction powers.
Now, you just can't take them in the same detachment to begin with by the new FAQ, with the sole exception that a mono-god mixed chaos detachment is possiible as it goes around the forbidden keywords by using that god's keyword, but that detachment wont get faction abilities-exactly as before.
If anything, chaos took the least hit from it. everyone else lost the ability to soup a detachment at all, chaos can still soup mono-god detachments, under the same old penalty of losing faciton powers.
Point being, many times the value of a soup is higher than the faction power (especially if all/most units in that detachment gains little to nothing from the faction powers to begin with)
JohnnyHell wrote: Anyone remember when you couldn’t control which turn your modes came on, they scattered, and possibly completely died before ever hitting the board?
The DS thing is a bit of a reset to limit the devastation of T1 Alpha Strike without rolling the clock right back to unpredictable 7th Reserves. I will be interested to see how it plays out. Army builds will have to change all round, as leaving a full 50% of your stuff off the board and going second could see you tabled at the end of your opponent’s turn 2. Interested to see what the new builds that come out of this will be, and how it affects the feel of the game.
And on top of this, there's another FAQ due in 6 months time.
Feed it all back. Make notes, offer your insight into how it's affected your games and your options. Tell GW - not just the interwebs at large.
Especially the Beta rules that people are worrying about. Those are a work in progress. They need your feedback, so no use sitting on your hands and lamenting. Get playing with them, give them anecdotes and data from games, not hypothetical number crunching.
Well while amusing not different from past either. Same thing happened before.
you could also say it's pretty silly ultramarines lose their memory of how to be ultramarine because there's 10 imperial guard troopers on the same battlefield.
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
They will spread out their chaff even MORE making your distance toward the real meat that much harder...It was hard enough to charge anything worthwhile T1 especially without 3d6" charge. With T2 it becomes that much harder.
Not to mention if you are playing for example Maelstorm of wars missions, you are basically giving your opponent a free turn to score points while you are crippled without most of your army on the field
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
I use Deathwing in my DA list. I would never DS turn 1. Even though the option is there. Just too much still on field opponent can use to focus fire them.
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
They also had no more than 9" limit making stuff like melta and flamers viable and cheap chaff wasn't able to push you to DZ on your table half easily.
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
Shooting wasn't as lethal in 7th I never saw anyone tabled by turn two but I've seen it in 8th, melee was already lagging behind but now it's just not even worth considering for non horde armies.
Between Gate of Infinity and Interceptors, Grey Knights can do a decent first-turn charge, if/once people no longer expect it as the default of how every 40K game ever starts ever and we actually see armies without the same boring everybody-has-it-screen on the table again.
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
Shooting wasn't as lethal in 7th I never saw anyone tabled by turn two but I've seen it in 8th, melee was already lagging behind but now it's just not even worth considering for non horde armies.
This^^^^
This just made parking lot/gun line armies the only thing to play competitively. Also it seems (as usual) to impact xenos/chaos more heavily than imperium.
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, lets be clear about this, the main deep striking armies of 7th were allowed to brake all the rules. Steel Rain? Half your (free) drop pods plus the Skyhammer force all came in turn 1 and couldn't misshap unless you scattered off the board, and only idiots put the pods close enough to scatter off the board. Nemesis Strike Force? Everything was allowed to DS turn 1. I'm pretty sure that marines and chaos both ended up with ways for no scatter deep strike that you could then charge from by the end of 7th as well.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Between Gate of Infinity and Interceptors, Grey Knights can do a decent first-turn charge, if/once people no longer expect it as the default of how every 40K game ever starts ever and we actually see armies without the same boring everybody-has-it-screen on the table again.
You mean the gate of infinity that has to wait T2 to deep strike outside own deployment zone?
7th had (with exceptions) no first turn Deepstrike at all, random turn for Deepstrike after that and no charge on Deepstrike as a principle. People still played deepstriking armies. If the current FAQ-8th-beta-rules had been the rules for 8th from the start, people would be bitching about how insanely overpowered they make deepstriking assault armies.
People just need to chill. Use turn 1 to dakka away some screen if it bothers you and strike turn 2 or 3 as and when it has the most payoff.
Shooting wasn't as lethal in 7th I never saw anyone tabled by turn two but I've seen it in 8th, melee was already lagging behind but now it's just not even worth considering for non horde armies.
This^^^^
This just made parking lot/gun line armies the only thing to play competitively. Also it seems (as usual) to impact xenos/chaos more heavily than imperium.
This couldn't be more wrong. Shooting was the only way to play 7th unless you had an invisible death star rolling around. And that worked mainly because it was completely unkillable. My Drukhari has a lot of melee that is still very much usable, as does my Nids. I can see why the various marines and daemons armies would be salty though, they relied entirely on deep strike to get into combat.
Q: If the Poxwalkers’ Curse of the Walking Pox ability increases
the unit above its starting strength in a matched play game,
does this cost reinforcement points?
A: Yes, you must pay reinforcement points for each
Poxwalker model that you add to the unit that would
increase the unit above its starting strength.
So am I right thinking that (for example) if i have a unit of 20 PW, I have to pay for a unit of 25 if i think i might kill enough troops to add an extra 5 models to the unit? And if they kill 10 without loss they can then still only increase the unit size by the extra 5 I've paid for???
In the first beta version of smite there wasn't an excpetion for brotherhood of sorcerers/psykers. There is in the final version. The nerf to TS/GK was the main concern and it was adressed.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Between Gate of Infinity and Interceptors, Grey Knights can do a decent first-turn charge, if/once people no longer expect it as the default of how every 40K game ever starts ever and we actually see armies without the same boring everybody-has-it-screen on the table again.
You mean the gate of infinity that has to wait T2 to deep strike outside own deployment zone?
I’m reading Gate of Infinity to be not affected by the reserves rule.
The power allows you to re-deploy a unit on a successful cast. The unit has to be on the table already to do this.
The Tactical Reserves beta rule talks about units that are setup off the table. The 2nd paragraph then goes on to say that, if any of these units arrive on the battlefield during a player’s first turn, they must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone.
While it does not say it explicitly, because the 2 paragraphs are grouped together within the rule, I would take it to imply that the 2nd paragraph only affects units setup in ways referred to in the 1st paragraph.
Because the unit moving via GoI is already deployed on the table, it is not leaving the table and going into reserve, and then deploying from reserve, it is essentially just jumping from one point on the tabletop to another.
I’d say the same ruling comes into play for T’au Stealth Suits, when making the jump via the Ghostkeel stratagem.
Sure, I can accept and see that it needs FAQing (lol) but I’d rule it ok due to the unit not entering into a “reserve” like state.
The power allows you to re-deploy a unit on a successful cast. The unit has to be on the table already to do this.
Yes. And then it left the battlefield. And then it enters it.
Because the unit moving via GoI is already deployed on the table, it is not leaving the table and going into reserve, and then deploying from reserve, it is essentially just jumping from one point on the tabletop to another.
What part "remove from the battlefield" makes you think it is not leaving the table?
Coupled with GOI etc counting as coming from reserve as per FAQ...
Alas until GW says otherwise I didn't even get to use Da Jump once. Just got orks into stage they can be fielded in 8th ed without crapload of proxy and then Da Jump goes and kommando died.
Myytti666 wrote: Did I get the Death guard daemon prince change right? You can take a plague spewer but if you do, then you're stuck with the standard sword?
"This model may either take a plague spewer, or it may
replace its hellforged sword with a daemonic axe or a
second set of malefic talons."
That's how I read it too. Although I've been seeing the opposite from a lot of other people.
Though something I'll say again, as it seems to have got lost in the shuffle, why are CSM dreads allowed to take 2xHammer or Scourge now yet DG/TS dreads are not? Hurrah for consistency!
puma713 wrote: Everyone realizes that the Tactical Reserves errata is in beta, right? If you don't like it, contact GW and let them know why.
Apparently every group and tournament uses beta rules as if they were normal rules, which was news to me because it's an incredibly stupid thing to do but I'm assured by some very salty people on Dakka that this is the case. As is the "suggested" rule of three for tournaments. Apparently "suggestion" means something else outside of my group.
Reading this thread, it seems a number of people haven't noticed that the new FAQ PDF is not the only change. A lot of the individual codex and rulebook FAQs were updated with new changes as well.
Just throwing that out there for those who missed it
GK can still charge T2 with a reroll from the Warlord trait after the enemy army has spread out. They didn’t spread out? Then who cares if you can’t DS T1.
They will spread out their chaff even MORE making your distance toward the real meat that much harder...It was hard enough to charge anything worthwhile T1 especially without 3d6" charge. With T2 it becomes that much harder.
Not to mention if you are playing for example Maelstorm of wars missions, you are basically giving your opponent a free turn to score points while you are crippled without most of your army on the field
You are an army full of bolters. You will clear any chaff that moves out of the deployment zone with your shooting so your DS can get to the meat T1. Before if you dropped T1 you would assult chaff, who left combat and got you killed. You will now have units, serious units, on the table to mitigate the chaff.
Also you can expect to see less hordes as Poxwalkers and Tide of Traitors is lessened.
A purgation squad deployed out of LOS with 4 psilencers will do a number on chaff that walks out of the deployment zone. They have Astral Aim afterall. What hurt that tactic before? Enemy deep strikers who dropped T1 and assaulted them or shot them on the side of the LOS terrain. Not anymore.
puma713 wrote: Everyone realizes that the Tactical Reserves errata is in beta, right? If you don't like it, contact GW and let them know why.
Apparently every group and tournament uses beta rules as if they were normal rules, which was news to me because it's an incredibly stupid thing to do but I'm assured by some very salty people on Dakka that this is the case. As is the "suggested" rule of three for tournaments. Apparently "suggestion" means something else outside of my group.
People can't be bothered to live by the Ten Commandments in their daily lives, but some how the 40kFAQ is inviolable.
I was freaking out, I thought that the tactical reserves rule was for the ENTIRE game!
Now that I re-read it I see that it is only for the first turn, which I actually like as it should lead to games being closer for longer. No more getting completely blown off the table turn 1.
Yea, there is way too much complaining without considering the context of other armies. Folks are complaining about assault bombs being hit while not recognizing that things like 12 oblits that literally cannot get into range from DS turn 1 taking a bigger hit.
You need to look at all of it in context. This idea of armies spreading out unaddressed is silly as well, your not going to be playing with the same lists. If the enemy is waiting a full turn to DS in something and trying to spread out with garbage that gives you 2 turns to mulch and counter whats on the table. Also remember half an armies units can reserve whether inside a transport or not AND half your armies power level. This also is MASSIVE.
puma713 wrote: Everyone realizes that the Tactical Reserves errata is in beta, right? If you don't like it, contact GW and let them know why.
Apparently every group and tournament uses beta rules as if they were normal rules, which was news to me because it's an incredibly stupid thing to do but I'm assured by some very salty people on Dakka that this is the case. As is the "suggested" rule of three for tournaments. Apparently "suggestion" means something else outside of my group.
I'd say a tournament organizer would be incredibly stupid not to run the beta so that GW can get accurate feedback and adjust accordingly. If your meta wants to do it's own thing, why is any FAQ an issue? Shouldn't your group already have ruled something to it's satisfaction and just go with it that? Why even engage the wider community if all you have to offer is to play the game at a localized house ruled format?
The beta is meant for the community at large all over the world. You and what your buddies do is irrelevant.
EldarExarch wrote: I was freaking out, I thought that the tactical reserves rule was for the ENTIRE game!
Now that I re-read it I see that it is only for the first turn, which I actually like as it should lead to games being closer for longer. No more getting completely blown off the table turn 1.
Pretty much. It means there will be a turn of fighting for board control before killer units come in. This is a good thing. Now armies without infiltrators like nurglings, rangers and scouts can actually play the game.
I'm going to be -very- interested to see whether or not they take into consideration things like the Stealth Suit Homing Beacon or the Teleport Homer for Terminators.
Those would be two flavorful and interesting ways for armies to be able to bring stuff on via Deep Strike outside of their Deployment Zone without making it too crazy.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm going to be -very- interested to see whether or not they take into consideration things like the Stealth Suit Homing Beacon or the Teleport Homer for Terminators.
Those would be two flavorful and interesting ways for armies to be able to bring stuff on via Deep Strike outside of their Deployment Zone without making it too crazy.
Those already work still though, just not on first turn. I doubt they are going to make an exception there.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm going to be -very- interested to see whether or not they take into consideration things like the Stealth Suit Homing Beacon or the Teleport Homer for Terminators.
Those would be two flavorful and interesting ways for armies to be able to bring stuff on via Deep Strike outside of their Deployment Zone without making it too crazy.
Those already work still though, just not on first turn. I doubt they are going to make an exception there.
That's why I said I'm going to be interested in it. I submitted it as a question to their email as it might just be one of those things that nobody really thought about.
I will say that the Teleport Homer for Terminators, after rereading it, seems to be a vastly different beast to the Tau version.
I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
casvalremdeikun wrote: I can't believe GW successfully made Drop Pods even more worthless.
Be cool if they FAQ'd them to have the ability to drop outside of deployment zone though, even if it was 1 in 2 that could do this, would actually nearly make them worthwhile.
Phobosftw wrote: Soo no points increase to the farseer/warlock skyrunners?
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Yes, because they're different datasheets.
That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.
It seems to me that GK need a decent bit of errata to buff them regardless of this beta rules or not.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I can't believe GW successfully made Drop Pods even more worthless.
More useful against anti-deepstrike abilities and no more worse than any other deepstrike ability. It's a net gain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Archroy wrote: Not been a lot of comment on this DGFAQ -
Q: If the Poxwalkers’ Curse of the Walking Pox ability increases
the unit above its starting strength in a matched play game,
does this cost reinforcement points?
A: Yes, you must pay reinforcement points for each
Poxwalker model that you add to the unit that would
increase the unit above its starting strength.
So am I right thinking that (for example) if i have a unit of 20 PW, I have to pay for a unit of 25 if i think i might kill enough troops to add an extra 5 models to the unit? And if they kill 10 without loss they can then still only increase the unit size by the extra 5 I've paid for???
Strating strength is the same, always. If you have 10, lose 2, and gain 5 then you pay for 3. Then if you lose 7 and gain 5 you pay for 1.
Zarroc1733 wrote: Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.
A real glutton for punishment, eh?
Always have been. For whatever reason I typically gravitate towards either weaker options or the strongest. When 8th edition was announced I was super excited as I had limited experience with 7th. There was no community here but with the announce of 8th our local card shop decided to start selling 40k, so before the rules had even been leaked I dropped $1,000 on a Ynnari army. Then the rules were released and people really started complaining about Ynnari. I never used dark reapers. I used Wraiths, fire dragons and 3 man squads of shining spears. Then the Ynnari nerf hit and it killed my army as I didn't use some silly version of Ynnari spam or craftworld + Ynnari. But at that point I had already switched to GK. In fact when the GK codex was announced I dropped another grand on a full army. I enjoyed it for a while but it's just getting harder and harder to have fun with as I watch my poor guys try to deal with Lemans, and Stormravens and other such. I've always liked the idea of both harlies and deathwatch though. I also own a lot of Inquisition from 7th but sadly I can't use them by themselves. I'm gonna invest in sisters next year though
Zarroc1733 wrote: Played 1 game with the FAQ already. My GK versus my roommate's Imperial Fists. Him having 2 turns to counter my deep strike sucked. I'm really unsure why people think this is a good change for GK as I haven't ever had a problem with enemy DS. This change doesn't help me. It just hurts me.That being said I'm just gonna give my feedback and move on. I've been considering a new army anyways. I'm burnt out on GK. I'm gonna go for either Harlequins or Deathwatch.
It seems to me that GK need a decent bit of errata to buff them regardless of this beta rules or not.
This is true. We need more than an FAQ or errata will likely have, but I did have hope that we wouldn't take such a big hit.
The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
Yeah. I'm gonna play some games to get some actual data, send in my thoughts and go on. It isn't worth it to get overly upset over army men
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
100% This. Even a 9 + with rerolls is only 48% chance. Even with a DS Flyrant with Adrenal glands, you need an 8 to get a charge, with the re roll is like a 59% chance.
gungo wrote: I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
Because imperium gun lines can't auto win with that around. Loudest squeeky wheel gets the grease as they say
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.
Lets also not pretend it was just about close combat, those Flyrants don't care about combat, they drop down and unload with 24 S6 shots each. Obliteraters are in the same boat, as are Scions and Inceptors.
gungo wrote: I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.
Oh the hyperbole, Tyranid close combat will be fine without turn 1 deep strike.
EldarExarch wrote:I was freaking out, I thought that the tactical reserves rule was for the ENTIRE game!
Now that I re-read it I see that it is only for the first turn, which I actually like as it should lead to games being closer for longer. No more getting completely blown off the table turn 1.
Yep. Kjnda the whole for the change. Explained at the warhammer community site.
gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.
gungo wrote: I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
The bad thing is that this is one area where Tyranids shine. If this passes the beta, then you might as well just axe CC from the game entirely.
ya because before this edition units were able to charge after deepstrike first turn... oh wait nope
Furthermore plenty of armies can turn 1 charge still especially if this is limited to reserves
gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.
Good thing is shunt style abilities such as da jump for orks or the one for grey knights is also limited to 1 unit since it’s a psychic power.
Makes me wish GK had 7th edition style Shunt. It used to just be an ability that could be used once per game by each unit that had the ability. I loved to use it with Dreadkights near the end of the game to capture an objective, or redeploy to a point the enemy couldn't react before the game was over.
Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GWFAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.
The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.
gungo wrote:I can see the no first turn deepstirke rule being changed when it becomes official to no deepstrike outside your deployment from reserves! Allowing psychic powers and several other abilities that move a unit already on the board outside thier deployment zone
More that armies with "shunt" style abilities got a huge buff during the first turn.
Good thing is shunt style abilities such as da jump for orks or the one for grey knights is also limited to 1 unit since it’s a psychic power.
drbored wrote: Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GWFAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.
The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.
If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Yes, because they're different datasheets.
That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.
And IG can bring more russ chassis than they have points for! I don't think they can fill out their max russ capita on 3k game even
drbored wrote: Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GWFAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.
The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.
If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.
Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.
How is this awful?
Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.
Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.
drbored wrote: Remember guys, GW wont be able to properly fix what they don't know is broken. E-mail the GWFAQ guys and let them know the results of your playtests. Let them know your concerns when it comes to Deepstrike heavy armies like Grey Knights, or the concerns over Drop Pods and other things.
The sooner they get this feedback the better. Otherwise, you're looking at 6+ months of Grey Knights being the bottom of the barrel.
If gw doesn't know that drop pods were trash prior to FAQ and are now utter trash after the FAQ then no amount of emails can help them. Even the most basic understanding of the rules leads to the conclusion that drop pods are functionally useless in 8th Ed.
Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.
How is this awful?
Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.
Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.
Drop pods are overcosted by about 15 points, but the term "Functionally useless" is just wrong.
Okay, I'll bite. A Dedicated Transport that gives an infantry unit, or a dreadnought (!) the ability to Deep Strike, and after doing that sits there, controls an are, and shoots with admittedly not-staggeringly frightening but still SOMETHING weapons.
How is this awful?
Being able to Deep Strike, say, a pair of 5-man Tactical squads onto a control point, laying about with flamers and a pair of Sgt chainswords, instead of trying to hotfoot it 30" across the table while absorbing enemy fire ... sounds kinda nice. I mean, the unit can't do it normally, but grab a Drop Pod and it's on. Same for a Dread! Say, a standard model with assasult cannon, storm bolter, and a dreadnought CCW ... instead of having to dodge lascannons, you can hotdrop it somewhere specificly where the firepower is more anti-infantry, where you can stomp around with relative impunity and gun stuff down.
Seems useful to *me*, but, you know, I used to play when my dreads could ride in Rhinos or walk through a teleport gate, so.
Paying close to 100 pts(you could almost double the amount of tacticals you field for that price and more bodies is generally more useful than bells and whistles), can't move around after coming down, can't come on T1(anywhere you would like to anyway), can't use those flamers on turn you com so flamers die before shooting.
Oh and tacticals don't even want to go that far close to the enemy.
Dreadnoughts btw can't ride drop pod.
Drop pods weren't automatic takes for ~40 pts with better rules than they have now. 8th ed stripped down most of the good things drop pods had going on for them and like more than doubled the price. And even removed ability to transport dreadnought which was one of the best uses for them. Coupled with drop pod's more accurate landings going away along with total uselessness of flamers for deep strike and near uselessness of meltas on deep strike squads...
Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.
you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.
you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).
Yeah that's not nerfed at all. And since you needed marine detachment to unlock marine strategems having mixed detachment of marine and IG doesnt' even unlock strategems...
What it does mean is bit harder to put up various Imperial characters in. Supreme commander detachment is the one that mostly gets hurt by this one I think. Most of the multi-codex detachments I have seen at least have been with that.
If you really want Celestine, now that smite has been nerfed, i dont believe a pair of cannonesses is that expensive. Dont really need a pile of Primaris Psykers anymore.
So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are
1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule
2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes
3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes
Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOPFW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.
Mymearan wrote: So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are
1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule
2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes
3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes
Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOPFW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.
Sure. Great job making game balance worse. If that is good for you guess it can be called great job.
Godeskian wrote: Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.
1. Paladins were already considered mediocre overall so that point doesn't help you.
Godeskian wrote: Remember also to distinguish between 'tournament useless' and 'casual useless'. For better or worse in 40K there is a distinction between what works at a WAAC environment where every single point and model is balanced against the cruel needs of ultra efficiency gaming, versus you and a mate at the local FLGS where my Paladin heavy GK can still semi regularly score wins because folks there don't ever go to tournament.
1. Paladins were already considered mediocre overall so that point doesn't help you.
2. No, Drop Pods are functionally useless.
I think the status of Paladins actually demonstrates exactly my point. In my gaming environment, they are perfectly adequate, not optimal per se, but perfectly usable and viable. Would I take them to tournament? Probably not, but are they useless? Depends on the relative harshness of the environment.
Its not an argument regarding game balance mind you, but to automatically declare anything not tournament level tier as useless is to completely fail to take into account that a lot of people don't play in a tournament or even a particularly harsh meta.
The goal of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun in the hobby.
Can't comment on drop pods though, none of my three armies can take them
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Yes, because they're different datasheets.
That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.
Any turny organizer worth his salt that is using the rule of three will consider them the same unit, just like a chaos lord and a terminator chaos lord are the same unit.
Mymearan wrote: So this is a HUGE faq release, with almost every faction having gotten changed. From what I've seeing, the only complaints that pop up frequently are
1) The Tactical Reserves beta rule 2) The Eldar Farseer/Warlock point changes 3) The fact that some factions like GK didn't get much needed changes
Considering the size of the release, it would seem to me they did a pretty great job with this one on the whole? I also love that they added a ton of new datasheets for OOPFW models, no points sure but you can simply multiply the PL by 20 if you want to.
Sure. Great job making game balance worse. If that is good for you guess it can be called great job.
Be more specific. If you're talking about ONE rule that is in beta (ie should not be used in normal play, and my group certainly won't), among hundreds of changes, I would call that a "pretty great job", yep.
Is it possible that the farseer and warlock point increase is for their base cost and the addition of the bike remains the same making the farseer skyrunner increase by 10 points as well. Or would they have to explicitly state the skyrunner point increase separately?
Yes, because they're different datasheets.
That also means you can have 3 bike farseers and 3 walking farseers under the new rules.
Any turny organizer worth his salt that is using the rule of three will consider them the same unit, just like a chaos lord and a terminator chaos lord are the same unit.
Are they in separate entries? If yes they are separate 0-3.
And at least in index chaos lord and chaois terminator lord are on separate entries. Assuming codex didnt' merge them one entry with profile tyou can indeed bring whopping _21_ chaos lords of various types under new rules. Think you'll run out of points and detachments before you run out of lords you can field! Albeit some might not be most optimal choices but hey ho.
And even if they were merged into one entry with options index entries would still be legal...
IG can bring 40 leman russ hulls to the battle(wonder how many points that even would be) etc etc.
They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.
That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.
Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.
But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.
Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.
So what you are saying, is that if you play poker and get a royal straight, you will just throw them and ask for five new cards.
Because a royal straight is to powerful.
When can I play against you for money?
The combination of list building and points probably exist so people can see how can build the "best" list. Otherwise it's pointless - go play chess.
If you just want to play "fluffy" lists and don't care if they are equally powerful, you don't need points.
They look at what's the most powerful. Pretty much like actually most players. They just do it better. But it's the GW's fault codexes are unbalanced crap.
That‘s fine. They can serve as truffle pigs to identify the most problematic stuff. They just lack the perspective and/or mental capacity and most importantly the experience with the myriad of non-tournament formats of 40K to grasp the game in its entirety beyond their skewed little microcosm.
Things like Grey Knights or Magnus are good examples. Tournament players frequently and erroneously call them too weak or underpowered. They are clearly not and still firmly in the top 25% or 30% of all 40K, thus actually still rather too good/cheap still.
But the tournament crowd is blind too that, because these units/armies/etc are perhaps not in the top 1% or even 5% of the most egregiously broken stuff they see as „normal“ and use as „reference“.
Constant exposure to the extreme numbs you to the normal and consciously limiting yourself to one exotic variant of 40K makes you ignorant if the games‘ full variety and breadth.
So what you are saying, is that if you play poker and get a royal straight, you will just throw them and ask for five new cards. Because a royal straight is to powerful. When can I play against you for money?
The combination of list building and points probably exist so people can see how can build the "best" list. Otherwise it's pointless - go play chess. If you just want to play "fluffy" lists and don't care if they are equally powerful, you don't need points.
/ Fredrik
That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.
That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.
Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.
Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.
It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.
However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.
Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.
Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.
Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
Thing I am most annoyed about is the fact they did nothing about Necron Lychguard. Either make them cheaper or give their shields a 3+ invulnerable - otherwise they are useless.
That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.
Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.
Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.
It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.
However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.
Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.
Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.
No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.
No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.
So you don't think ability to field any unit you want without having to worry about being automatically wiped out because of army is bad?
Unbelievable how people have this misconception that balance is somehow bad for casual and that indeed casual players require unbalanced game to have fun...When there actually wouldn't be rule differences. Just point cost differences for like 99% cases.
No, creating a game focused at tournaments will not help casual players, it will create a game focused at tournaments! 40k for tournaments is a completely different game then a normal game of 40k.
So you don't think ability to field any unit you want without having to worry about being automatically wiped out because of army is bad?
Unbelievable how people have this misconception that balance is somehow bad for casual and that indeed casual players require unbalanced game to have fun...When there actually wouldn't be rule differences. Just point cost differences for like 99% cases.
I think its you that have some misconceptions.
1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.
1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.
Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game
Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.
Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.
That's an extremely narrow view of the game. The comparison with poker shows exactly how narrow. Comparing playing poker for money with playing a narrative-based (as in, the existing narrative informs the game and the units within it, not the other way around) miniatures game? Incredible. Points exist so players can quickly put together *roughly* equal armies to have a fun game on the table. For the vast majority of players, fun is the most important word. Winning isn't. Having the "best" list isn't. Roleplaying games have levels and balancing mechanisms as well, not so the players can optimize the ultimate badass, unstoppable combat monster, but so the combat encounters are roughly equal and thus, fun. What you're talking about is the mindset of the competitive tournament player, a minority. If what you are saying is true, then we might as well throw out the models and the fluff and play with colored markers.
Thing you miss is that having balanced rules helps narrative for fun players even MORE than competive players.
Competive players don't care. They just buy new models/armies to chase the meta. That's why GW doesn't even care about balance.
It's the narrative players who should care more about balance as generally getting automatically blown out of field without chance isn't generally fun nor is it even good for narrative.
However it's the tournament players who are most adept at finding problems.
Look. GW has been doing 40k for what? 30 years? It hasn't used tournament players in it. Game is such an unbalanced mess as it is BECAUSE tournament players aren't used to balance it out. If tournament players would be used it might even be reasonably balanced which in turn WOULD HELP THE NARRATIVE PLAYERS. Actually more than tournament players who don't have particularly lot of vested interest in balance. Unit A sucks? Ok they don't buy it. They buy unit B instead.
Still. If you want the game to have semblance of balance(which works more in favour of narrative players) you want tournament players doing it. Not others. That's what GW has been doing and that's why 40k is balance wise in worse shape than in many many years.
Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote... I agree with you that tournaments can be used to balance the game. I was replying to the guy saying that it's "pointless" to play with points unless you're trying to write the best possible list and you might as well go play chess.
The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play.
2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed.
3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.
Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game
Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.
Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.
In order to make a meanigfull balance with points you HAVE to remove a lot of things.
There are a lot of things in 40k right now that cant be balanced with only points (how many points is -1 to hit worth? How many points are a lascannon worth against a horde? How many points are going first worth?)
The fact that you think that points will solve anything just shows that you need to think a bit harder about balance in 40k.
Flavourful rules and armies are being removed because WAAC tournament players are puking all over every scrap of fluff and lore in order to create thing that has nothing to do with 40k. Why cant you just play games that are ment for tournaments instead?
1) I am all for working towards balance in 40k and i think balance is good for casual play. 2) Using tournaments as a balancing tool is bad and will only lead to options and flavourfull armies being removed. 3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
40k was never intended to be a watertight system for tournamnets and if you try to make it into one it will lose most things that make it interesting.
Ah yes upping/lowering point costs is oh so obviously removing rules and armies from the game
Uh no. It's reverse. As it is flavourful rules and armies are removed because GW can't be bothered to balance. Deathwing was basically removed due to the 0-3 restriction. If game was balanced that wouldn't be problem. So because GW can't be bothered to make balance making deathwing army became very hard.
Sigh. Well enjoy the unbalanced junk rather than having balanced flavourful game that could be had if tournament players would balance it out.
Weird - I've played Deathwing since 3rd edition and my list wasn't overly affected by the 0-3 restriction. I already ran 3 squads of Terminators, Belial, a Terminator Master or Librarian or two, 2-3 Venerable Dreads, a Mortis Dread, a Land Raider Crusader, a squad of DWK and the Champion/Ancient/Apothecary that used to be a Command Squad. That's somewhere around 2500 points if I field it all at once without needing to worry about the 0-3 rule.
Even if some adjustments are needed in smaller games, that's hardly removed.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And more usefully? Don't tell us. Tell GW. Feed it back to them.
Because with genuine respect, I really don't care you've now got 6 Lictors you can't field in a tournament. That doesn't affect me at all, so I've no reason to give a fig.
GW though? All they'd need to do is Errata the Nid Codex to make them units of 1-3 again, yes?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you really buy 9 Lictors though? If so....why? There gets to a stage where they're just more expensive, less flexible Tyranid Warriors that gobble up already hotly contested Elite Slots.
They are my favorite model in the game. Also I really liked the hit and run playstyle. I did it in WHFB with Wood Elves, I did it in 40k with Lictors. While it lasted, that is.
Also, I have been telling GW many things multiple times. for example the fact that Rubric marines currently have two different datasheets (with the same name but different rules), both of them 100% valid at the same time. And two FAQs later, this has not been addressed.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
And 0-3 detachment is "suggestion" yet I have met more people who disallow pre-measuring than allow more than 3 detachments. And smite beta rules were also beta rules yet were applied on day 1 pretty much universal.
I wager more groups adopted FAQ than don't. As it is here it wasn't even discussed whether it's adopted or not. Everything went use right away.
Chikout wrote: Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I just like how the things that were somehow fine for vast majority of 40K history, like FOC having only 3 slots anyway, no charging from deep strike, or no first turn deep strikes, suddenly are colossal game ruining issues. Gee, deletion of half of enemy army from reserve strike with no interaction or possible counterplay from your opponent sure was fun and balanced, eh?
jhnbrg wrote: 3) The idea that a pointsystem will solve everything that is unbalanced in 40k is flawed.
It's not only flawed, it's utterly absurd. There isn't even a single game in the world with a tenth of amount of units available in 40K that is even remotely closed to being well balanced. Even if you somehow managed such a feat, and priced everything in the game to make it equally good without losing all flavour, which would require completely new far more granular points system anyway, there would be still an issue of all comers armies not being able to deal with skewed outliers. Say, all heavy tank army making most lighter enemy guns useless. Think army containing all rocks against army that has one third scissors. Or even something simpler, like slow melee army having problems catching quick motorized shooty one. Then, our local loud crew would still complaint game is garbage because their scissors can't beat rocks, something something, unbalanced gak, insert more hyperboles here. Funnily enough, GW made preemptive move to curb down all rocks armies with rules making spam slightly less common, and what they get in response? Of course, complains. GW can't win with some people, eh?
That is not to say I wouldn't like to see more balancing, but to do that, you first need solid base to do it on. You can't build balanced game on foundations including crutchy warptimed army deletions from deep strike coupled with chaff hordes and heavy gun spam being the king. You need to do away with systemic rot first, then, once you see how game plays now, comes time for fine tuned point balance. I wish I could live in fantasy world where point changes in crude, grainy points system precariously stacked like a mound of dominoes is all what we need, but alas, we do not.
Chikout wrote: Is it true that GW is not using tournament players to balance 40k? Over in AoS the majority of the playtesters are tournament players including former UK masters. The product development head is also a tournament player. Why would there be such a big difference between the teams?
No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I just like how the things that were somehow fine for vast majority of 40K history, like FOC having only 3 slots anyway, no charging from deep strike, or no first turn deep strikes, suddenly are colossal game ruining issues. Gee, deletion of half of enemy army from reserve strike with no interaction or possible counterplay from your opponent sure was fun and balanced, eh?
There's so much wrong in your post it's unreal.
And btw if you get half your army wiped out by turn 1 deep strike h2h you seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY, need to learn how to play. Even shooting deep strike is not going to wipe out stuff at will if you know how to use this concept called "screen". H2h? If opponent deep strike 1st turn assaults something worthwhile then it's because you played very badly. Seriously badly. Like somebody who hasn't even read rules before first game.
And max X limitations have been tried for TWENTY YEARS. They have failed to bring balance every single time. Actual practical empirical data has shown repeatedly that does NOT work. It's armchain experts who claim 0-3 limits bring balance. Real world examples have shown that to be false already.
Only thing that changed was that now the next rookie that brought the idea forward was Games Workshop. But same rule without changes does not make it better.
Meanwhile this now allows GW to conveniently forget to actually fix the problem. Did they fix units so they aren't broken when spammed? No? Then the problem still exists.
All GW did is limit scale and put head in sand. "naanaanaananaa. There's no problem. We don't have to fix issue".
If GW would do what they are supposed it wouldn't matter does opponent bring 7 hive tyrant or not(assuming points allow). They bring? Ok that army has it's weakness you can attack. They don't? Ok tyranids arent' screwed either.
It's not only flawed, it's utterly absurd. There isn't even a single game in the world with a tenth of amount of units available in 40K that is even remotely closed to being well balanced. Even if you somehow managed such a feat, and priced everything in the game to make it equally good without losing all flavour, which would require completely new far more granular points system anyway, there would be still an issue of all comers armies not being able to deal with skewed outliers. Say, all heavy tank army making most lighter enemy guns useless. Think army containing all rocks against army that has one third scissors. Or even something simpler, like slow melee army having problems catching quick motorized shooty one. Then, our local loud crew would still complaint game is garbage because their scissors can't beat rocks, something something, unbalanced gak, insert more hyperboles here. Funnily enough, GW made preemptive move to curb down all rocks armies with rules making spam slightly less common, and what they get in response? Of course, complains. GW can't win with some people, eh?
That is not to say I wouldn't like to see more balancing, but to do that, you first need solid base to do it on. You can't build balanced game on foundations including crutchy warptimed army deletions from deep strike coupled with chaff hordes and heavy gun spam being the king. You need to do away with systemic rot first, then, once you see how game plays now, comes time for fine tuned point balance. I wish I could live in fantasy world where point changes in crude, grainy points system precariously stacked like a mound of dominoes is all what we need, but alas, we do not.
Well gee nobody is expecting them to make it 100% perfect since it's impossible but GW isn't even trying(well no wonder seeing if they somehow would get it 100% their sales would drop).
What WOULD be nice they would at least aim to get as close as possible. Then they wouldn't even need 0-3 limitations which btw hurt weaker armies more than others while killing off entire fluffy armies. Good luck building deathwing army now.
And the limitation would be USELESS if GW did it's job. Only thing it actually archieved was give GW excuse for not fixing problem and increasing gap between powerful and weaker armies.
Question: Do you think IG is more powerful than Orks?
If you say IG why then IG benefitted from this FAQ while orks got hurt? 0-3 restriction also IG shrugs it off without sweat, orks meanwhile get hurt.
Eldar? Again while they lost power opponents lost more.
You are just theoretizing while ignoring real life experience. That or you somehow think that because it's GAMES WORKSHOP somehow that magically makes it better.
Every time you introduce blanket restriction that creates unbalance. Why? Because not all units are same. Rule that might work for unit X doesn't work for unit Y. Here's very simple kindergarden level example: Is 4 runtherds broken? Please try to show how 4 runtherds breaks the balance.
If you want to have balance you need to identify the PROBLEM units and fix THOSE rather than fire ICBM and hope it fixes issue. Collateral damage is too big. Which always results in poor armies suffering while powerful armies just shrugs it off. This is proven by actual attempts past 20 years. Blanket restrictions have been tried for 20 years and ALWAYS has resulted in worse balance than before. GW's attempt wasn't even particularly innovative. There's been much better attempts than this one and they failed too. Just like this one has failed in the past.
MAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them. A single unit can be good, 3 might become straight up OP and 7 breaks the game.
I have a hearing-aid. Wich is a band aid for the actual problem I functionally can't hear through my right ear. Could they try and fix the core problem? Yes. This does not mean A) they will succeed after failing twice already and B) The improvemnt if they succeed in the operation might not be worth the discomfort and risk involved. Sometimes a band-aid is not a bad idea.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
I mean, if you don't wanna play with someone's houserules (as the rules packets and missions for tourneys usually are), you don't have to? That has literally no effect on whether or not you can play with all your toy soldiers, or only just some of them. In fact, why bother with point costs at all? Just field everything you want, like AOS on release! If it fits on the table, play it!
Earth127 wrote: IG didn't get buffed beyond not being nerfed.
MAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them.
A single unit can be good, 3 might become straight up OP and 7 breaks the game.
I have a hearing-aid. Wich is a band aid for the actual problem I functionally can't hear through my right ear. Could they try and fix the core problem? Yes. This does not mean A) they will succeed after failing twice already and B) The improvemnt if they succeed in the operation might not be worth the discomfort and risk involved.
Sometimes a band-aid is not a bad idea.
It is buff if others get hurt more.
If I lose 5% power but others lose 15% obviously my power level compared to others goes up.
Limitations have been tried and failed for 20 years. If GW had at least taken new approach for it it might have some merit but it's exact same that has been tried before(also by GW) and failed. Why anybody with half a sense would believe it would work magically NOW when it has failed before? When even GW's previous attempts has failed at it!
All it does is screw the external balance of armies more. Powerful armies get better, some armies goes to junk, weak armies go weaker. Just like before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quentra wrote: I mean, if you don't wanna play with someone's houserules (as the rules packets and missions for tourneys usually are), you don't have to? That has literally no effect on whether or not you can play with all your toy soldiers, or only just some of them. In fact, why bother with point costs at all? Just field everything you want, like AOS on release! If it fits on the table, play it!
Sure. I'm sure he enjoys having his models sit on shelf with nobody to play with.
Face it. When GW puts out matched play/tournament rules those become de facto standard and getting game without those is bloody hard.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
And 0-3 detachment is "suggestion" yet I have met more people who disallow pre-measuring than allow more than 3 detachments. And smite beta rules were also beta rules yet were applied on day 1 pretty much universal.
I wager more groups adopted FAQ than don't. As it is here it wasn't even discussed whether it's adopted or not. Everything went use right away.
That's on the community though, not GW. They couldn't have been more clear that these are experimental rules that you can try if you want. If you think it's a horrible rule you're supposed to tell them so they can change it, and then stop using it. Since my community doesn't use these rules I couldn't tell you why those you have encountered do.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
The deepstrike rule on the other hand has no logic behind it. The reason you couldn't deepstrike turn 1 in previous editions is because you could land an inch away if you were lucky enough. The 9" bubble is what balances that rule out. And charges still have only a 27(?)% chance of passing at that range. This beta rule not only gives the enemy another turn of shooting at you before you arrive, but also another turn to counter deploy.
I honestly don't believe that deepstrike is ruining the game that badly for this butchering to exist. I have no idea what GW's thought process behind this one is.
Also, the warlock point increase doesn't make sense to me. You just nerfed smite and the character blocking character rule. Is that not enough? Point changes don't exist in a vacuum.
You reaaaaally haven't been paying attention to the meta if you think people were rolling a 9 on 2d6 to charge from deep strike. Basically every army that was pulling that trick had some way to make the charge near-guaranteed, whether it be Descent of Angels, Warptime, or whatever the Khorne Daemons stratagem is called. I think the only army that was just relying on getting lucky was orks and even they have 'Ere We Go.
Except Grey Knights. We had a re-roll and that was it and that required our warlord trait, and chargers to be right next to our warlord.
Irbis wrote: No. It's usual useless, baseless hyperbole from loud minority that can only operate in absolutes like "great job making game balance worse", even when for vast majority of the lists the changes indeed made the game better and more balanced. All you now need is ban Phil Kelly from ever touching rules again and make a balance pass bringing various SM units up, along with slashing xeno gun profiles across the board and we're pretty much there. Even top tournament players pretty much said so, it's only a handful of armchair experts who from what I saw.
I'm bringing out this great article from Nick Nanavati (one of the absolute top 40k players in the US) so it doesn't get buried in the rest of your post. Great article with opinions from an actual top tournament player.
Nick Nanavati wrote: Due to the 0-3 limitations on “spammable” units like Flyrants, plagueburst crawlers, hammerheads etc… armies will naturally go extinct. With the removal of such extremes more balanced armies will be able to come back into the meta since they don’t have to worry about dealing with such harsh extremes on opposite ends of the meta spectrum. I mean, how could you expect a battle force, picturesque, Space Marine army to be taken seriously in a world of 7 flyrants on one hand and 300 pox walkers on the other? By design, the pseudo-force org that the Rule of Three creates will be really beneficial to the game.
I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes, not having to worry about extreme outlier spam armies will make TAC lists more viable in tournaments. Really looking forward to part 2 of this article tomorrow where he's going to adress the gunline problem now that turn 1 deepstrike melee is dead. It's something I think most of us are worried about and why so many people are critical of Tactical Reserves.
Earth127 wrote: IMAX X limitations have been in different games for a long time and whilst I am not a fan of them, There is some sense in them.
There is sense to a properly thought out system of restrictions, but I don't think 3 datasheets max is anywhere close to that.
As an example, if your Knight army doesn't live past turn 2 because your opponent brings ten Predator Annihilators, all a maximum of three of the same thing is going to do is that the Marine player is just going to get his lascannons elsewhere.
40k has too much variety inside some armies and, unfortunately, too much variance between armies to make a blanket rule like that effective. Mostly because it's the only restriction of its kind. Detachments are about as open as you can get without just picking units without any underlying, ordering system.
This (beta) change is a patch that doesn't address the fundamental flaws of 8th ed. But hey, at least our crumbling, rusty foundation now has a fashionable smiley sticker on it.
Don Savik wrote: The battle brothers rule I can get behind. Taking auxiliary detachments doesn't sound as bad when they're also giving us more CP from battalions. And have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld/etc just to maximize strategems is dumb and gamey.
.
you can still have every unit in your detachment be a different chapter/craftworld etc. They just have to be from the same faction (in this case, Adeptus Astartes/Craftworld Eldar).
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
Spending money on models only gets you the model, not some unspoken right to be able to use it wherever whenever and however you want. I could go buy a tank tomorow, but I'd in no way be alowed to crush traffic on the highway or fire shells at abandoned buildings because 'you sold it to me!"
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
Hypersalting!
Actually he put it mildly. GW just made sure that plenty of people are sitting on models they can\t anymore use since GW prevents from fielding more than 3.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The 0-3 rule is completely unacceptable. Not because of balance or powerlevel or any other kind of reasons. But because it forbids me to use models that I have physically bought off them. I don't remember them protecting me against buying 9 lictors in the past. "hey buddy, don't buy 9 lictors, you are only allowed to play 3 of them". Additionally, back then they used to be in units of 1-3. Now they changed them in single model units in the datasheet, and with the 0-3 restriction it means that I can take 6 out of 9 of my most favorite models and put them right where the sun don't shine. If I had the option to mail them back the remaining 6 lictors and they give me my money back I would be more glad to accept their limitation. As it stands, frack them and frack their greed and incompetence.
Not even discussing about the power level of the lictor themselves, which might as well be the worst units in the game.
Well, it's a beta rule and only meant for tournaments. I know my group doesn't use tournament rules (for example three detachment limit) when we play casually. So no need to frack anybody.
Oh that's better. Now I am only not allowed to use the models I bought and paid for (and spent time and effort to paint and base too) in tournaments. This is much better!
eeerm, no. As I said, completely unacceptable. Not in a portion of the game, not in a little unknown scene, anywhere.
This just sums up perfectly the amount of hyperbolic salt the thread is stuffed with.
Hypersalting!
Actually he put it mildly. GW just made sure that plenty of people are sitting on models they can\t anymore use since GW prevents from fielding more than 3.
blood reaper wrote: I've seen claims that you can no longer move after deep-striking, but I can't actually find it anywhere in the FAQ?
So do this mean that Warp Talons no longer benefit from no overwatch on the turn they deep-strike? As in, there's no way for them to benefit from it because they can't charge.
You can charge but you can’t make an extra move via things like psychic powers or abilities.
Can I get a source on that?
Rulebook FAQ, page 5;
Spoiler:
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in
and consolidate?
A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge
and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it
can pile in and consolidate.
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
Jeeze...I've played a lot of table top games and each and every one of them gets the same "Sky is falling" players as soon as they release modified/new rules.
So if you're ingnorant enough to think GW is the only company to work this way.......Hahahahhaaa!
This is nothing new.....adapt and move on like you're going to anyway or quit and play a game that makes you happy....until of course they change something and you explode again.
If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
Wakshaani wrote: If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
(Seriously, my garage is a morgue at this point.)
Hey friend.
I've got some great news for you!
INTRODUCING NARRATIVE PLAY.
Recently I've had this great idea whereby Games Workshop games could be played in other ways than using the offical, experimental, and tournament matched play suggestions. We could have other game types, lets say, Narrative and Open, which didn't include these restrictions. Heck, we could introduce whole other rules for them as well. You can pratically play whatever you like!
I've secretly included these rules, without gamesworkshops or DakkaDakka's knowledge, into every offical copy of the Games Workshop Rulebook. Quick go get a copy before everyone else notices!
Wakshaani wrote: If your favorite model is a Lictor, and you have 9? That's awesome, but not a reason to deform the game.
Says the guy who also has 9 Lictors. And several Tyranid armed with weapons that don't exist anymore. And some Zoats who haven't been around for nearly two decades.
Models phasing out now and then? It happens. Enjoy the coolness that you created, enjoy playing with what you can, don't sweat the things that you can't anymore. From my Imperial Guard landspeeders to my Marines on Jetbikes to my two Power Fist Marine Dread with a jump pack to many, many, MANY other rmodels: It happens. Be upset for a bit, but in time, you gotta let it go and move on.
(Seriously, my garage is a morgue at this point.)
Hey friend.
I've got some great news for you!
INTRODUCING NARRATIVE PLAY.
Recently I've had this great idea whereby Games Workshop games could be played in other ways than using the offical, experimental, and tournament matched play suggestions. We could have other game types, lets say, Narrative and Open, which didn't include these restrictions. Heck, we could introduce whole other rules for them as well. You can pratically play whatever you like!
I've secretly included these rules, without gamesworkshops or DakkaDakka's knowledge, into every offical copy of the Games Workshop Rulebook. Quick go get a copy before everyone else notices!
I submitted it as a question to their email as it might just be one of those things that nobody really thought about.
from what I saw.
