Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For their own terrain you're probably right. But the ITC tournament style LOS Blockers are having an impact on the FAQs for balancing the game.

Ice_can wrote:

Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.

Why would I? I'm not a beginner, the 2000 points format is fine to me. And I'd rather have a single game at 2000 points that 2-3 at lower formats. If someone spams OP units at lower formats he will soon run out of opponents since no one will accept playing against him anynmore.

And tyranids don't need 7 flyrants to be competitive, there are very good lists with 0-3 of them. Like eldar, that can be very competitive even without a single dark reaper. Or AM without plasma scions.

But of course on dakkadakka if something isn't the most overpowered list of the moment, it's garbage

Ice_can wrote:

Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.

Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.

Those lists may not be optimized now, but when the SM codex dropped the Guilliman's gunline was overpowered. In fact several units like twin ass razorbacks, stormravens and Guilliman himself (even twice!) got a price hike. That list won major tournaments and it had tacs.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.

Why would I? I'm not a beginner, the 2000 points format is fine to me. And I'd rather have a single game at 2000 points that 2-3 at lower formats. If someone spams OP units at lower formats he will soon run out of opponents since no one will accept playing against him anynmore.

And tyranids don't need 7 flyrants to be competitive, there are very good lists with 0-3 of them. Like eldar, that can be very competitive even without a single dark reaper. Or AM without plasma scions.

But of course on dakkadakka if something isn't the most overpowered list of the moment, it's garbage

Ice_can wrote:

Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.

Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.

Those lists may not be optimized now, but when the SM codex dropped the Guilliman's gunline was overpowered. In fact several units like twin ass razorbacks, stormravens and Guilliman himself (even twice!) got a price hike. That list won major tournaments and it had tacs.

If you play against 3 flying hive tyrants in a 1k or 1.5k game you would get the same effect as facing 7 at 2k. Playing at 1k or 1.5k games doesn't make you a beginer, it changes the balance around. So you admit that spamming one OP unit is bad then?

So marines are fine because their codex beat index lists 6 months ago.
Tacs suck ass they only won because they where one of a very limited number of codex's.
No major tournament has seen a high placement of any vanilla marine force for a while for a reason, they have been rendered obsolete by power creep.
It like saying dark reapers are OP as heck because they killed everyone at LVO, guess what in a living ruleset data 2 or 3 major rule changes ago are irrelevant.

Of course spamming one OP unit is bad. IMHO cheesy lists and ultra competitive game are bad

I like playing with the entire codex, changing lists every time. That's how I think 40k should be, a game among friends with lists on the same level. Toning up and down the lists in order to have a fair game, it doesn't matter if both lists are casual or ultra competitive, I'm only interested in a game that can be open to any result. That's why I don't care about tournaments or pure TAC lists, but I like playing a single match against a tournament list if I can field something that has decent odds to compete.

The limitations on the max units of the same datasheet was something very needed and I'm glad that tyranids players can't spam their hive tyrants anymore. I was only saying that lists with that many hive tyrants weren't that common, their codex is among the most competitive ones with lots of efficient options. And the army is very expensive, that's why even veterans who own 5000+ points armies usually don't have more than 3 hive tyrants. 5000 points for tyranids means that there are a lot of other things to buy to try all the combinations.

I also think that tacs are not bad even now and the real reason why they don't perform is because everyone has a SM army and they're the most common faction at tournaments. In the most popular events lists that end up high and even win the tournament don't represent the real state of 40k. I'm not seing lots of pure AM list winning events in the last few months but I don't have to assure you that AM is still very competitive, probably the best army in the game.

Marines are fine because in any real meta, where things like 30+ dark reapers or 7 hive tyrants don't exist, they do fine. Ultramarines and ravenguard at least, plus the independent chapters with their dedicated codex like BA and DA.

I think it worked out really well for me as a guard player. I can't take as many company commanders, which means I'll be taking one less, but it worked out perfect by now allowing a cheap and useful lord commissar to fill that slot.

I went from 16 CP to 21 CP.

I wasn't getting through all 16 before since I took relics that helped preserve them. Now I'll probably just take relics to give my leaders better beatsticks.

as a guard player, faq killed:

-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer

Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.

 General Orange wrote:
as a guard player, faq killed:

-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer

Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.

How in the hell did it kill those things?

Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...

wow hyperbole.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 General Orange wrote:
as a guard player, faq killed:

-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer

Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.

How in the hell did it kill those things?

Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...

wow hyperbole.

HWS and SWS ?

And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?

Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time

(edit)

And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?

 General Orange wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 General Orange wrote:
as a guard player, faq killed:

-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer

Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.

How in the hell did it kill those things?

Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...

wow hyperbole.

HWS and SWS ?

And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?

Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time

(edit)

And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?

HWS/SWS are fine.

Multiple smaller units of Ogryn isn't how an Auxilia regiment would be organized anyways - they'd likely only be divided up into smaller units for doling out to other regiments. There's no reason for a whole Auxilia regiment to be divided into tiny 3-man squads.

Airborne regiments absolutely should use normal troops. There's no indication that Veterans are required for an airborne unit. Even Elysians, the elitest of the elite of airborne regiments, still use basic Infantry Squads. Why the fixation on veterans?

And the list limits scale with size. 2001-3000 point games use 4 detachments and 4 datasheets.

And do you know what? These are rules for organized events, not narrative play. So if you're playing a "fluffy fun list" then you don't even have to use these restrictions.

Whether the FAQ is good or bad, it killed my desire to play 40k.

For a few reasons:

1. My army saw nerfs based on Adepticon, which is a joke.

2. Beta Rule.

3. No adjustment to Imperial Guard.

I will wait this out. As much as i love miniature gaming, it's a good opportunity to dip my toe into the AOS pond, and focus on narrative gaming.

I have little interest in totally reworking my list because of those 3 items listed above, which is what i would have to do, despite the fact that i spammed nothing and played a non-meta Tyranids list, and it was totally gutted.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 General Orange wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 General Orange wrote:
as a guard player, faq killed:

-Foot guard lists
-Fluffy guard lists, yeah screw auxilia armies, screw airborn lists.
-Vet lists (even though the faq is just beating a dead horse at this point)
-Any interest in playing this game anymore outside our garagehammer

Salt aside, is there like a point limit to the 3 units max ? Don't tell me that I can only play 3 units each in 4000 points lists.

How in the hell did it kill those things?

Foot guard used mostly troops, so isn't subject to the limit 3. Auxilia armies can bring 3 units of Ogryns, 3 units of Bullgryns, and 3 units of Ratlings. Vet lists were already dead (as you rightly point out) and airborne lists can still run 9 Valkyries and 9 Vendettas, or play Elysians who can take them as unlimited DTs...

wow hyperbole.

HWS and SWS ?

And what if I don't want/can't play 3 max units of ogryns, but rather multiple smaller units ? Thought of that ?

Still airborn isn't JUST made out of valks (or vendettas if you can play fw) you need vets, and guess what, only 3, what I should play normal troops ? Yeah, great way to kill the fun in fluff lists without needing forgeworld every time

(edit)

And you didn't answer the last question. Yeah sure in a 1250 list you can't really spam, but what about the bigger lists ? Still think that narrowing a game that is supposed to be complex in it's tactics is of any interest ?

HWS/SWS are fine.

Multiple smaller units of Ogryn isn't how an Auxilia regiment would be organized anyways - they'd likely only be divided up into smaller units for doling out to other regiments. There's no reason for a whole Auxilia regiment to be divided into tiny 3-man squads.

Airborne regiments absolutely should use normal troops. There's no indication that Veterans are required for an airborne unit. Even Elysians, the elitest of the elite of airborne regiments, still use basic Infantry Squads. Why the fixation on veterans?

And the list limits scale with size. 2001-3000 point games use 4 detachments and 4 datasheets.

And do you know what? These are rules for organized events, not narrative play. So if you're playing a "fluffy fun list" then you don't even have to use these restrictions.

why ? No, sws and hws are not "fine" I wanna use lots of them like in the books, they are needed for footguard.

There is a reason, I wanna play them like that

uhhhhhh because they are my favorite unit that offer more options than regular squads ? They are required because I like them.

And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?

Marmatag wrote:
3. No adjustment to Imperial Guard.

General Orange wrote:why ? No, sws and hws are not "fine" I wanna use lots of them like in the books, they are needed for footguard.

There is a reason, I wanna play them like that

uhhhhhh because they are my favorite unit that offer more options than regular squads ? They are required because I like them.

And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?

In This Thread:
"No adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."
"Too many adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."

GG.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In This Thread:
"No adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."
"Too many adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."

GG.

This amuses me

Imperial Guard breaking 8th edition one player at a time.
Sounds like 8th edition could have all its problems solved by Squatting Guard

Ice_can wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In This Thread:
"No adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."
"Too many adjustments to Guard, I can't play the game."

GG.

This amuses me

Imperial Guard breaking 8th edition one player at a time.
Sounds like 8th edition could have all its problems solved by Squatting Guard

well the concept of the imperial guard in the 40k tabletop was a mistake gameplay wise

But yeah, gak broke me

I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.

Resipsa131 wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.

Or solve the real issue which was giving the faction with the cheapest access to comand points the ability to refund on a 5+ and steel on a 5+. But as usual GW's rules team missed the glaring obvious.
Both of those should be 6+ if not just removed.

Ice_can wrote:

Resipsa131 wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned because it hasn't been on the radar but I think one of the biggest changes was the bump in CP for Battalions and Brigades. Its too much I played an AM Brigade (Cheapest Brigade) with Kurlov's Aquila and Grand Strategist and 2 Vanguard Detachments of Blood Angels. 17 Command Points. I keep up with how many got refunded and "stolen" and I used over 30 Command Points in 5 Turns. Its too much I think we ought to drop the 3 you get for having a Battle forged Army.

Or solve the real issue which was giving the faction with the cheapest access to comand points the ability to refund on a 5+ and steel on a 5+. But as usual GW's rules team missed the glaring obvious.
Both of those should be 6+ if not just removed.

I don't necessarily disagree with you as both of those are the most potent Warlord Traits and heirlooms that the Imperium can take, I'm merely concerned with Command Points and Strategems that are supposed to be special. I didn't have to think twice about spending 3CP to fight again in the fight phase. I think the Meta will go to every IMperium army taking a Brigade or 2 Battalions and then putting the meat of their Army in 1 or 2 Vanguard/Spearhead Detachments.

Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.

 tjnorwoo wrote:
Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.

I think increasing the CP from Battalions and Brigades increases the odds of strong soup armies while leaving armies like the inquisition behind because you can’t just throw in Greyfax and make a Battalion. I think 2 AM Battalions at 360 points with a Guilliman detachment will be super strong.

 Marmatag wrote:
Whether the FAQ is good or bad, it killed my desire to play 40k.

For a few reasons:

... No adjustment to Imperial Guard..

Oh please quit. Please do. We need less of this sensationalist "sky is falling guard 2 stronk" garbage.

Limit CP usage to the faction keyword that generated them, to IG formations can swap about, but they cannot act as "batteries" for other formations.

the basic three go where the warlord goes

 tjnorwoo wrote:
Do you all think that guard are somehow going to dominate the tournament scene. I don't. Solid middle/upper tier. I wouldn't be unhappy if they did some restrictions on CPs, but I'm not seeing how that would hugely affect guard players anyways.

No, they'll be a gatekeeper. Only those that can beat them will advance to the top tables, but pure Guard won't be there.

 General Orange wrote:

And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?

Bro...

ORGANISED EVENTS
If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length, the number of Detachments each player can take in their army is restricted, as is the number of times a player’s army can include a particular datasheet. Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc. You can only include the same datasheet in a Battle-forged army up to a maximum number of times, depending upon the points limit for that game, as described below.

It's a suggestion/guideline for TOs. It even tells you to tweak it if you want to...

My theory is the vast majority of 40k players have never read the rules or background. They simply absorb what they can through osmosis from other players and memes.

Dandelion wrote:

 General Orange wrote:

And this is damn problem with the game, if these are rules for tournaments, then why don't they, you know, make a separate faq for those kinds of tournaments and leave the normal player base out of this mess ? Why must it be the other way around, why bother making rules if a majority are gonna houserule the hell out of it ?

Bro...

ORGANISED EVENTS
If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below. As well as a helpful guide to the size of the battlefield and game length, the number of Detachments each player can take in their army is restricted, as is the number of times a player’s army can include a particular datasheet. Of course, if you are organising such an event, you should feel free to modify these guidelines to better suit your event’s own needs, schedule, etc. You can only include the same datasheet in a Battle-forged army up to a maximum number of times, depending upon the points limit for that game, as described below.

It's a suggestion/guideline for TOs. It even tells you to tweak it if you want to...

If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.

 DominayTrix wrote:

If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.

Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.

Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.

If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?

Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.

Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"

PiñaColada wrote:
Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.

Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"

Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.

I feel like a lot of people complain about pure guard but maybe you're right. Other than that it's a detachment issue. I personally would like to see soup reigned in by having one available detachment that does not align with your warlords. So basically you can have a detachment of guard if your army is Blood Angels but it's just that one detachment and it does not grant any CP.

The detachment itself can be pretty open in regards to slots, maybe 0-2 HQ, 1-3 Troop, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Elite, 0-3 Heavy Support. I like the idea of allies, I hate the idea of there being no downside to taking it. Units from another chapter than your warlords would also have to go in this detachment (for example, an ultramarine warlord wouldn't be able to take a salamander detachment outside of this specific detachment)

 Sim-Life wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
Just for the sake of simplicity and speed of play I sort of wish that all the warlord traits/relics that currently give CP back on a roll of 5/6+ are replaced by giving players 1/2 extra CP at the start of the game. Now people interrupt each others dice rolls with the CP regain rolls all the time and it breaks the rhythm of the game in my opinion.

Also, as someone who has never played guard, but play against them on a regular basis the hate they get seems unfounded in my opinion. They were super annoying before the conscript nerf but since then they're strong (and have annoying CP habits) but I've never felt outclassed by them. That would apply even more so to all armies that utilise a -1 to hit over 12"

Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.

I agree, the Guilliman's gunline is the worst built of 8th edition. Now not overpowered anymore, but quite good anyway. Still so boring and stupid.