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.
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.
Give this guy a medal.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Why should it matter that the "fluff" of a list is being ruined in a tournament setting?
Why do all these people's lists need to be tournament viable anyways? The majority of 40k players aren't even tournament players to begin with. Is regular ol' match play with friends/at a store/gaming group just not good enough for your 9 Shield Captain on dawneagle Jetbike list? Or your "fluffy" 6 squads of 3 bikers with double plasmagun list?
Again. these are tournament rules. Not anything else. And if you're that dedicated about tournaments anyways, shouldn't you be aware of how often the flavor of the month and meta changes? Who are these tournament players that demand fluffy lists anyways? All I see are arguments for things that don't exist.
edit: and harlequins and other factions that have limited slot choices. Who would EVER run 4 shadowseers/troupe masters? Any serious list builder would know it would be more point efficient to run more harlequin squads anyways than spam HQs. Skyweavers, their only fast attack? You can have up to 18 skyweavers in a list. Thats 810 points of skyweaver. Again, nobody is doing and nobody would do this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 21:24:48
"People say on their first meeting a Man and an Ork exchanged a long, hard look, didn't care much for what they saw, and shot each other dead."
I find tournament armies to be the most unfluffy out there, albeit for obvious reasons. 7 flying hive tyrants is not fluffy. Nowhere in tyranids fluff do you read about tyranids swarms consisting of 7 hive tyrants. Ditto dark reaper spam etc.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I find tournament armies to be the most unfluffy out there, albeit for obvious reasons. 7 flying hive tyrants is not fluffy. Nowhere in tyranids fluff do you read about tyranids swarms consisting of 7 hive tyrants. Ditto dark reaper spam etc.
That's always been 40k though. Swarms of Rhinos or whatever is OP copypasta'd to the limit. Part of the reason I've really liked Allies is that the armies that use them tend to break this up quite a bit and are still overall quite fluffy unless you're one of those people opposed to Space Marines and the Guard working together.
Honestly, the biggest problem I have with these FAQs is formatting. The changes are now spread across like 30 PDFs.
The designer's commentary and stepping into new edition ones should probably be rolled into the Big FAQ as a general FAQ. I would also probably merge a bunch of the others by faction or category. A general FAQ, an Imperium one, a Chaos one, an Eldar one, and a Misc Xenos one would be a lot more manageable.
TheWaspinator wrote: Honestly, the biggest problem I have with these FAQs is formatting. The changes are now spread across like 30 PDFs.
The designer's commentary and stepping into new edition ones should probably be rolled into the Big FAQ as a general FAQ. I would also probably merge a bunch of the others by faction or category. A general FAQ, an Imperium one, a Chaos one, an Eldar one, and a Misc Xenos one would be a lot more manageable.
This is what I've felt, I've been trying to find certain things and people kept saying "get the FAQ" but there are so many it's hard to find the ones I need at any one time.
Your solution is clean and sensible, I have it does go that way.
Approx armies
9000pts AdMech (Main army)
7000pts Black Templars (original army)
3500pts Death Guard (lazy side project)
2000pts Imperial Knights (extension of AdMech)
2000pts Harlequins (fun side project)
The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight. I'd have more ichor if I weren't so enurred to it at this point. Although GW really needs to stop beating around the bush and just squat the Inquisition at this point. The treatment they get as a faction, and the false-found hope occasionally inspired on their behalf, is frustrating.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Sure. But there'll probably be again a few tournament players who find an obscure loophole and create some freakish, super-exotic list-abomination. And while they'll play it, they'll rant endlessly about how GW should put more effort into making the game more "balanced" and tournament-viable. And when they do with the autumn-FAQ, they'll be again the first to rage against it on the interwebz.
Fafnir wrote: I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight.
After 10+ years, why not schedule a fun narrative game with your favorite gaming buddies to give the army a send off? Surely after 10+ years you know which local opponents you can invite to such a game and have a good time.
Sucks if you're a regular tournament or organized league player with that army though. I lucked out and my mixed nurgle ended up fitting with some things shuffled around in terms of a single mixed chaos detachment now needing a different keyword.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
Sure. But there'll probably be again a few tournament players who find an obscure loophole and create some freakish, super-exotic list-abomination. And while they'll play it, they'll rant endlessly about how GW should put more effort into making the game more "balanced" and tournament-viable. And when they do with the autumn-FAQ, they'll be again the first to rage against it on the interwebz.
Well... That makes sense. Tournament players are allowed to want the game to be better for everyone while still playing to win. After all, if the game is balanced, people wouldn't need to run "abominations" to win, and players in less competitive circles don't have to worry about accidentally cobbling together an "abomination" that would hurt their own group.
Really, that's just accepting the situation as it is while hoping for the better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 05:21:39
Don Savik wrote: Why should it matter that the "fluff" of a list is being ruined in a tournament setting?
Why do all these people's lists need to be tournament viable anyways? The majority of 40k players aren't even tournament players to begin with. Is regular ol' match play with friends/at a store/gaming group just not good enough for your 9 Shield Captain on dawneagle Jetbike list? Or your "fluffy" 6 squads of 3 bikers with double plasmagun list?
Again. these are tournament rules. Not anything else. And if you're that dedicated about tournaments anyways, shouldn't you be aware of how often the flavor of the month and meta changes? Who are these tournament players that demand fluffy lists anyways? All I see are arguments for things that don't exist.
edit: and harlequins and other factions that have limited slot choices. Who would EVER run 4 shadowseers/troupe masters? Any serious list builder would know it would be more point efficient to run more harlequin squads anyways than spam HQs. Skyweavers, their only fast attack? You can have up to 18 skyweavers in a list. Thats 810 points of skyweaver. Again, nobody is doing and nobody would do this.
Again. You are kidding yourself if you don't think these won't get adopted elsewhere. These will be de facto standards for everywhere and getting game that don't follow these are going to require special agreement. So buying models you aren't going to be able to field on default...
Also you know what? People like to bring fluffy unusual armies to tournaments as well! Shock horror. Not everybody plays hardest possible combination in tournaments either. Deathwing is pretty popular army in tournaments as well.
And on top of that those options are ruined because GW is too lazy to do it properly. Had they been willing to do their job rather than apply stupid 0-3 restrictions that have provenly shown to fail(including by GW themselves) there would have been no need for 0-3 blanket restriction. And GW could have dealt with problem deep strike units rather than this blanket system which for example killed any role kommando unit had. Whee! Kommandos were such a broken cheese right eh? Now remind me...When did kommandos dominate tournaments last time? What was justification for killing them?
Blanket restrictions never work. Core reason is simple. Rule that applies to everybody isn't equal to everybody since it affects units differently. If you hit with big enough nerf to hurt the biggest offender the ones that aren't problem gets hit. It's like sending ICBM with nuclear warhead to assasinate one guy inside a city with population of millions. Yes you'll catch the offender. Collateral damage is unacceptable levels though.
If there's problem unit deal with that specific unit. Scions were problem? Hit THEM. As it is all you did was give IG's their wet dream hope. This was such a IG's wet dream FAQ that it's surprising they didn't remove to-wound roll from the game alltogether to speed up the game!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 05:25:56
Fafnir wrote: I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight.
After 10+ years, why not schedule a fun narrative game with your favorite gaming buddies to give the army a send off? Surely after 10+ years you know which local opponents you can invite to such a game and have a good time.
Because that's not the type of game I enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I spend a lot of time putting a lot of work into my armies, my Inquisitional forces themselves being extremely heavily converted/scratch built, and I tend to get rather extensive in developing fluff for them to boot. But at the table itself, I play to win, and am of the firm belief that narrative is not something that is 'forged,' but rather something that develops organically through memorable moments and circumstances that naturally occur within games, not something that players set up (that's what we have books for).
I'm not much of a tournament player outside of local events, but I am competitive. Now, I generally stick to models that I enjoy from modelling and gameplay (as in, is this unit fun to use) perspectives. By "playing to win," I mean that I don't enjoy making intentionally weak lists, and I don't enjoy taking courses of action that are knowingly poor ones. I want my opponent to be able to beat me, but to pull my punches to allow them to do so is insulting to the both of us, and is boring for me. Moreover, beating opponents constantly and without effort is also boring, which is why I like to encourage them to develop better game plans themselves. Ultimately, while I play to win, I don't actually care about who actually wins or loses. What I do care about is having earned the result.
Fafnir wrote: By "playing to win," I mean that I don't enjoy making intentionally weak lists, and I don't enjoy taking courses of action that are knowingly poor ones. I want my opponent to be able to beat me, but to pull my punches to allow them to do so is insulting to the both of us, and is boring for me. Moreover, beating opponents constantly and without effort is also boring, which is why I like to encourage them to develop better game plans themselves. Ultimately, while I play to win, I don't actually care about who actually wins or loses. What I do care about is having earned the result.
All of that is just how I play every time I play a Planetfall Scenario or a game with Open War cards using PL.
Not sure where people get the idea that outside of Matched Play, this is not the case.
If anything, having to adapt on the fly to an unusual battlefield condition from an Open War card with an army that isn't necessarily designed for it makes the "competitive", "think on your feet" aspect much more pronounced in Open Play than it does in the highly restrictive, formalised and thus more predictable Tournament-Matched-Play environment.
Sure, once every 10 games or so, there's a blow-out, but that happens in tournaments just the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 07:05:21
tneva82 wrote: Had they been willing to do their job rather than apply stupid 0-3 restrictions that have provenly shown to fail(including by GW themselves) there would have been no need for 0-3 blanket restriction.
Curbing exponential unit effectiveness with a limit (a mechanic that has been a staple of game design for ages) translates directly into the ability to price individual units correctly.
Stus67 wrote: The best part about all this insane salt is that it's almost entirely imaginary. Since the FAQ almost nobody at my flgs has had any changes to their lists or how they play, with the only actual change is having more command points across the board.
Personally for my typical lists I have to run less company commanders, which just gives platoon commanders a reason for existing again, which inherently makes my list more fluffy.
I'm retiring my Inquisitional freakshow because of the FAQ. I saw it coming, but it's still disappointing to see your favourite faction get shafted at every single turn for 10+ years straight. I'd have more ichor if I weren't so enurred to it at this point. Although GW really needs to stop beating around the bush and just squat the Inquisition at this point. The treatment they get as a faction, and the false-found hope occasionally inspired on their behalf, is frustrating.
I expect that I'll retire my Custodes because of the first turn deep strike thing. I can now either have my army shot up as I walk across the board for three turns that I won't have, or else lose half of my army before the other half even appears and then try to do something with half an army against an enemy at full strength.
Guess that's what I get for not spamming jetbikes...
Sunny Side Up wrote: Not sure where people get the idea that outside of Matched Play, this is not the case.
If anything, having to adapt on the fly to an unusual battlefield condition from an Open War card with an army that isn't necessarily designed for it makes the "competitive", "think on your feet" aspect much more pronounced in Open Play than it does in the highly restrictive, formalised and thus more predictable Tournament-Matched-Play environment.
The expectation for some people is pretty much this:
Fafnir wrote: But at the table itself, I play to win, and am of the firm belief that narrative is not something that is 'forged,' but rather something that develops organically through memorable moments and circumstances that naturally occur within games, not something that players set up (that's what we have books for).
A good rule framework that allows for decent player control that can lead to naturally occurring narrative and tactical situations without the need for outside influence.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
The idea is that if you have to set something up to happen, you are cheated out of your reward because of course it happens as planned. Similar to playing Listbuilding: The Game, the skill here is not to play the actual game well and have something awesome happen along the way, but to plan the "game" well in advance and then just let it play out with as little interference from the players as possible so as not to ruin the planned great narrative/moment of thinking on your feet/whatever.
It's basically about wanting the game to mean something, not the whole setup around it.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
You have bigger Inquisitors coming around. And then maybe your Inquisitor realizes losing battle where hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys with titans and whatnot is important enough that the tiny inconsequential battle isn't end of the world. Inquisitors are generally supposed to work for Imperium rather than personal vendettas and Imperium can burn.
Some people don't like forgone conclusions. Similarly, some people don't like excessive influence of chance. Woe be on you if you dislike both and get a schizophrenic commanders who decides on a new objective every turn, and every objective is one your army can't fulfill.
Or have superior officers telling orders. That objective on far right you suddenly need to take? Represents you going there to push threat to the LARGER battle going outside the tiny sliver of battle 40k represents. With hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys running around the battlefield 40k games show are tiny slicer. There's bigger pictures going on than just this battlefield.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, have an Inquisitorial mandate and speak with the voice of the Emperor. Your superior officer can go suck it.
You have bigger Inquisitors coming around. And then maybe your Inquisitor realizes losing battle where hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys with titans and whatnot is important enough that the tiny inconsequential battle isn't end of the world. Inquisitors are generally supposed to work for Imperium rather than personal vendettas and Imperium can burn.
My Inquisitors always work for the good of the Imperium. You're just not seeing the big picture. Titans, hundreds of tanks and thousands of guys are an acceptable loss.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
tneva82 wrote: For insignificant skirmish of no consequence...
you don't seem to grasp the scale of 40k battles. The game represents more like bar crawl for us.
The game represents whatever you want it to represent. From the clash of exactly the forces you see on the table to a tiny fraction of a wider conflict. The background is wide open by design and lets you do pretty much whatever you please. As such it's entirely pointless to argue whether you or I are right on the matter. If you want your games to be insignificant skirmishes of no consequence, I cannot rightfully claim otherwise. Nor can you prove me wrong if I see my games as self-contained. That's just not how it works.
The rules, on the other hand, are less flexible in no small part due to GW's fixation with a certain game philosophy. Unlike the background that can be tailored to each player's liking, the rules are firm and cater to a subset of casual players the most. If you like loose rules, making stuff up on the fly and throwing in random events at every turn, GW provides. If you like a more controlled environment, you're mostly out of luck.
No amount of fluffing bogus rules will actually improve the game experience if it's the rule implementation you object to.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
LunarSol wrote: I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
Real easy fix for inquisition would have been to add a rule to Authority of the Inquisition that exempted them from Battle Brother rules. Inquisition forces often attach themselves to other organizations in their efforts, which is why they have that rule in the first place, and adding that to the rule would make so much sense and not really break anything in my opinion. You could then include a single assassin with an inquisition detachment if you did not want to have to field three in a vanguard. Although, I honestly think Independent Operative should also work that way (providing Battle Brother exemption), which would also fix assassins.
LunarSol wrote: I'm pretty bummed about my Inquisition stuff as well. I think these changes needed to happen, but I've definitely been hoping they'd fix things before they had to break them when it comes to the Inquisition. That's really not a problem with the FAQ though; just a problem with how they relied on the Imperial keyword as a catch all for models they didn't otherwise have a plan for. I don't have a particularly large 40k collection and I'm definitely have fears that the Deathwatch codex is going to invalidate the rest of my collection in favor of Primaris, but changes like this are still really healthy and needed to keep players heavily invested in the game.
Real easy fix for inquisition would have been to add a rule to Authority of the Inquisition that exempted them from Battle Brother rules. Inquisition forces often attach themselves to other organizations in their efforts, which is why they have that rule in the first place, and adding that to the rule would make so much sense and not really break anything in my opinion. You could then include a single assassin with an inquisition detachment if you did not want to have to field three in a vanguard. Although, I honestly think Independent Operative should also work that way (providing Battle Brother exemption), which would also fix assassins.
Have this weird feeling they were ignored for a reason.
The new Deathwatch Codex is coming out, and I'm sure they did not want to change the rules already written for this army. Would not be surprised to see Ordo Xenos on some of their datasheets.
I'm fine with Inquisitors in a Vanguard detachment, for now. It's not like Acolytes are a bad thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/19 15:08:08
from what I saw.
AdMech (Main army)
Black Templars (original army)
Death Guard (lazy side project)
Imperial Knights (extension of AdMech)
Harlequins (fun side project)
