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.

They are clearly being very conservative about any balance-related changes they make. Only after a year or more of consistent evidence and tournament domination, did they finally do something about Ynarri, Eldar, and the Castellan.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Most changes feel alright, though I am surprised they passed over Tau, Crusaders and Plaguebearers, which have been winning far more tournaments than anything non-Castellan that got nerfed, certainly more than Lootaz, Mental Onslaught or Deathwatch.

I don't think the point is to nerf anything and everything that can put together an effective list to win, but to nerf units that are on the verge of broken. Eventually, players need come to a point where they should stop looking for a unit nerf and start looking at how to better prepare for the troublesome units that they may face (units that are broken/abused notwithstanding).

Bolter Discipline works with Duty's Burden now, so that is good. GW confirmed that the Anti-Invulnerable Bubble Phobos Librarian is legal. Craftworld Eldar Psyker shenanigans are FIXED not nerfed. Tau are going to be OP as usual, but that was to be expected since CA. Smash Captains are back for Blood Angels, I am glad I made my conversion for one.

At any rate, for all the wait, this big FAQ was not all that earth-shattering.

It's not earth shattering in that the changes were expected, but definitely will be earth shattering in terms of the distribution of factions and their performance in tournaments (and broadly even at the local, casual, level).

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Bolter Discipline works with Duty's Burden now, so that is good. GW confirmed that the Anti-Invulnerable Bubble Phobos Librarian is legal. Craftworld Eldar Psyker shenanigans are FIXED not nerfed. Tau are going to be OP as usual, but that was to be expected since CA. Smash Captains are back for Blood Angels, I am glad I made my conversion for one.

At any rate, for all the wait, this big FAQ was not all that earth-shattering.

They didn't confirm that it's intended, they just have definitely confirmed that it's not crossed their radar as broken yet.
It definataly needs another FAQ before it's clearly intended.

Ice_can wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Bolter Discipline works with Duty's Burden now, so that is good. GW confirmed that the Anti-Invulnerable Bubble Phobos Librarian is legal. Craftworld Eldar Psyker shenanigans are FIXED not nerfed. Tau are going to be OP as usual, but that was to be expected since CA. Smash Captains are back for Blood Angels, I am glad I made my conversion for one.

At any rate, for all the wait, this big FAQ was not all that earth-shattering.

They didn't confirm that it's intended, they just have definitely confirmed that it's not crossed their radar as broken yet.
It definataly needs another FAQ before it's clearly intended.

They addressed it in a question. Taking the relic for the Librarius power is intended. They explicitly say so.

Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

I'd like to see that, but soup is here and it's here to stay unfortunately including the abuse that comes with it.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
It's not earth shattering in that the changes were expected, but definitely will be earth shattering in terms of the distribution of factions and their performance in tournaments (and broadly even at the local, casual, level).

Loyal 32 plus a couple of knights plus custodes or BA smash captains will still dominate.

Until they address 4ppm guardsmen being used to fuel CP for stratagems for other sub-factions, the meta will just shift back to what it was a year ago (except now the closest contender has been nerfed...)

I think it's very short sighted tbh.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

I'd like to see that, but soup is here and it's here to stay unfortunately including the abuse that comes with it.

It's just something that strikes me as too significant a change for a PDF document? I mean, it's essentially a new core rule, rather than a tweak to an aspect of the core rules, such as Flying and Charging interaction. So better suited to a properly printed book?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

Soup encourages people to buy miniatures from multiple armies. Why would GW want to stop that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

What is "soup abuse" compared to normal use of allies. Where do you draw the line?

They disentangled Eldar psychic powers from other Eldar factions and they disentangled Guard orders from GSC.

Maybe they'll descide to similarly disentangle Daemon-effects between the actual Daemon Codex and other Chaos books, as they can be messy and convoluted, especially as Chaos Daemons now apparently (at least according to 40Kstats) hold the "most-winning-army" crown with Ynnari out (and Daemons being untouched).

But just having your Guard Detachment next to your Blood Angels detachment (without aura/stratagem/etc.. interactions) is here to stay and some abilities are clearly meant to work for allies specifically (e.g. Guilliman's all-Imperium aura, the Custodes banner for all Imperium, Celestine, etc...).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Do we reckon that CP and Soup Abuse (not the same thing as making use of Soup, for clarity) will be addressed in CA:19? Perhaps through new Formations, or whatever they're called?

Soup encourages people to buy miniatures from multiple armies. Why would GW want to stop that?

I'm not sure that really follows, with respect; aren't you just buying a little from each, rather than a lot from one? One (or maybe two now) knight(s), the loyal 32, and some BA or custodes? As opposed to a 'complete' army?

Wouldn't they be better making e.g. Primaris armies actually good, so people buy them?

The more armies you buy, the more books you need, and therefore people buy cards to go with them, and then might want a full force of that army rather than just a 'Loyal 32', and that new army might encourage them trying different kinds of soup, and so on.

Soup is in GW's best interests, even if it is completely not in the game's best interest.

I see where HSBC is coming from, and I do agree. Stuff is the way it is to sell models. Of course it is.

But, Soup and Soup Abuse aren't the same thing. And one can remove Soup Abuse, without really affecting the appeal of Soup.

Wanting to field an Imperial Crusade force, as often seen in the background, makes sense. As do combined Eldar raids, with Harlies brokering an alliance between Commorite and Craftworld kin.

But when you get stuff akin to Loyal 32, where one aspect of the army is there purely for points-cheap CPs to push the other stuff way beyond their intended limits? That becomes abuse. And it's all the worse because not all armies or even factions can pull the same trick.

Assigning CPs the way Brood Brothers do is one way to tackle it. Stating that the most expensive element is the 'main force', meaning all others provide half CPs is another addition to that.

It then doesn't prevent Loyal 32, Smash Captain and Dominus. Just makes it less of a no-brainer (and again for clarity, I'm not knocking those that use such a list, or calling them bad people)..

zerosignal wrote:


I'm not sure that really follows, with respect; aren't you just buying a little from each, rather than a lot from one? One (or maybe two now) knight(s), the loyal 32, and some BA or custodes? As opposed to a 'complete' army?

Wouldn't they be better making e.g. Primaris armies actually good, so people buy them?

Yeah, But buying & painting, say, a full Imperial Guard army is super intimidating. The "high entry cost" is clearly one of the gravest weaknesses of games such as 40K and a reason (among others) why skirmish games are popular.

If you don't have to buy a full 2000 points (or even 1750 or so) Guard army, but just start with 32 because they are super useful, you are in.

And after a few weeks, you think ... hmm, maybe adding a Tank Commander or two would be nice.

And than the Vigilus book comes along and a Wyvern or two look tempting.

And then you might wanna add a few Sentinels and a few more troops to upgrade to a brigade. Or you try out a Hellhound.

And ... voila ... you're on your way to a guard army you might've never bought if, at the start, it was a choice between all-in or nothing!

And now that you have a Guard army, how about 5 Blood Angel scouts and a Smash Captain? It's just 6 miniatures, that'll take now time at all! ...

Etc.., etc..

I really think the best way to combat Imperial Soup abuse would be to bring back the platoon structure for guard - a single troop choice becomes a platoon commander, command squad and 2-5 or even 3-5 infantry squads. If instead of the loyal 32 you had to have the loyal 77 or 107 to fill a minimum battalion it would make quite a difference. Similarly a single heavy support choice for a platoon commander, command squad and 2-5/3-5 heavy weapon squads.

That would make sense as the Guard is supposed to be the unwieldy sledgehammer.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Bolter Discipline works with Duty's Burden now, so that is good.

What, how? The wording is the same, if you replace a non-RF bolt weapon with it, it still doesn't work...

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Bolter Discipline works with Duty's Burden now, so that is good.

What, how? The wording is the same, if you replace a non-RF bolt weapon with it, it still doesn't work...

It replaces a RF bolt weapon and is a RF bolt weapon. The way it was explained, look at the list of weapons a relic replaces, is one of them an RF bolt weapon? Is the relic an RF bolt weapon? If yes to both, then it qualifies for Bolter Discipline. What gun the model has does not matter.

Near as I can tell, this is the only weapon that has this problem.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It replaces a RF bolt weapon and is a RF bolt weapon. The way it was explained, look at the list of weapons a relic replaces, is one of them an RF bolt weapon? Is the relic an RF bolt weapon? If yes to both, then it qualifies for Bolter Discipline. What gun the model has does not matter.

Near as I can tell, this is the only weapon that has this problem.

Explained where? The wording has not changed and I don't remember seeing any answer relating to Duty's Burden specifically. I can see the logic in that interpretation, but it's not want the rule actually says. If I replace an auto bolt rifle, I did not replace a RF-bolt weapon.

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It replaces a RF bolt weapon and is a RF bolt weapon. The way it was explained, look at the list of weapons a relic replaces, is one of them an RF bolt weapon? Is the relic an RF bolt weapon? If yes to both, then it qualifies for Bolter Discipline. What gun the model has does not matter.

Near as I can tell, this is the only weapon that has this problem.

Explained where? The wording has not changed and I don't remember seeing any answer relating to Duty's Burden specifically. I can see the logic in that interpretation, but it's not want the rule actually says. If I replace an auto bolt rifle, I did not replace a RF-bolt weapon.

GW FB, so suspect. the rule doesn't say "replaced", it says "replaces". If the weapon replaceS a RF bolt weapon, it qualifies. The DB replaces a RF bolt weapon.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
GW FB, so suspect. the rule doesn't say "replaced", it says "replaces". If the weapon replaceS a RF bolt weapon, it qualifies. The DB replaces a RF bolt weapon.

Okay, I can see that. You wouldn't happen to have a link or screencap for that? It is nice if they clarified it on FB, but it is a bit annoying that they didn't make the wording in the actual rule clearer when they had the change.

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
GW FB, so suspect. the rule doesn't say "replaced", it says "replaces". If the weapon replaceS a RF bolt weapon, it qualifies. The DB replaces a RF bolt weapon.

Okay, I can see that. You wouldn't happen to have a link or screencap for that? It is nice if they clarified it on FB, but it is a bit annoying that they didn't make the wording in the actual rule clearer when they had the change.

The final version of Bolter Discipline is in the Warhammer 40,000 Update - April 2019.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
GW FB, so suspect. the rule doesn't say "replaced", it says "replaces". If the weapon replaceS a RF bolt weapon, it qualifies. The DB replaces a RF bolt weapon.

Okay, I can see that. You wouldn't happen to have a link or screencap for that? It is nice if they clarified it on FB, but it is a bit annoying that they didn't make the wording in the actual rule clearer when they had the change.

The final version of Bolter Discipline is in the Warhammer 40,000 Update - April 2019.

I was talking about the Facebook clarification regarding Duty's Burden.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
GW FB, so suspect. the rule doesn't say "replaced", it says "replaces". If the weapon replaceS a RF bolt weapon, it qualifies. The DB replaces a RF bolt weapon.

Okay, I can see that. You wouldn't happen to have a link or screencap for that? It is nice if they clarified it on FB, but it is a bit annoying that they didn't make the wording in the actual rule clearer when they had the change.

The final version of Bolter Discipline is in the Warhammer 40,000 Update - April 2019.

I was talking about the Facebook clarification regarding Duty's Burden.

Here is the exchange. I am the person who posed the initial question. I am going to submit it to the 40kFAQs guys to be sure regardless. Like I said, I think this is the only relic in the game with this interaction.

Thank you, that's good enough for me!