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.

An FAQ that just answered frequently asked questions?

WHY I NEVER.

ImPhaeronWeasel wrote:
I dont get it...

Imperial Fist Infiltrators do get an extra hit on unmodified 6 or auto wound? Do I chose which effect I want?

Both. The extra hits don't auto wound, though.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Kinda annoyed the AM Demolisher Cannon update didn't make it to the FW Index, given I'm cleaning up a Thunderer at present.

I think they've basically written off FW stuff entirely and are leaving the legacy units on life support at this point.

I'd've agreed with that, if they hadn't a, said at the Q&A session at UK Games Expo that they were planning on supporting the range, they just weren't sure how best to do so yet; and b, we hadn't just seen them patch stuff from the Space Marine FW Index when the new Codex came out.

I might drop them an email, actually.

 vaklor4 wrote:
An FAQ that just answered frequently asked questions?

WHY I NEVER.

I know, right?

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

What's it matter? Aren't you going to be killing them quite handily with your now OP blue Ironhands?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG Demolisher cannons are now straight D6 shots so they match with Space Marines again. Expect to see a lot more Demolishers going forward.

That's the biggest thing I've noticed thus far.

LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Holy gak, IG got the updated Vindicator Cannon. Like Guard didn't already kick everyone's teeth in without breathing hard.

Astra Militarum has a 48% win rate in tournament play. https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

Please don't hyperbolize the facts to suit your agenda, Guard is currently fairly well balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
No clarifications for Iron Hands?
I've been playing IH for about six years now and I strongly want a few nerfs that knock out or cheeziest combos before it can hurt the rest of the Marine book as a whole.

I'd expect some nerfs and clarifications in the Iron Hands FAQ, which will likely come out next week sometime. Generally 2 weeks after a release they have errata for it.

LOL gaurd rarely count as primary faction and are included in basically every imperial list. The are not fairly balanced. Command tanks and infantry are on a short list of most OP units in the game.

Are you kidding me ? So all it took for guard to become the most OP thing ever, is D6 shot demolishers ? I thought IH were going to smash all forever, well glad to see that died off so quickly.

As for guard not being balanced, guard are pretty well balanced, unless you have a thing against them having actual good units at all in their codex in the wash of many lack luster choices. Sorry you have to fear anything at all a guard list can bring. Guard are balanced, the allies system isn't and never has been balanced this edition and it hampers many mono dex armies as it punishes units taken for allies when they end up just fine in a mono dex list. Unless I've been missing mono guard stomping all, which I don't think I have missed. Command tanks are the default tank choice for obvious reasons even when they cost more than currently. This sounds like a lot of out of this world fear over one change that really should have been expected with the change to vindicators.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG Demolisher cannons are now straight D6 shots so they match with Space Marines again. Expect to see a lot more Demolishers going forward.

That's the biggest thing I've noticed thus far.

LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Holy gak, IG got the updated Vindicator Cannon. Like Guard didn't already kick everyone's teeth in without breathing hard.

Astra Militarum has a 48% win rate in tournament play. https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

Please don't hyperbolize the facts to suit your agenda, Guard is currently fairly well balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
No clarifications for Iron Hands?
I've been playing IH for about six years now and I strongly want a few nerfs that knock out or cheeziest combos before it can hurt the rest of the Marine book as a whole.

I'd expect some nerfs and clarifications in the Iron Hands FAQ, which will likely come out next week sometime. Generally 2 weeks after a release they have errata for it.

LOL gaurd rarely count as primary faction and are included in basically every imperial list. The are not fairly balanced. Command tanks and infantry are on a short list of most OP units in the game.

Are you kidding me ? So all it took for guard to become the most OP thing ever, is D6 shot demolishers ? I thought IH were going to smash all forever, well glad to see that died off so quickly.

As for guard not being balanced, guard are pretty well balanced, unless you have a thing against them having actual good units at all in their codex in the wash of many lack luster choices. Sorry you have to fear anything at all a guard list can bring. Guard are balanced, the allies system isn't and never has been balanced this edition and it hampers many mono dex armies as it punishes units taken for allies when they end up just fine in a mono dex list. Unless I've been missing mono guard stomping all, which I don't think I have missed. Command tanks are the default tank choice for obvious reasons even when they cost more than currently. This sounds like a lot of out of this world fear over one change that really should have been expected with the change to vindicators.

The annoying thing is a vindicator is D6 shots end off a Russ is now 2D6, D6 vrs 2D3 kinda was the more balanced position, but untill GW grows enough stones to admit their early edition fixes were bad and remove them Grinding advance etc are going to be causing janky interactions between codex's.

Yeah but for even with all this, Guard still aren't stomping faces all over and without grinding advance guard tanks would go back to being the crap choice that they were before grinding advance. I know it's been awhile but guard tanks were very meh before the current grinding advance and didn't even compare well vs say a predator.

So taking away grinding advance what would you give the tanks to make them not meh ? Lower the points even more so we can spam them ?

I also point out even with grinding advance some of the Russ options are jank and never taken outside a totally fluffy " But I love it ! " reason.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

The updated missions in there were pretty good, and if you can talk people into letting you use the looted wagon rules, you can slip those into matched play by paying the points out of the relevant wargear lists.

Over the last year I've been using CA2018 missions exclusively - that's the reason why I'll be getting a physical copy of this year's CA for the first time, since I'm fairly sure that I'll be using the content.

No one needs a CA just for the points. Either use a tool with points integrated or copy the newest costs to the back of your codex.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

The updated missions in there were pretty good, and if you can talk people into letting you use the looted wagon rules, you can slip those into matched play by paying the points out of the relevant wargear lists.

I prefer ITC missions myself but either way my group plays tournament style rules (often rotating specifics depending on what's coming up) so the Looted Wagon narrative or open play rules were absolutely useless to me. They didn't even have points costs for the vehicles did they?

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

What's it matter? Aren't you going to be killing them quite handily with your now OP blue Ironhands?

Think bigger, now it'll be blue iron hands actually guard tank commander repulsors!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

The updated missions in there were pretty good, and if you can talk people into letting you use the looted wagon rules, you can slip those into matched play by paying the points out of the relevant wargear lists.

I prefer ITC missions myself but either way my group plays tournament style rules (often rotating specifics depending on what's coming up) so the Looted Wagon narrative or open play rules were absolutely useless to me. They didn't even have points costs for the vehicles did they?

They didn't but I'm sure people could work out the points costs based on what the vehicle was looted from.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. How is it possible to buff command tanks more? I'm sorry but 2d6 str 10 shots with d6 damage against a single target all the time is basically the most OP thing in the game now. It will outdamage most titans. LOL. GW is a bunch of drunks. we really need to move on from their rules.

What's it matter? Aren't you going to be killing them quite handily with your now OP blue Ironhands?

Think bigger, now it'll be blue iron hands actually guard tank commander repulsors!

Na fam salamanders is where it at atm in the chasing game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

The updated missions in there were pretty good, and if you can talk people into letting you use the looted wagon rules, you can slip those into matched play by paying the points out of the relevant wargear lists.

I prefer ITC missions myself but either way my group plays tournament style rules (often rotating specifics depending on what's coming up) so the Looted Wagon narrative or open play rules were absolutely useless to me. They didn't even have points costs for the vehicles did they?

They didn't but I'm sure people could work out the points costs based on what the vehicle was looted from.

At that point we might as well just homebrew any old rules. I dont need a book to homebrew stuff. If GW wanted us to play with Looted Wagons, they'd have included points costs, the looted vehicle in the last CA was simply filler.

Bit dissapointed that there was no beta rule on flyers. Was hoping for a 0-3 flyer limit. Guess this means GW are happy with flyer spam lists...???

 Nithaniel wrote:
Bit dissapointed that there was no beta rule on flyers. Was hoping for a 0-3 flyer limit. Guess this means GW are happy with flyer spam lists...???

Why wouldn't they ?

I see, so they're trying to charge us for any real balance now... there goes my hopes they had changed.

 lolman1c wrote:
I see, so they're trying to charge us for any real balance now... there goes my hopes they had changed.

If by real changes you mean codex updates, then yes. Because that's their entire business model.

Their business model involves imbalance so yeah no surprise

 lolman1c wrote:
I see, so they're trying to charge us for any real balance now... there goes my hopes they had changed.

only now you realise that?
I mean as what would you describe CA then? Not as paywalled balance patch?

 Nithaniel wrote:
Bit dissapointed that there was no beta rule on flyers. Was hoping for a 0-3 flyer limit. Guess this means GW are happy with flyer spam lists...???

I wouldn't go that far before seeing CA. No one outside of Eldar is spamming flyers (and if they are they aren't dominating nearly as much) so its entirely possible they will 'fix' the eldar problem by increasing the points.

What I am dissapointed by is not changing Alaitoc to match the Raven Guard trait.

 Ordana wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
Bit dissapointed that there was no beta rule on flyers. Was hoping for a 0-3 flyer limit. Guess this means GW are happy with flyer spam lists...???

I wouldn't go that far before seeing CA. No one outside of Eldar is spamming flyers (and if they are they aren't dominating nearly as much) so its entirely possible they will 'fix' the eldar problem by increasing the points.

What I am dissapointed by is not changing Alaitoc to match the Raven Guard trait.

It's also mostly an ITC concern. They don't do very well at winning games in the CA18 missions, at least in my experience.

I'd be alright if they did nothing and put the responsibility for the answer squarely on the source of the problem - ITC missions and scoring are trash.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

that is like saying, if you buy a codex your not getting your money's worth, specially if the army is bad. One can not not buy a CA if it has point cost updates, unless you skip the update units. Now maybe some people get lucky and GW changes costs of stuff they do not use. But at least in GK case, stuff like draigo and GM NDK are kind of a important part of the army.

There's more than just the points in CA. I'm a massive fan of the custom character ruleset.

You mean the ones where people started showing off their custom fan made characters that had stories that were far more Mary Sue than ANYTHING that GW made and they stacked on 6+ of those rules because?

That's a fault of people writing bad stories, in all fairness, and using what are on the surface pretty nice customisation rules purely to gain an edge in their games. I tried to avoid putting more than 4 abilities on my characters because I simply didn't need more than that, and nothing that was just blatantly "the best option".

As with everything in 40k, you absolutely *can* go out of your way to break it and create imbalance, but that's not what I want, so I don't.

 lolman1c wrote:
I see, so they're trying to charge us for any real balance now... there goes my hopes they had changed.

Good grief.

This is how it was always set up. Point changes were rare in FAQs. Almost all the betas came in FAQ.

Let's not chicken little the process simply because big sweeping changes aren't needed at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Their business model involves imbalance so yeah no surprise

Go ahead and make a game with 30+ factions, hundreds of units, and 40k level customization and balance it perfectly.

Go on. I'll wait.

Non argument daedalus.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Non argument daedalus.

Is it now? Why is Warmachine withering on the vine? Why are people fed up with X-Wing?

Surely those are balanced and you dont pay for updates, do you?

Not Online!!! 780785 10583344 wrote:

Why wouldn't they ?

They are a bit unfun to play against, ignoring a lot of the rules that seem crucial to 8th ed. But that is just my personal expiriance. Maybe GW design team does like to play that way.

Let's not chicken little the process simply because big sweeping changes aren't needed at the moment.

I think that does depend on the army though. A necron or Inari player probably can't wait to get a total rules revamp, considering the stuff they have to play with now.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Non argument daedalus.

The idea that GW releases overpowered units to increase sales is defeated by the fact that for every new OP unit you can point to an equally new unit that was so gak no one bought it.

But they do have a slow reaction time to some things. when the castellan came out. It really did warp the meta game, making a lot of options, like most non flyer vehicles, bad. And the IG+catellan+smash cpt/custodes bikers, was a stapple for like a year, or so. that is long time considering some people play the game for a year, and then quit.

But maybe it is for the better, GW fixs are always bad for the armies. They fix nothing, they just destroy the validity of a unit or even entire army, like in case of Inari, and from what I understand after 5th ed GK were also fixed. And GW fixed so well that they are bad 3 editions later.

Karol wrote:
But they do have a slow reaction time to some things. when the castellan came out. It really did warp the meta game, making a lot of options, like most non flyer vehicles, bad. And the IG+catellan+smash cpt/custodes bikers, was a stapple for like a year, or so. that is long time considering some people play the game for a year, and then quit.

But maybe it is for the better, GW fixs are always bad for the armies. They fix nothing, they just destroy the validity of a unit or even entire army, like in case of Inari, and from what I understand after 5th ed GK were also fixed. And GW fixed so well that they are bad 3 editions later.

The first Faq increased CP costs, it turned out not to be enough. Next faq increased the point cost.
GW reacted as fast as they told us they would react, twice a year. Which is infinity faster then GW's reaction time before 8th edition which was 'see you next edition'.

 Ordana wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Non argument daedalus.

The idea that GW releases overpowered units to increase sales is defeated by the fact that for every new OP unit you can point to an equally new unit that was so gak no one bought it.

My argument was more in regards that daedalus claims that other games need to be perfectly balanced.

Go ahead and make a game with 30+ factions, hundreds of units, and 40k level customization and balance it perfectly.



Go on. I'll wait.