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.

gendoikari87 wrote:
simply oh put what you ask for is unreasonable. After AdeptiCon there’s other tournaments they’ll need to address under this expect that they “take their time and get it right” ... and that’s because they will never get it right. This is the perfect case where the best is the enemy of good enough because you won’t come close to perfection and by being late you’ve lost the faith of a part of the fan base and judging by dakka it’s already super salty

There WILL always be something to fix. Whether it will be Dark Reaper/Ynarri or Flyrant bad is unknown.

Them being late didn't convert part of the community to being salty. Those people were looking for an excuse to be salty. And they'll do it again and again for literally any crack they can worm into.

Adepticon is one of the largest 40K events in the world. I think that it having more influence than downthestreetacon is OK. If GW saw, or think they saw, a need for change then I say let them change it. And then we can whine and moan as needed.

Lemondish wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Tournament players are such a small, insignificant source of income compared to casual players that they could cancel this FAQ and it would have zero impact on their bottomline. Just like every edition before this one.

That is blatantly false. Forgeworld sold out of fire raptors 2 weeks after chapter approved dropped, and there have been similar trends with other “OP” units.
It’s purely anecdotal (I wish I could find the post) but back in 7th someone on this forum broke down Dakka memberships, GW sales, and tournament attendance to make the case that about 20% of the 40k player base attends at least one tournament a year and are interested in “competitive” play.

Plus even the fluffiest players i know like to win games, and get tired of using bad units. I've heard plenty of causal players lament a unit being cool but not worth buying due it's tabletop performance.

Seriously, it should not be dichotomous. No unit should be without purpose, whether it be from a lack of functionality entirely, or being entirely outclassed in its functionality. Players shouldn't feel punished for liking certain units, whether they be competitively minded or not.

New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Better get my popcorn ready if true...

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

I don't see them.squatting soup because they have armies specifically designed to be an allied force. Custodes being the newest and most prominant example. I can see them limiting it or making the keywords more specific but squatting it emtierly seems unlikely.

The model limit thing I can absolutly see happening. It would be nice if they had a 6/7th Ed (I don't remember) Fantasy system where the limits were based on points level and unit classification (1 heavy choice per 1000pts or something) but thats probably too complicated for an FAQ.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

If this happens I'm gna laugh my ass of. I've been saying this should have happened since the beginning of 8th. The key word thing, not the highlanderesque restrictions.

Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

 Fafnir wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that "Support" factions like the Inquisition will get a special keyword allowing them to soup, and that specific non-troop units such as transports and others get an exemption from the rule (my poor Pathfinders )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

Tau are quite reliant on their Pathfinders and Drones to actually hit/stay alive respectively. Plus DEldar and their boats if they get effected.

MalfunctBot wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

Death of the Inquisition and especially the Assassinorium if that's the case. Sisters of Silence are also rendered unplayable, but no one will really miss them anyway. Admech also kind of falls apart under that trilander stipulation, especially without soup available. If they place such restrictions, it'd better not apply to transports. Otherwise the Dark Eldar book might as well go straight into the shredder. Not sure how things fare on the Chaos side of things, but I can't imagine Thousand Sons would be doing well under such restrictions. Unfortunately, GW is still seems to fail to understand that the best way of dealing with spam is not with arbitrary restriction, but rather with avoiding designing systems that so actively encourage it.

If this is true, it's pretty patently apparent more now than ever that GW's writing staff have absolutely no clue what they're doing at this point, and are just desperately throwing out whatever they can and hoping something sticks in a constant stream of knee-jerk reactions. While it's true that a lot of the top dog stuff (especially soup) really needs to be brought to heel, I get the impression that everything not dominating the immediate tournament scene is going to be neglected entirely. I expect anything on the weaker scale of things might as well not exist under GW's auspices, and they'll suffer even more in the context of these sweeping changes.

Personally, my Inquisitional freakshow would become entirely unplayable, but that's kind of par for the course and I've come to accept it as my favourite faction gets removed from the game with each edition. Maybe they'll get something in 2019 with Sisters.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that "Support" factions like the Inquisition will get a special keyword allowing them to soup, and that specific non-troop units such as transports and others get an exemption from the rule (my poor Pathfinders )

That would be reasonable, which is why I will believe it when I see it.

Honestly, with some finesse, that solution could work. They would have to make some smaller factions, like Knights, exempt from the keyword restriction but other than that I'd be willing to give this solution a shot. Restricting non troops to a maximum of 3 isn't going to hurt most players at all and many could either simply forgoe one or two units or roll them into the 3 units they are now allowed to have. Like all rule changes this one would restrict some players who are building a fluffy army and not part of the issue (like a white scars bike list), which is obviously sad but there's probably no way around that.

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I have to admit I am doubtful of this rumor considering that it invalidates a lot of the core rules. It also wildly changes the battlefield that it might further imbalance armies.

In all seriousness, if they wanted to curb stratagems they could easily just reduce the amount of Command Points received, including units that seem to award extra command points.

Otherwise I am super excited to see where they will take this regardless of where.

Pretty much just the FAQs for this year and the Next Chapter Approved are the only thing keeping me wanting to play 40k anymore. If these FAQs and CA: 2018 don't reign in the mess GW is creating, I am probably moving on.

Been reading rulesets for other games recently, and have been blown away at what well written rules actually look like.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

I'm quite filled with disbelief by such rumours. As others have said, some armies only really work as allied. Still, the situation the game is now fervently asks for some kind of less rule-sharing; most of those 'Imperium/Aeldari/Chaos' rules should be just their base codex (meaning a Warlock shouldn't buff Wyches and Guilliman shouldn't let anything Imperial re-roll 1s near him). However, stuff like Astra Telepathica psykers need to interact with other Imperium stuff or it would have no use whatsoever.

The unit limitation is reeeally hard to believe. Because if that was true, then the attached picture would be unantainable.

Finaly, it would make this edition 8.5, because a 9e would preclude a new rulebook (which this FAQ certainly isn't)

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

I agree though. Most armies don’t tend to have more than 3 of any one unit, outside of troops – but there are some cases, where factions have limited options which would potentially make it problematic – but this might change going forward with the next few codices. The other potential issue is transports, as others have mentioned.

As for the “soup squatting”, I’d be surprised if it happens, and a little disappointed. Disappointed, because it means that GW have no idea how to match their lore to their game in a successful way, and are getting around it by just banning it. However, as it is, we can all mostly agree that it is broken in more ways than 1, and all to varying degrees – one example yet to hit is the mixing of the new DE with Craftworlds and/or Ynnari.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

On the note of limiting things per army/detachment though, I’m not a massive fan really and I feel it should only happen if there are no other options.

For example, with T’au Commanders. Would spamming them have been such a problem if they were BS 3 instead of 2? It’s something I’ve been failing to understand… Why are Commanders suddenly so so so so so much better than the rest of their army in terms of shooting at things, when in every other army their “leaders” tend to only be 1 step up from their standard counterparts, rather than 2. Hell, Longstrike could easily drop to BS3 as well, simply because he auto buffs himself back up to BS2.

Flyrants, maybe an increase in the wings cost is all that is needed? Worst case, double the cost of wings to 50 points, and -potentially- a small base cost increase. Alternatively, could drop the movement down from 16” to 12” as well. This however will affect basic Tyrants probably too much.

I agree in regards to -1 to hit chapter tactics, they should be removed, and the penalty shifted onto weapons that fire without physical LoS. I’d just swap it for “always counts as in cover and -stacks- with actually being in cover”. While strong, this has a fair amount of counter play, in regards to all the “ignore cover” options out there, and the prevalence of -3 weaponry. It’s also time for the unit type restrictions to be lifted, and everything to apply to everything (with the exceptions of “in faction mercenaries”).

I just want the FAQ to arrive now though. Everything new hobby wise for me has stopped, and has been stopped for a while waiting for this FAQ.

Kdash wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

Depends on wording. Already many places which use "max X of Y" says that each X in squadron counts as 1. So 1 HS slot with 3 russ=3 russ for the limit=no more russes.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

Except GW is creating new broken stuff all the time. If things would become balanced tournament players wouldn't be all the time rushing to buy new army. This would hurt their profit margin. You really think GW hates money and doesn't want MOAR of it?

I don't believe Gw would ever impose universal highlander. A lot of mini-factions (like Inquisition) could be bundled into an imperial-agents esque faction.

tneva82 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Holy gak those 4chan rumors are game changing if true. I'm not sure I dislike them? The biggest change for me would be cutting back from 4 basilisks to 3, which is fine.

I can't honestly think of any armies I've faced that used more than 3 of any non-troop. Where is this common? (besides flyrant spam)

You’ll still be able to take 4 Basilisks, due to you being able to take 1 unit of 2, and 2 units of 1 if you wanted.

Depends on wording. Already many places which use "max X of Y" says that each X in squadron counts as 1. So 1 HS slot with 3 russ=3 russ for the limit=no more russes.

The one benefit of tournament players constantly finding the “next broken thing”, is that if GW keeps targeting that “thing” one at a time to bring them into line, we’ll eventually have a game that is overall pretty well balanced… It might take several years, but we can get there!

Except GW is creating new broken stuff all the time. If things would become balanced tournament players wouldn't be all the time rushing to buy new army. This would hurt their profit margin. You really think GW hates money and doesn't want MOAR of it?

Oh, I agree that they are always making more broken stuff, but, eventually they’ll get the hint that the amount of work they have to do to constantly re-work things costs more than just getting it right first time. By that point, they’ll also have experience of “getting things right”

As for the wording of the restrictions, I suppose, but if they go down that route, I sincerely hope they go for “FOC unit” rather than “game 1 onwards unit”.

MalfunctBot wrote:
New rumours on 4chan about the upcoming FAQ.

Soup gets squatted, Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword no longer useable for Battle-Forged

Any unit that's not a Troops choice can only be taken a max of 3 times per army.

Can we safely say we're in 9th edition yet? Or 8.5?

There is not enough salt in the universe to throw at that rumor.

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

At this point I think GW's best bet is to release Chapter Approved 2-3 times a year and only have it filled with points and maybe a mission or two. Then keep the price of the booklet at something like 2-3 quid.

That way they can balance points faster.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

It's not like we are placing our trust and money on the biggest miniatures and wargames company boasting 40+ years of experience in the field, right? "It's not an easily done thing" is not really an excuse. GW is not an unruly bunch of forum trolls, they are a professional high profile company with huge budget and tremendous assets. So what if it's not easily done? Get your ass down and fix it. Otherwise, don't charge drug prices for plastic toy soldiers and even drug-ier prices for 80 page rulebooks.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
but there's probably no way around that.

Building a competent fething ruleset from the ground up.

I don't get why people say this like its such an easily done thing. Even Warmachine, one of the most competitive and tightly worded games around was a mess at the start of Mk3 and they're still fixing it nearly two years on.

We just big company having done that for oh..30 years? One would think one of these days they would show SOME sign of progress. I mean even if they do everything randomly one would imagine one of these days they would get it right by simple case of random chance.

I hope those rumours arent true otherwise no non mono god army will be able to take daemons

"No soup" seems pretty unbelievable, because yeah that makes a bunch of armies totally unworkable in matched play. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing if what you're interested in is a balanced wargame -- it'd be pretty obviously the right call if this was a digital game -- but it's definitely a bad thing from the perspective of GW not wanting to annoy people who have invested into these armies.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I hope those rumours arent true otherwise no non mono god army will be able to take daemons

Very dubious for sure. Too many armies would become unplayable. Seems even CSM codex would be hurt big time with just in it's codex. GW has been for years moving toward LESS restrictions and made entire factions based on it. Like they would suddenly invalidate or even effectively invalidate those?

And we hit into another case of these restrictions actually hurting more toward the top armies than weaker and even do crippling blows to fluffy already struggling lists like speed freaks who would be totally gutted. Well they were gutted already but with this totally gutted...As it is my poor orks would get hurt most(especially if with vehicles/monster squadrons they would do like tournaments so 3 killa kan=3 for the limitation) while my IG passes pretty much unhurt. Okay max 3 russ(assuming 3 russ in squadron=3 russ for limit. If not russ are still effectively infinent in 2k games and beyond that limitations will be changed often enough anyway) hurts but 3 russ, 3 tank commander, 1 pask=7 russ hull. Albeit 3 tank commander rather than just 6 russ is bit annoying but not undealable issue.

Not buying this. Though just in case I'll post-pone dark/blood angel codexes. Had been considering using pile of those for allies but think I'll post pone that. I have 300+ models to paint anyway(plus 30k and terrain) so no need for them Have enough them for ally, not enough to play on them so if I buy codex and by miracle it IS true that would be wasted codexes as not going to buy new models for them for a while.