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.

Do we have any idea when in September this will be released?

Not at all, the only hint we have is that space puppies didn't receive a FAQ, which means that it has been aggregated with the big FAQ.

I thought it was changed to the "Fall FAQ" after the backlash from the delayed delays to the first BIG FAQ

November? 41st?

My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.

Late November. GW logic at its finest.

If the Warhammer Community posts haven't mentioned anything, and they haven't, it's a long way off.

If the roumers from Nova are true it should be a fairly significant FAQ and may even see GW reassessing some of their previous FAQ answers.

Darsath wrote:
My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.

Not if you email 40kFaq. The automated email you get back says September.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Darsath wrote:
My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.

Not if you email 40kFaq. The automated email you get back says September.

I guess September would fall into place with the end of September estimation. However, as we've seen with the March FAQ, sometimes things can go wrong, or changes need to be made last minute. This can cause it to be later than they expect. I stand by what I said to be a good estimate. Though, if anybody does find any other information about it, I'd love to know.

Who knows if there will suddenly be another major tournament in September which GW just couldn't possibly have foreseen and planned their schedule around ahead of time?!

If they are taking into account events from the Nova open then I don't want to see one for at least 3 weeks. I want them to sit and really think (I know they can't effectively playtest it) how to make the best changes possible to solve the current problems without unnecessary nerfs that would greatly affect thematic armies that are not the usual min-maxed/spammed versions used by competitive gamers.

Case in point: the dumb increase in CPs that came last FAQ.

The increase in CPs itself wasn't a problem, but that's another discussion.

I am quite sure GW will not be giving hints at release dates since people flipped their gak when it was a couple weeks late last time. I'd imagine we're on a firm "You'll get it when you get it" schedule.

I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous

Asmodios wrote:
I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous

Exactly.

Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.

Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.

GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..

Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.

And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?

Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.

I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.

 bullyboy wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous

Exactly.

Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.

Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.

GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..

Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.

And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?

Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.

I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.

except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..

or so the design logic goes.

BrianDavion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous

Exactly.

Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.

Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.

GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..

Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.

And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?

Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.

I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.

except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..

or so the design logic goes.

yeah, so these net lists with 20CPs are balanced? that's a laugh. I'm not sure where an army of 3 scout units deserves more CPs than an army of 3 biker units.

The system is broken currently, and needs a total revamp to be balanced correctly.

 bullyboy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous

Exactly.

Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.

Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.

GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..

Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.

And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?

Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.

I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.

except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..

or so the design logic goes.

yeah, so these net lists with 20CPs are balanced? that's a laugh. I'm not sure where an army of 3 scout units deserves more CPs than an army of 3 biker units.

The system is broken currently, and needs a total revamp to be balanced correctly.

No your misunderstanding the design intention of the Detachment and CP system. As far as GW are concerned armirs bilt around trooos, HQ with a sprinkling of Heavy elite and FA are "the intended" way to build an army.
Your all ravenwing army gets it's advantage of having insane mobility, or that Guard armoured company get its high defensive stats and fire power balanced by The "TAC" troop heavy list gets extra CP. The base idea is actually nit bad and makes some sence.
The problem is that GW wrote the guard codex and destroyed the CP mechanic with infine CP.

You fix the net lists by targeting Grand Strategists and Kurov's.
Then give soup a downside like loosing the battle forged CP.
Only after all of thats been done will codex to codex and strategum to strategum balance begin to show. Then if a strategum is always spammed it costs more CP, if strategums are never used, they get resuced CP costs or improved rules.

I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.

I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.

However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.

 bullyboy wrote:
I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.

I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.

However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.

Good point. I don't think that Outriders, Spearheads and Vanguards were breaking the meta before the CP bump for Battalions and Brigades. I'm still not sure what the reasoning was behind the bump for the Battalions and Brigades - a rising tide should have raised all boats.

I enjoy Stratagems and Command Points. I agree with those that say, though, that Soup should have some kind of drawback.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.

I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.

However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.

Good point. I don't think that Outriders, Spearheads and Vanguards were breaking the meta before the CP bump for Battalions and Brigades. I'm still not sure what the reasoning was behind the bump for the Battalions and Brigades - a rising tide should have raised all boats.

I enjoy Stratagems and Command Points. I agree with those that say, though, that Soup should have some kind of drawback.

I honestly think the CP raise was GW trying to address Guard soup with a buff, people often complained about being short on CP and almost felt they HAD to take some guard for extra. so they tried seeing if they could address it simply by giving people access to CP.

(I never said it was a good idea, just that may have been their thinking)

It's possible there may be a halt to CP farming given one of the rules in the Gellarpox codex- the HQ only has 1 warlord trait, which gives his detachment 3cps that can only be spent on that detachment.

Could this be a hint of something to come?

 Grimtuff wrote:
It's possible there may be a halt to CP farming given one of the rules in the Gellarpox codex- the HQ only has 1 warlord trait, which gives his detachment 3cps that can only be spent on that detachment.

Could this be a hint of something to come?

Lets hope, but Custodian Guards are already expensive enough for strategems it would break them as is.

Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.

There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.


It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.


Would certainly shake up the meta..




The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.

There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.


It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.


Would certainly shake up the meta..




The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.

Probably too radical a change at this point. If they do a wholesale change at this point, I'd hope it goes more towards AoS, where players don't get all CP at the start, but they get x amount of CP at the beginning of each battle round. Spreads it out more and mitigates the first-turn-heavy game play a tiny little bit.

Also, CP regen should ideally be on CP NOT spent, rather than CP spent, forcing players into a tactical decision to save CP for potentially more CP later, or spend them early for an early in-game benefit but forgo their CP-regen ability.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.

There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.


It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.


Would certainly shake up the meta..




The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.

You would also need to rebalance all strategems. Not so easy

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.

There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.


It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.


Would certainly shake up the meta..




The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.

Probably too radical a change at this point. If they do a wholesale change at this point, I'd hope it goes more towards AoS, where players don't get all CP at the start, but they get x amount of CP at the beginning of each battle round. Spreads it out more and mitigates the first-turn-heavy game play a tiny little bit.

Also, CP regen should ideally be on CP NOT spent, rather than CP spent, forcing players into a tactical decision to save CP for potentially more CP later, or spend them early for an early in-game benefit but forgo their CP-regen ability.

I like that idea, how about from turn 2 onwards for every 5 CP you have left you get a CP on 5+ start of your turn?

BrianDavion wrote:


except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..

or so the design logic goes.

But that is not true. If I go and take an characterful mono army, and avoid the rule of 3, I am being punished for not taking the 32 IG dudes or some strong melee/shoting. Not just in power, but in the number of CPs I would get, and my army thank to GW did not get any good 1CP stratagems to be spamed.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..

or so the design logic goes.

But that is not true. If I go and take an characterful mono army, and avoid the rule of 3, I am being punished for not taking the 32 IG dudes or some strong melee/shoting. Not just in power, but in the number of CPs I would get, and my army thank to GW did not get any good 1CP stratagems to be spamed.

That doesn't make what he is saying any less true, it just shows that GW's implementation was less than perfect.
If you stop looking at it from GK's perspective the idea does fallow GW's fluff minded idea of how people should build their armies.
The main problem as always is that GW's rules writers don't think about the game in the same way the player's do so overvalue certain stats and fail to spot certain combos.

Aha, so am suppose to look it from a non GK perspective. Only I kind of a own a GK army, I don't see people changing the rules for GK players when their state is visibly unfun. Why should I get punished again, so that a group of tournament players and maybe people playing other armies have even more fun then they have now.

Also you know what, I think GW spots those combos just right. I think they knew very well what the ravellan or IG/soup rules are going to do aka generate sales, And while there is nothing wrong with a company wanting to sell more stuff, in fact it is a desired thing to expect, they really should do something about their knee jerk reaction to stuff. They never fix stuff, they kill it dead and make people buy other stuff. And while for people with good book this means they just have to switch from reapers to spears, for people with bad books this means their bad stuff always stays bad.