Switch Theme:

Big FAQ - What do you want to see?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Wing Commander





Few things:

This is a FAQ, not a CA. You will likely not see points changes, just answers to confusion about rules.
This is FAQ, they will not be introducing new chapter abilities or updating Greyknights.
The Castellan will likely not see any massive changes, like points, or weapons.
Guard will likely still be the same cost.

That being said:

I would like to see someone address what the strict definition of flyer is. Are they high up in the clouds, ala can't be assaulted by anything not a flyer, or are they hover tanks. If they are flyers, can I assume they are floating ABOVE the ruins, ala in LOS for shooting, or are they 5 feet off the ground behind it? I am sick of the "modeled for advantage" type of interceptors/suppressors/jetbikes. Either it's 5' off the ground and I can melee it, or it's 50' off, and I can't assault it without FLY.

I would like to see the Bolter rule made official, and somehow applied to Custodes, and non-RF weapons. Stalker rifles, and Auto-bolt rifles, looking at you. Not saying extra shots, but maybe overwatch help?

Finally, I want to see a judgement from GW on GK being overpowered, and nerfing them by restricting them to Paladin Squads only.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not sure what your problem is with the definition of Flyers. It's clear and consistent (though not necessarily completely logical). You draw LoS from the model the same you would any other model in the game.

I think the bolter rules will be made official, as happened with other beta rules. I'd like to see the Fly rules they changed on the last FAQ (or was it the one before that?) changed a little bit. I'd also like to see GW address the current imbalance between soup and mono-faction armies in some way.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Errata to allow deployment from Night Scythes on the first turn.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






I'd like to see a new rule for Imperial Knights that Exalted Court and Heirlooms of the House cannot be used on Super Heavy Auxillary Detachments.

I'd also like to see a rule that Flyers do not block movement for non-flyers as long as their movement does not end within an inch of the flyers base.
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

All I am hoping for is something to end CP farming/batteries. I don't care how extreme it is. It could be something like Brood Brothers where other detachments don't get traits and give half CP, it could be only spending CP generated from detachments on stratagems for that detachment, it could be only allowing Battalions or giving everyone a set amount of CP based on points for Matched Play for all I care. But this tumor needs to be removed once and for all.

Also, I think that GW needs to move beyond this "FAQs are only rule adjustments, CA is only points" garbage. Errata should be errata, plain and simple. Both should do whatever is needed, if that means points change in an FAQ or a datasheet gets updated in CA, so be it. The separation just allows things to dominate longer than they should and has no point to be a thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/04 13:56:22


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd like them to change their ruling about vertical distances in the movement phase, and how it interacts with fly:
- Distances for models with the fly keyword are measured diagonally between the starting point and the end point.
- For models that can't fly, distances are measured following the terrain: a 3" tall building is 2" away from you, you need to move 5" to get on top. So quite normal
And then allow the fly keyword to work in the charge and fight phases again.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Wayniac wrote:
All I am hoping for is something to end CP farming/batteries. I don't care how extreme it is. It could be something like Brood Brothers where other detachments don't get traits and give half CP, it could be only spending CP generated from detachments on stratagems for that detachment, it could be only allowing Battalions or giving everyone a set amount of CP based on points for Matched Play for all I care. But this tumor needs to be removed once and for all.

Also, I think that GW needs to move beyond this "FAQs are only rule adjustments, CA is only points" garbage. Errata should be errata, plain and simple. Both should do whatever is needed, if that means points change in an FAQ or a datasheet gets updated in CA, so be it. The separation just allows things to dominate longer than they should and has no point to be a thing.


Keep in mind GW is in it to sell models. To that effect, they will likely never do anything to limit soup, because they want to encourage people with one army to buy allied units from another. I play Guard, but I saw Knights looked cool, so bought some of them. Custodes are cool, so I have some of them too. Space Marines? Sure, I have some of them too. If allies were discouraged like that, they'd see a reduction in sales, so they're not likely to do it. They actively encourage bringing allies in it seems. It's not going anywhere.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch





Dallas area, TX

I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs.
Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do

It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list

--------------------------------------------------
I'd also like the Bolter Discipline rule to become official, but with a slight change that incentivizes getting close somehow. Standing still should not be encouraged for frigging Marines!
I think the best way to achieve this is to grant +1 shot, rather than doubling, in addition to getting double shots at half range as normal.
So a Bolter Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but if they are at half range, they get 3 shots (RF1x2 +1).

This would also prevent Stormbolters/Twinbolter from getting 4 shots at 24" as they would only get 3 if stationary, Terminator, Biker, etc.
But once you get within 12", those become 5 shots (RF2x2 + 1)
------------------------------------------------

The final thing I'd like to see if -1 to hit Traits addressed.
Alaitoc, RG & AL could be changes to gaining Cover even in the open, or +2 if actually in Cover.
Either something Cover related, or Cap Negative Hit modifiers to -2, OR grant everyone "6s always hit"

-

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/04/04 14:11:01


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Darsath wrote:
Errata to allow deployment from Night Scythes on the first turn.


Errata to allow drop pods to come in on turn 1. I never thought I would say it but I miss seeing drop pods on the table.

Perhaps an errata so that auxiliary detachments of any kind cannot take relics/whatever and do not unlock sub-faction specific stratagems.

Possibly an errata on move-blocking by supersonic flyers, seems not only weird but is being leveraged by flyer-spam lists in a way that I am fairly sure was unintended.

Oh and a bunch of minor FAQ stuff for interactions which are not always clear, I have sent a couple into the email address myself since the last FAQ drop for things that came up in games which we still could not quite figure out a week later

But really I neither expect or demand that much from this big FAQ. Earlier on in the edition they had some pretty urgent fixes to apply, now I think there is nothing too outrageous that needs a massive fix.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs.
Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do

It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list

-


I don't know about the +3CP per turn for WL, but I like the idea of +5 for battle forged and +3 for Battalions. Make Brigades +10 while you're at it, so you don't unintentionally buff the Brigade + Castellan lists, and it sounds good to me.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Considering there isn't suppose to be any big changes in the FAQ, I hope that GW doesn't decide to change some aspect of the game based on the LVO or adepticon results, that somehow boomerang back to nerf GK. This is the only thing I hope to get out of the FAQ.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs.
Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do

It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list



It feels like too big a change for a FAQ. Although they could try it out as a beta rule ahead of some possible 8.1 release

If so I would prefer something like
Warlord generates a number of CP per turn
3CP if your entire army shares all faction keywords with warlord (including specific exemptions such as Ratlings/Kroot etc as noted in codexes)
2CP if your entire army shares at least one faction keyword that is not Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranid with warlord
1CP otherwise

I can't see it happening in a FAQ but apparently GW are well aware that the balance between mono-faction armies and mash-ups is still not quite what the player base would like.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Sisters of Battle beta v2 - to allow for incremental improvements leading up to the release.

Points for the inquisition.

No minimum effort fixes - i.e. dirt cheap grey knights or gimping allies to fix the symptom rather than the cause.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Howling Banshee




Bolter Rule to apply to Ruberic Marines as if they were Terminators. Plllllleeeeeaaaase!

Flamers cannot target flyers.

Give 'Mere Mortals' Cultist rule to Thousand Sons and Death Guard to keep it consistent.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Yea, I think the biggest "systemic issue" that they could fix with a FAQ if they're not getting into points changes is the problem of small allied detachments fueling elite detachments with functionally unlimited CP.

The CP generation nerf was a helpful bandaid, but it's clear that the problem continues in almost every competitive format: Armies designed around having fewer CPs should have fewer CPs, and any army that is heavily disadvantaged because they don't have good strats for an elite CP-light army (Grey Knights for example) should be redesigned with better strats.

It's very clear from looking at the power of stratagems you can use on your Imperial Knight versus the power of stratagems you have on similar units who have access to cheap troops (See: Baneblades) GW intended certain armies' stratagems to be balanced around them having less CP.

Custodes, Blood Angels, and Knights were not designed to have 20CP and a regen every turn. They were designed to have more potent strats and a more limited pool. Allies allow a workaround and artificially increase the power of those factions, and repeatedly nerfing the units of those factions does nothing to address the core problem, which is perfect for a FAQ fix.

Simple, imperfect (but simple) blanket solutions could be:

-Detachments outside of your primary warlord's detachment generate 1/2 of the normal CP (the GSC Brood Bro rule, applied to everyone)

-You may only use Command Points generated by a particular codex's units (either from detachments or during the game) on stratagems from that codex. CPs you generate from being battleforged can be used for any codex.

I am not saying either of the two solutions above are the *best* possible solution, but they are a solution GW could implement without doing too much systemically to restructure the game.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch





Dallas area, TX

Another change I'd like to see is a tweak to the Beta Reserves restriction.

We went from "only in your DZ turn 1" to "never on turn 1". I really think there could be a better in between.
Restricting arrival of reserves on the first PLAYER turn would be more than fair. It would mean the player who got first turn is able to, ya know, GET FIRST TURN but not bring in any Reinforcements, but the player who goes second CAN bring in Reinforcements on their first turn in response.

IMO, this would make a huge difference in the first turn advantage. I mean, currently if you go second and have Reinforcements, you have to weather 2 whole opponent's turns before getting to use them!
But, if you could bring in Reinforcements before your opponent, going second doesn't sting so bad

-

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/04 14:30:40


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think we'll see the following:

#1 - Modification to Beta Bolters.
#2 - Modification Flyers.
#3 - Modification to a few stratagems.

And that's really it. What I'd like to see is:

#1 - Beta Bolters stay the same.

#2 - Make it so that units without the Fly keyword ignore the base of a unit with the Flyer Battlefield Role when moving, charging, or making close combat attacks, and that such units can stand "under" such unit's bases in these situations, using wobbly model syndrome or similar.

#3 - Make it again so that units that can't reach a platform filled with enemy units can still make their close combat attacks against them by being counted as being in base-to-base contact while within 3" of the model's base vertically, and still within 1" of the model's base horizontally (attack up through a floor).

#4 - I know we don't see point cost changes in these things, but the Loyal 32 continues to have its presence felt very strongly. I just find it so hard to believe that Cultists keep getting nerfed, but the Guardsman remains untouched.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Imperial Knight invulnerable saves capped at 4++ as the short and dirty version.

Ion Bulwark changed to something else, like a single invul. re-roll per turn or so instead of +1 or so, as the more elegant version.


Also a generic version of Agents of Vect for all armies as a standard strat. Not gonna happen, but hey.


All Imperial Guard Orders should probably be converted to Stratagems. Having that retro-7th layer of special-snowflake rules on top of strats doesn't really do anything.

Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/04 14:38:08


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Perfect ambush only affects infantry. Cap gsc death beam at 8 mortal wounds. Make kellermorph 85 pts.

No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.

Guardsmen go to 5 pts. Orders function on a 4+, conscripts get no orders.

Doom goes to wc 8.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




How about changing flamers so that they can shoot at charging units regardless of how far away they started? I mean serously I shoot this giant gout of flames at a person if they start close to me but if they give me more time to react by starting farther away I get so confused that I don't fire at all. WTF?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Still wouldn't use flamers, but sure.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch





Dallas area, TX

Martel732 wrote:
Doom goes to wc 8.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.

-

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Oh okay. Thats fine too.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Doom goes to wc 8.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.

-


And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch





Dallas area, TX

 Horst wrote:
 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Doom goes to wc 8.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.

-


And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.
Agreed, although the former is an obvious response to the later. Remove the 3++ Castellans from the meta and packs of Haywire Harlies with Doomseers will start dropping off the meta too

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Martel732 wrote:
Perfect ambush only affects infantry. Cap gsc death beam at 8 mortal wounds. Make kellermorph 85 pts.

No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.

Guardsmen go to 5 pts. Orders function on a 4+, conscripts get no orders.

Doom goes to wc 8.


So, for the rest of it I get "nerf everything that's not my army kthxbye" but what non-infantry GSC unit is abusing Perfect ambush in your mind?

Surely that strat is mostly being used with aberrants/acolytes, right?
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





UK

Martel732 wrote:
No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.

Already is for Renegade Knights so would level the playing field.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brothercastor/
Ultramarines [800]
Chaos Knights [1500]
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Horst wrote:
 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Doom goes to wc 8.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.

-


And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.

That said, spamming haywire grenades is only really up there when shooting a 3++ Castellan. Anything lighter than that, and it's not as stupendous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Brother Castor wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.

Already is for Renegade Knights so would level the playing field.


Wishlist of mine:
IG, IK, SM, and AdMech non-special-characters may replace the IoM keyword with Chaos.

With a few other stipulations, of course.

Pure wishlisting, though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/04 15:17:23


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Brother Castor wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.

Already is for Renegade Knights so would level the playing field.


Only issue with that is Guilliman and other LoW characters who cannot be fielded in anything but an aux slot.

I'd rather see it written such that, "no strats, relics, traits in an aux LoW slot unless another detachment from the codex in the same army grants at least 1 CP". So you can take Guilliman and still use strats and traits for him, so long as you've got another detachment of Ultramarines in the army go give 1 CP.

Would only really nerf Knights aux slot, which is the intent of this modification, so I think it's fine.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Would you get the same effect if strats/relics/etc required at least 1 Detatchement, for which Aux doesn't count?

The other detatchement would permit access, and keywords would allow the LoW detatchment to take the options, I think?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: