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.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
Exactly. An air wing detachment in a 5000pt game is nothing major, I would consider it a good point sink to balance my forces for land/air/tank/stompy big smashy things.

And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

So the brigade detachment should have 5-6 flyer slots. Problem solved. Again, including the flyer detachment if they didn't intend for all/mostly flyer armies to be a thing means GW is still worthless garbage as far as game design goes.

Yeah exactly, it stinks of "oh sorry, we didn't mean for you to play apocalypse with this incredibly loose foc/detachment thing we gave you that limits very little to almost nothing while presenting the veneer of complexity with the depth of a tuna sandwhich. Let's address this imbalance by in no way clamping down and creating an actual foc that differentiates apocalypse from 40k but instead focusses on one unit type."


I shed no tears for flyers but, this whole edition so far has been "the dog ate my homework" over and over followed by an almost manic "but I'm the best and this is awesome and its all part of the plan". Which is it? You already have people getting berated for playing "wrong" in youtube comment sections for not playing itc hammer, the fracturing is already there, the post 5th balkanization is alive and well. in 8th. And it seems like all forms of 40k in their various play groups and leagues still kinda can't keep it a secret that even though the game is perfect and flawless and all falibility is human and not the lord gw's they still can't help but spurt under breath their longing for like actual terrain rules.

 Garrlor wrote:
And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

I don't think the realistic counterparts to such organizations are relevant, it's a game and these are meant to be rules that constrain and promote certain army designs. If they intended for people to use a combination of flyers and other things then my suggestion works just fine. If CP is an issue then they could require you to bring a battalion or brigade in order to unlock the air wing detachment. The way they designed it - 3-5 flyers per detachment - means that as long as you have 3 flyers you can have any number of flyers with no CP drawbacks - in fact you get just as many extra CP as any other army with two elite detachments. I don't think that flyer spam lists can be considered an unintentional consequence of this decision.

sossen wrote:

 Garrlor wrote:
And to reply to Sossen above. Command points. That is why. More CP for a bigger army. And be honest, how many patrols or battalions are going to call on masses of air support?

I don't think the realistic counterparts to such organizations are relevant, it's a game and these are meant to be rules that constrain and promote certain army designs. If they intended for people to use a combination of flyers and other things then my suggestion works just fine. If CP is an issue then they could require you to bring a battalion or brigade in order to unlock the air wing detachment. The way they designed it - 3-5 flyers per detachment - means that as long as you have 3 flyers you can have any number of flyers with no CP drawbacks - in fact you get just as many extra CP as any other army with two elite detachments. I don't think that flyer spam lists can be considered an unintentional consequence of this decision.

To that point, I accidently messed up my last list and forgot an extra hq for my patrol detachment, my opponent kindly pointed out that I could just take the 3-5 flyer detachment instead, it required zero change in my list and I actually gained an extra cp by doing so. It didn't feel like unlocking some deep wisdom or secret, it just felt silly. I gained a cp for messing up, this truly is a gw game lol

Here's hoping the next 8th ed FAQ addresses the army construction/detachments and maybe just puts fire arcs back for vehicles. 30k has never looked better

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Or GW doesn't make the flyer detachment and people would be crying about how they can't make the army list that they used to use.

I think the biggest change no-ones talking about is the change to understrength units.

An ode to all the heartbroken stormraven spammers:

Whine comes out of your mouth
And sadface is plain in your eye
A tantrum is building within
I look at you, and I sigh.

And to GW: Great job !!!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think the biggest change no-ones talking about is the change to understrength units.

the relevant bit is

If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment

so it costs 1 CP to take under strength units.

Nice little way to plug people spamming Understrength units for CPs

I'm not sure why so many people think the Flyer FAQ was a rule change. It's a clarification at best of their original intentions that were always in old editions that they apparently forgot to mention in this new one. Given that all the rules were rewritten from scratch, I can't fault them for missing a few.

"But playtests!!!"

... were done by people who understood how to play the game the way it was designed. Not these weirdo internet people who defy common sense and try have their tanks drive up trees.

 Arkaine wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think the Flyer FAQ was a rule change. It's a clarification at best of their original intentions that were always in old editions that they apparently forgot to mention in this new one. Given that all the rules were rewritten from scratch, I can't fault them for missing a few.

"But playtests!!!"

... were done by people who understood how to play the game the way it was designed. Not these weirdo internet people who defy common sense and try have their tanks drive up trees.

"Flyers have also been adjusted in light of some feedback from your matched play games. The design team want Warhammer 40,000 to be as fun as possible for as many players as possible, but we’ve noticed that a couple of army lists and certain units were crowding out other options. Now you’ll need to have feet on the ground (or tentacles, hooves, claws, or tracks) to win your games. Flyers are just as powerful as they were before, but now players are encouraged to take more diverse and unusual armies. It’s worth noting that this change only applies to matched play [...]"

Sure sounds like a rule change to me.

Daedalus81 wrote:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

Or GW doesn't make the flyer detachment and people would be crying about how they can't make the army list that they used to use.

I don't remember people running 6 Stormravens in 7th edition. Hevk, I don't even remember such a build in 6th. Definitely no such build where you had more Flyers than Tacsquads.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Conscripts and deepstriking plasma scions are making astra militarum really powerful and the lists sweeping tourneys all max out on either one of those. How should we fix this?"

"... I know! Nerf Pask!"

*smacks forehead*

I know I'm just salty because I run an armored company. But honestly. It's not like russ spam was a problem in any competitive environment. It's so far down on the list of priorities.

Pask wasn't nerfed, the rules for Pask (and the other Tank Hunters) where simply clarified because the rules where unclear.

Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

ThePorcupine wrote:
"Conscripts and deepstriking plasma scions are making astra militarum really powerful and the lists sweeping tourneys all max out on either one of those. How should we fix this?"

"... I know! Nerf Pask!"

*smacks forehead*

I know I'm just salty because I run an armored company. But honestly. It's not like russ spam was a problem in any competitive environment. It's so far down on the list of priorities.

GW nerfed Scion command squads a bit by adding a 40 point commander tax to each one. Still cheap.. but an elegant way to tone it down.

Titanicus wrote:
I'm definetly very salty about this faq and I probably won't be playing much of 8th because of it.

I run a mobile strike corsairs force, and 75% of my army is fliers, pheonix bomber, pair of nightwing and a vampire. The rest is jetbikes elements with a farseer pretending to be a prince because they took that option from me already. But now I'm on a situation where I lose just a few jetbikes I auto lose the game. It would have been much more just to knock down the op flyers and then say they can't grab objectives auto losing is just awful.

I play what I feel is a very thematic list and not just 5 empty buffed stormravens but now I'm going to be tabled every game turn 1 or turn 2.

The rule only applies to units with the flyer battlefield role, so you can't be tabled as long as the Vampire remains alive, which I'd say is a pretty reasonable compromise.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

I'm a professional editor.

No, no, text of any size is free of errors. For GW's books to have no errors would require divine intervention, and someone who claims otherwise simply does not know what publishing is like.

There will always be a need for FAQs. That GW is issuing theirs so quickly is only a good thing.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/17/40k-team-sport-atc-list-meta/
'ere you go. Unless I'm misunderstanding these lists, the Tony Grippando list (1st place) has 4 units of conscripts and Tony Kopach list (2nd place) has 3 larger units of conscripts. Spam? Not exactly. But both lists have conscripts and scions in common.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

The abussive methapor is a big one. Nobody is forcing you to buy this. All of your hyperbole isn't making your point of view any stronger.

I agree with what you are saying. But you are making of it such a big of a deal everywhere that is lookin absurd. We are talking about rules to play with expensive little plastic toys.
And please, stop the "white knights". Is so tiresome. Basically you are criticizing Games Workshop in an medium where you know that they can't respond you (Because if not you'll post all of this in their Facebook) and when some people challenge what you are saying, you call them White Knights because they don't think like you?
What do you want? A discussion forum or an Echo Chamber?

The hyperbolic rage is strong in this thread.

IMO, flyers fixed, problem solved, bonus point to GW for being quick about it.

The additional clarifications are welcome, too.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Can someone point me to a GT in which conscript spam was the winning list?

*Crickets* Nothing....

So far, Scions have been real bread winners, conscripts in the realm of vacuums and math hammer.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/07/17/40k-team-sport-atc-list-meta/
'ere you go. Unless I'm misunderstanding these lists, the Tony Grippando list (1st place) has 4 units of conscripts and Tony Kopach list (2nd place) has 3 larger units of conscripts. Spam? Not exactly. But both lists have conscripts and scions in common.

Excerpt from BoK, emphasis mine.

Blood of Kittens often gets requests to post on the most “elite” corner of competitive Warhammer 40k, Team Tournaments, specifically the biggest team tournaments the ETC, ATC, and Adepticon Team Tournament. What makes team tournaments interesting is the different play styles and list building necessary to compete in those events. Match ups and pairings are often times more important than the games themselves, as the rock, paper, scissors tendencies are amplified and exploited. Helped by knowing what your opponent is going to take and the strengths and weaknesses of each participant.

It is for those reasons, I have often resisted talking about those events, as they don’t represent how the game is really played, nor do they represent an experience the average Warhammer 40k player exists in. What they do bring though is a barometer of where the game is currently at and most importantly the biggest problems it has.

In short, take what you see at ATC or any team tournament with a big grain of salt unless of course you only participate in team tournaments. As for BoK's remark about it being a barometer about the ATC being representative of the biggest problems, even his choice of analogy is revealing in that a barometer is only capable of measuring only a small localized area or in this case a segment of the matched play scence and like in weather is only useful for short term forecasting in that immediate area. So if you want to build lists based on ATC's meta, then by all means do so. Just don't be surprised if YMMV with how succesful (or eligible) those type of lists are in all matched play settings and organized tournaments. I think another poster had the right of it that GW has essentailly put everyone on notice that they are watching the matched play scence and that abusive lists that run counter to the spirit and intent are going to be addressed quickly (for better or worse remains to be seen).

If anything, I am a little more concerned that GW maybe reacting too early. It's hardly been one month since 8th was officially released and we as a community are still running it through it's paces without the benefit of the codices which like the battletomes in AoS will inevitablely move the needle. What we all seem to be engaged in is a rush to find that mythical auto win list and/or be the first to gain the also mythical moral high ground by labeling some list (or player) as the most evil WAAC list (or player) ever. Hmmmm......New 40k hobby meet the old 40k hobby...oh I see you are already well aquainted with each other.....

That said, I like the overall direction the FAQ's are taking. GW is diffinetly interested in maintaining a certain level of balance while still allowing for list creativity that creates the imbalance that is necessary for this type of game. Without it, the game would become stale very quickly or become unweildly nigh impossible to play as what occurred with 7th.

At the end of the day, I think we take a deep breath, digest, apply, adpat and keep playing.

 Garrlor wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

No.

The reason why we can't nice things is GW failed to balance for them. A list full of flyers could be balanced so it works with the game, if the rules and point costs for such units were correct. GW did not write rules that allowed for this, and then decided the best fix was to make all flyer lists literally unplayable. That is still GW's fault. The blame always and forever rests with them.

But if we were being even semi realistic, why would you want to take a list of all flyers? You want flyers to gain aerial superiority over your enemy, so that you may strike at them un-opposed from the air. An all flyer list can do this, but is vulnerable to AA from the ground without ground forces moving in to occupy and distract that ground based AA. The problem with something like this in 40k is the lack of AA to most ground units, whereas in a modern military things like man-pads are common. Aircraft have the same problems that tanks do, in that they will struggle to dislodge entrenched infantry and to hold ground. Hence why no one runs an all Pred list, as you know that there is a lot of anti tank out there and its pointless.

That is an issue with the balance of the game in of itself, as the lack of reliable AA in a unit is a pain, but I can also see the reasoning in keeping the options down as much as possible for a skirmish game like 40k. Air support should be just that, support, not the whole thrust of an army.

+1 to this.

I think they should have introduce a new type of AA weapon that can be taken by troops and havocs. Like anti aircraft missile. Make it have a +2 to hit fliers, str8, and does d6 damage (like a missile) but on fliers, it does 2d6 damage.

I have also always wondered at the resilience of fliers this edition. Hard to hit is one thing already, but most fliers irl are so afraid of damage that any kind of hit on them has them running back to base for repairs, or emergency landing and such. Yet fliers in 40k seem to be able to shrug off metal melting lascannon blasts like nothing and just keep on going. Fliers are simply a lot more vulnerable compared to a tank because a tank is surrounded by steel while a flier has vulnerable exhaust points, rotors and such.

Actually, while I appreciate that people may think twice about spamming fliers now, but how does this stop hiding a special hard to kill character with a 4++ save behind a bunch of fliers? You can't target a special character unless its the closest so you still have to wade through all the fliers to get at that cowering single character anyway. Close assault can do it, but yeah, lets try to close assault to the edge corner of a board with 5 SR flying around blasting you to bits...

Anyway, world eaters are fluffy and viable now. Sure, have fun fielding an all flyer list. Then let's see your few infantry models and that one character hold off 2000 points of berserkers on the ground all by himself. lol

 Crablezworth wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
People get very grumpy about tournament players actually playing to win. If the game isn't balanced, that's no ones fault but GW, and all anger should be directed at them.

I can understand an faq/errata being a positive development to some but we haven't even seen the first codex yet. How a brand new edition needing this much faq'ing isn't PR nightmare is beyond me.

Well, let me clear that up for you.

EVERY edition of 40K ever made has required this much faq'ing at this point in its launch cycle. The difference between then and now is that the FAQ's are actually happening instead of GW going months to years before gaking one out.

You're confused because you aren't used to Games Workshop actually being responsible.

"Daddy was always abusive, so now that he's less abusive you should enjoy the abuse"

Being responsible is noticing an error before it goes to print, not saying thanks for the money, you can't judge me because I'm acknowledging my mistakes. GW isn't a recovering alcoholic whose sensitive about criticism, nor are they a maiden in need of some sort of monochromatic knight like figuer to defend their honor, they're big boys.


I'd love to see the level of fanatacism and apologetics fly in another subculture. "Hey, leave nikon alone, only 10% of their cameras fail now, it used to be 20% just a few years ago. And I mean yeah, their ceo was indicted for murdering all those hookers, but its a dangerous job!"

Journalism: "Oh man, it's so good that this newspaper that has been an institution for over a century is having to write more and more retractions, its just great to see them taking more responsibility, surely its a sign that not only are we telling more truth than ever, but we've never been this good at it!"

We can all be happy about an FAQ, but saying there shouldn't be a need for them isn't provocative in the slightest.

can you name a SINGLE table top game that does not have to publish FAQs and Errata? go on a SINGLE one.
I'm waiting, until then, Shut up.

Normally people complain that GW does not put out FAQs fast enough. Now we are getting them thick and fast and people are still moaning....

Its a massive game, lots of armies and lots of changes to how the game is played in 8th. There were always going to be mistakes, rules clarifications and changes. Lets just be happy GW cares enough to get into them quickly. Lets be honest no one is going to miss seeing 4-5 Storm Ravens across the board in a 2k points game now are they.

< deleted>

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


It shows they are either incompetent or malicious.

Oh boy. I think you're taking this far too personally.

He obviously doesn't play videogames. I'd hate to hear his opinion on one of those dev teams...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sossen wrote:
GW made the flyer detachment and thus enabled flyer spam lists. If they intended for players to just take one or two flyers then they practically failed on purpose.

The rules as written must be able to support large point games.

What, exactly, are you going to do when people want to pool models and play a 25k points game?

Limit them to 1 or 2 flyers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh...and Tau players should be happy. This FAQ fixes their shield drones.

Pages 53, 63 and 69 – Abilities
Add the following sentence onto the end of the MV52
Shield Generator and Shield Generator abilities:
‘In addition, roll a D6 each time a Drone with this
ability loses a wound; on a 5+ that Drone does not lose
a wound.’

Wow...that makes those little bastards hands DOWN the best ablative wounds in the game.

...and they gave the sunshark two more ion rifles.

Eldenfirefly wrote:



+1 to this.

I think they should have introduce a new type of AA weapon that can be taken by troops and havocs. Like anti aircraft missile. Make it have a +2 to hit fliers, str8, and does d6 damage (like a missile) but on fliers, it does 2d6 damage.

I have also always wondered at the resilience of fliers this edition. Hard to hit is one thing already, but most fliers irl are so afraid of damage that any kind of hit on them has them running back to base for repairs, or emergency landing and such. Yet fliers in 40k seem to be able to shrug off metal melting lascannon blasts like nothing and just keep on going. Fliers are simply a lot more vulnerable compared to a tank because a tank is surrounded by steel while a flier has vulnerable exhaust points, rotors and such.

Actually, while I appreciate that people may think twice about spamming fliers now, but how does this stop hiding a special hard to kill character with a 4++ save behind a bunch of fliers? You can't target a special character unless its the closest so you still have to wade through all the fliers to get at that cowering single character anyway. Close assault can do it, but yeah, lets try to close assault to the edge corner of a board with 5 SR flying around blasting you to bits...

Anyway, world eaters are fluffy and viable now. Sure, have fun fielding an all flyer list. Then let's see your few infantry models and that one character hold off 2000 points of berserkers on the ground all by himself. lol

Been there, done that last edition. We don't need something that restricts lists.

If Stormravens are guarding a character then the 24" guns aren't doing much of anything. If they're hovering they're more vulnerable otherwise like other flyers they'll be forced to move.

I'm sure we'll still see the SR / Razorback Asscan lists, but an army of knights could easily plink the tanks off the board. This new rule doesn't stop the possibility, but it gives a whole lot more pause to the list builder.

Gibs55 wrote:
Normally people complain that GW does not put out FAQs fast enough. Now we are getting them thick and fast and people are still moaning....

Its a massive game, lots of armies and lots of changes to how the game is played in 8th. There were always going to be mistakes, rules clarifications and changes. Lets just be happy GW cares enough to get into them quickly. Lets be honest no one is going to miss seeing 4-5 Storm Ravens across the board in a 2k points game now are they.

Of course not. I just find it annoying we are heaping praise on GW for fixing a screw up balance wise (and arguably not fixing the main isue but that's another discussion entirely) while also somehow treating the players who used the unbalanced strategies, in tournaments designed for WAAC mentality, as if they were the ones responsible.

No. 1000 times no. GW does not deserve praise for managing to FAQ a slapdash fix for issues that were ultimately their own fault.