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.
2018/04/21 11:00:01
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
I can't remember if I posted on this thread or not but here goes.
- Expected a Guilliman nerf to his "reroll all" ability. I giess a points increase is still a nerf but not the nerf he needs
- REALLY expected a Cawl nerf after his points drop in CA 2017 and am still a bit confused that it didn't happen
- expected a Dakkabot nerf also and again, confu- You know what, theres so much gak I'm confused about.
I guess they're just trying to fix the main gameplay and tweaks will come later I guess? Stuff like Dakkabots, Slamguinius, Missile Sniper Exarchs, overpowered reroll auras, monsterous rending claws are problems themselves. Also the almost complete abscense of buffs to underpowered units like lictors and terminators is just weird.
As I said, I hope this is them trying to get the major kinks in the gameplay worked out before focussing on the minutae of the individual units.
2018/04/21 11:47:31
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Sim-Life wrote: I can't remember if I posted on this thread or not but here goes.
- Expected a Guilliman nerf to his "reroll all" ability. I giess a points increase is still a nerf but not the nerf he needs
- REALLY expected a Cawl nerf after his points drop in CA 2017 and am still a bit confused that it didn't happen
- expected a Dakkabot nerf also and again, confu- You know what, theres so much gak I'm confused about.
I guess they're just trying to fix the main gameplay and tweaks will come later I guess? Stuff like Dakkabots, Slamguinius, Missile Sniper Exarchs, overpowered reroll auras, monsterous rending claws are problems themselves. Also the almost complete abscense of buffs to underpowered units like lictors and terminators is just weird.
As I said, I hope this is them trying to get the major kinks in the gameplay worked out before focussing on the minutae of the individual units.
This explains it best:
Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.
This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.
2018/04/21 12:39:13
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.
Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.
Or an entirely new limit on them...say you can only have one aux per other detachment, Aux do not count towards max number of Detachments...Subtle difference...But in a tourny you could not have 3 aux and 1 battalion...the way you said it you could...
I would be fine with your one per other detachment limit, although I personally think if someone really wants to pay -3 CP out of their 8CP to run 3 aux's with a battalion I really would not mind too much.
2018/04/21 13:41:36
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
2018/04/21 13:48:08
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
I play Blood Axe Kommandos, I am now limited to playing a MAX of 45 Kommandos in my army which is a grand total of 405pts. I agree that stupid things like the 7 hive tyrants and 5 stormravens needed to go, but it really hurt other armies for no reason other than needing to stop people spamming OP crap. I think a better way to do that would have been to put restrictions on certain units rather then a far reaching band aid that hurts more then helps other armies.
IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
2018/04/21 14:33:53
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The max 3 datasheets is very fair and honestly we shouldn't even have the need of it. I mean, who's going to bring more than 3 of the same HQ, elite, FA or HS? Only WAAC players or that few ones that only love a small amount of models and want to play with just the same things.
I also used to spam something, I think of min units of reavers in 7th edition. Now I can't field the 6x3 units but still allowed to bring 36 bikes in total, even more in games above 2000 points.
Things like 5 stormravens or 7 hive tyrants are not even 40k and I'm glad they're banned from tournaments.
It varies in fairness from army to army. Its pretty silly that space marines have multiple datasheets for captains and Tau only have 1 datasheet for the 3 types of Tactical Drones. The whole only waac players spam more than 3 of a unit thing seems unwarranted towards armies with smaller rosters or datasheets that have lots of options. You can have up to 6 daemon princes because they have different datasheets for their winged variant, but Hive Tyrants only get 3 regardless of wings? Seems pretty unfair to me. A tau player is a spamming WAAC scumbag because they want 3 units of shield drones for their big suits, and some marker drones on the side? Meanwhile the index gives Eldar access up to 16 Autarchs from the 12 possible in the Codex.
Edit: To put that into context. There are more datasheets for Autarchs then GW currently sells. Both Codex and Index.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 14:37:24
2018/04/21 14:52:07
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
It varies in fairness from army to army. Its pretty silly that space marines have multiple datasheets for captains and Tau only have 1 datasheet for the 3 types of Tactical Drones. The whole only waac players spam more than 3 of a unit thing seems unwarranted towards armies with smaller rosters or datasheets that have lots of options. You can have up to 6 daemon princes because they have different datasheets for their winged variant, but Hive Tyrants only get 3 regardless of wings? Seems pretty unfair to me. A tau player is a spamming WAAC scumbag because they want 3 units of shield drones for their big suits, and some marker drones on the side? Meanwhile the index gives Eldar access up to 16 Autarchs from the 12 possible in the Codex.
Edit: To put that into context. There are more datasheets for Autarchs then GW currently sells. Both Codex and Index.
Yeah, limiting things by datasheets is a terrible idea. Some armies have vastly more options than others.And it is pretty damn arbitrary which things gets a separate datasheet and which things are just option in one datasheet. For example, there are six different datasheets for Space Marine Captain in the vanilla codex alone, and that's not counting the special characters.
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
2018/04/21 22:27:18
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The deepstike changes positively boost my Guard.
The deepstrike changes negatively affect my Deathwing units and drop pods.
The rule of 3 means less spam in the game, which is nice.
The rule of 3 doesn't cut down on other spam with mixed results for my army and others.
The rule of 3 could mean some units which need to be used en Masse to be effective, or even in a lore friendly way, now cannot be.
Battle brothers will make it harder to run some of my lists, but shouldn't affect me overly much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 22:29:27
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/21 23:41:33
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
FAQ attempted to fix some issues which while I think is admerable but the execution is a bit hamfisted and doesn't really get to the root of the problem. The core rules of 8th are really the issue here and it's gonna keep rearing its ugly head with every release and change they make.
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
2018/04/22 00:33:48
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Blackie wrote: IMHO the kommandos spam needed to be nerfed. 45 of them are already a lot for a unit that is sold as 5 man squads. In fact the majority of ork players that spam kommandos actually use standard boys as a proxy. A list with 90 kommandos is no different than the stormravens or hive tyrants spam, I think it's even worse since it relies on proxies a lot.
We can always bring 90 stormboyz and all the boyz we can fit in the budget.
About armies that are hurt or not competitive, remember that orks don't have a codex yet. No traits or clan bonuses, no stratagems, only one relic and index prices. We'll have our tools and points reductions.
90 Kommandos is 800pts, 5 Stormravers is 1500+pts same for the flyrants. They are drastically different, one is a game changer spam list, the other is a tactic that allows the army to compete without dying turn 1-2
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/04/22 00:55:24
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
They're just more expensive, but the concept is the same one. A massive spam of the same elite, HQ, HS, FA or flyer hurts the game. That's what I think at least. At some point chaos competitive lists spammed tons of undercosted malefic lords, AM spammed tons of scions command squads. You could get a lot of them with less than 30% of the points budget, like the 90 kommandos thing. Both malefic lords and scions needed to be nerfed, scions are still undercosted but at least the new deepstriking rules limit them a little bit.
I think orks can be competitive even without that many kommandos, or at least as competitive as a list with 90 kommandos. Da jump allows turn 1 assault and you can still field 3 max squads of kommandos, stormboyz and lots of boyz. Green tides are almost impossible to table in tournaments with time limitations and in casual or semi competitive games they should do ok anyway.
To take a Kommando Squad in reserve you have to field 1 unit not in reserve, to field 90 Kommandos in reserve for that trick you also needed to field 7 units on the table to compensate for them, to add to that, a Kommando is literally a WEAKER version of a boy model, I say weaker because it costs 50% more and has literally the same stats except doesn't benefit from +1 to attack for having big squads, but does gain +1 to cover...which is basically irrelevant since you want them charging as soon as they arrive so you don't put them in cover. You are comparing a spam list that wins tournaments by itself to a spam list that CAN NOT win by itself and requires several additional items to be even competitive, those being weirdboyz, Boyz and usually a buffing character, either a Painboy for durability or Ghaz to give them that +1 attack they desperately need.
To add to that even further, Blood Axes are a Klan and rely heavily on Kommando squads as a style, you can't do that with these restrictions. Like I said earlier, these restrictions make a lot of sense on units that are just ridiculous like Stormravens and such, but on a model that is a more expensive boy with a deep strike ability? no.
Nature's Minister wrote: Kind of hate the faq for invalidating deep strike armies. Lots of gunlines in my store's meta and usually don't play with a ton of terrain.
So now I am rebuilding my army as a chaos gunline. Prolly won't work out that well.
thing is GW expects you to be using a bunch if LOS blocking terrain. I do like the 50% rule and staying in own deployment zone.
I don't play a gunline currently and I have yet to see one in my local meta.
2018/04/22 07:05:06
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad And no one wants to start the old debate once again.
Some troops with no codex are currently bad like gretchin or blood claws, but when their codex is out they'll probably get some buffs. Wyches were the worst troop in the game, now they can even be competitive.
WAAC people spammed flyrants even with 3 kinds of good troops available. Ork boyz are generally considered good but someone spammed kommandos anyway. Fixing bad troops doesn't help in this matter, the limitation on the number of the same datasheet is a very good thing.
2018/04/22 07:25:45
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
I think Necron Warriors are pretty bad, but that might partly be because I want them to be bad as I prefer the look/mechanics of Immortals in every facet. >.>
That being said, they ARE pretty toothless with their glorified boltguns and are surprisingly easy to kill due to the 4+ save and the requirement to run max squads. The only reason I'm not certain that they're terrible is because Necrons got a morale immunity warlord trait for some reason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/22 07:27:24
2018/04/22 09:50:01
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
The beta deepstrike is a promotion for Guilliman castle & co or other similar list while it hit armies that needed that turn one charge (Grey Knights, Death Wing and maybe Custodes) ; also it is NOT a fix for the turn one issue
By the way are dark reaper point fixes that game changing?
2018/04/22 10:54:33
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/22 12:16:21
2018/04/22 12:21:46
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
Right but we horde players want to be able to take specialized troopz and in our ork army you have to take more then you need in order for any to get to their desired target. Take my love of the aforementioned Kommandos. I can run 3 units of 15, but I know they won't impact the game in the same way I want them to, as a Alpha Strike force to be augmented by 30 Ork Boyz being Jumped into range with them. Even when doubled and I take 90 it is still not a game breaking unit, what it does do though is force my opponent to bunker up in a corner and rely on his meatshields FAR more then he would like to.
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
2018/04/22 15:09:18
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
The nerf of the possiblity of bringing 3+ of the same datasheet doesn't have a huge impact in real metas, even competitive ones. It only affects major tournaments.
2018/04/22 17:47:30
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
The nerf of the possiblity of bringing 3+ of the same datasheet doesn't have a huge impact in real metas, even competitive ones. It only affects major tournaments.
Now go play that person at a smaller points value and let them take all the flying tyrents and see how fun that game is.
Also none of those lists you listed are lists I would consider optimised. Taking mishmash of things like that while it may be nasty for causal its not a list thats nastier than I would expect to face in comp. Devs still die like tacs, just cost 3x the price of a tac marine.
Also predators etc are not exactlly comp worthy lacking chapter tactics. A comp list should be able to smash morty or a super heavy turn 1, even 3 predators shouldn't pose a challange if you can do that.
2018/04/22 18:27:21
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Custodian wrote: The FAQ is ok,BUT
The rule of 3 hurts horde armies that wants to play by the background or armies with not that many model choices (Sisters being one of such armies as well as other really elite ones )
Horde armies are not affected by the rules since they spam troops. Sisters can have 3 units of retributors and 3 units of dominions, plus the troops. And they're still more than decent even without the codex and without tons of units available.
It doesn't hurt the game just because you say it does.
If you want that aspect fixed, fix the bad troops.
Such as? Don't say tac marines please, because they're not bad
You have a pretty warped view of the game apparently.
I actually play the game against real armies, I'm not doing theory hammer against something like 7 hive tyrants or 5 stormravens, which never existed in real life.
As much as you might want it to be true mass flyrent armies happen in real life. Maybe not in your avarage casual meta, but adeptacon showed definitely they do really exsist and needed addressing.
If your playing with newer players aye edge cases might not effect you.
But when your playing with people who have armies of 5k points and more. These edge cases become a real issue at 1-2k competative games as they are still leaving 2/3 of their army on the shelf.
I've played several times against tyranids lists with 3-4 hive tyrants. 3-4 of them are actually half of 7. Huge difference.
I know people that have 10k+ points of tyranids. None of them has more than 4 winged hive tyrants.
I don't know what adeptacon is
Spoiler:
but even in regular tournaments more than 3 winged hive tyrants were uncommon before the FAQ. The infamous tyranids lists with 7 flyrants is something that you wouldn't see even in competitive metas, it's very exceptional. Like the 5 stormravens thing. The Guilliman's gunline was very common instead since many players have a couple of predators, 3-5 razorbacks, devs, a stormraven, troops and all the other things that made that list overpowered in august-september last year. Maybe not many players had 6 razorbacks, but 3-4 were not that uncommon to see.
AdeptiCon is one of the largest 40k Tournaments in the U.S.. It has a major impact on American's and GW's perception of the game. And it is the reason the Big FAQ was delayed by several weeks.
Nature's Minister wrote: Kind of hate the faq for invalidating deep strike armies. Lots of gunlines in my store's meta and usually don't play with a ton of terrain.
So now I am rebuilding my army as a chaos gunline. Prolly won't work out that well.
thing is GW expects you to be using a bunch if LOS blocking terrain. I do like the 50% rule and staying in own deployment zone.
I don't play a gunline currently and I have yet to see one in my local meta.
If this were even remotely accurate GW would have released a vastly different set of rules for terrain, or redone most of their terrain to bock LoS. As it is precious little terrain actually blocks LoS completely or even partially. Looking at the rules and the terrain they sell, I’d say it is the opposite expectation. They want you to use lots of terrain to make it look cool, but don’t want it to have much effect on the game.
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
And no one wants to start the old debate once again.