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.

It's already being discussed and there's already people trying to make it confusing just to discredit the FAQs as a whole

Just another day on Dakka.

Also I don't think they'll ever get to Chaos Space Marines. That book is just such a trainwreck that it might be altogether easier to wait for the release that Atia talked about and FAQ that instead of this.

 Jackal wrote:
Why should all walkers get +2 attacks?
Currently its only dreadnoughts.

So I'd expect the helbrute to get it, but no other walker.

Actually, it would be fair to give ALL the basic 'Dreadnought equivalents' the +2A bonus, especially for the dedicated 'close combat only' variants which are badly hurting right now...

2-3A base is simply not enough for 120-140+pts solo models. Look at Maulerfiends as a perfect example... supposedly a nightmarish close combat death machine, and yet, the only thing it's actually "good" at is being an expensive tarpit.
Dreadnoughts (both Imperial & Orky), Hellbrutes, 'Fiends, Defilers, Soul Grinders, Wraithlords, Talos, Carnifexes... these are large single models with very similar roles, either being expensive generalists, or else dedicated close combat monsters. Unfortunately, they're all (outside of the updated IoM Dreads) really, really awful at the close combat part, since they lack enough basic attacks to make even 10 Grots think twice about getting stuck in.

4A base at least allows these guys to reliably kill at least 1-2 enemies per turn, thus ensuring that an opponent will need an honest fething tarpit, and not just 5 Scouts to tie these models up for half or more of the game!

However, this is a change that really should be given out to everyone. If GW just gives to Marines, then non-Marine players will have a good reason to *****.


Of course, just giving the +2A to Hellbrutes will not in any way make them remotely playable, since it's their obnoxious stupid 'crazy chart' that is keeping them firmly in the "expensive shelf decoration" category!

+2A would at least mean however that Maulerfiends could finally a solid unit that no longer needs either 2-3 hitting the same target, or else another more expensive dedicated close combat squad to babysit them...

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.

It continues to work as normal unless a rule says otherwise.

True, but where do you stop though?
After maulerfiends do you go on to wraithlords, dreadknights, then move on to MC's aswell?

Alot of the nid MC's could use more attacks, but suffer for not having them.



I see the reasoning though as huge machines designed to rip through infantry should be able to do so.
But limited attacks hinder them alot.

Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(

Better they spend that energy on new codex books and a better ruleset imo.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(

That might be true if they were just randomly updating units. They're not... They're updating previously identical units that have been left behind by the latest SM update to be identical again. Ultimately, that's far less confusing for players than having scouts from different books having different stats for no reason other than the date the codex was printed.

I posted it in a response to updating other units like the CSM Helbrute. There is nothing wrong with fixing a few units. But what about Loyal and Traitor Land Raiders? Were do you draw the line?

Warhams-77 wrote:
Yes, it is a bad idea to start fixing units like this. Doesnt make sense to give boni to different kits and/or units. Next is upgrading Morkanauts to Superheavy via the faq like they should always have been? Once you start that, there will be no ending :(

Better they spend that energy on new codex books and a better ruleset imo.

A Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. Whether it's a Loyalist one, Chaos, Orky or the 'living' versions of the Eldar & Tyranids, they all function in an incredibly similar manner.
No one is suggesting we suddenly start expecting (or outright demanding) entire unit type changes, rather, simply pointing out that a specific class of unit is now widely varying.

Do I expect GW to give the +2A to all the other Dread equivalents? Hell no. We all know that Marines get special treatment, and that there's also really 0 difference between their Dreads besides the colour they're painted in.
Mind you, giving the +2A to the likes of Ironclads, Furiosos & SW specialist Dreads has certainly made them likely a bit too cheap for what they can now unleash, but again, they're Marines so being bonkers vs. their closest NPC army equivalents is fine.

All I was mainly pointing however, is that since GW have decided that Loyalist Dreadnoughts apparently needed +2A to become a more viable & capable unit, it is only fair & right that every other similar equivalent SHOULD be given the same treatment at some point.
If we all have to wait for a campaign/codex update fine. But if/when those come and say the Hellbrute and/or Ork Dreadnought stay with their current cripplingly low number of basic attacks? That'd be an insult on GW's part to non-Marine players.

Warhams-77 wrote:
I posted it in a response to updating other units like the CSM Helbrute. There is nothing wrong with fixing a few units. But what about Loyal and Traitor Land Raiders? Were do you draw the line?

Chaos Land Raiders actually need to have our old Infernal Device rule given back... right now, our Land Raiders are completely unplayable since they lack the one basic special rule that GW even admitted to being a necessary requirement back in the day, as the core rules have *never* supported the idea of a heavy transport that's also a main battle tank.

Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.
Who cares if means we ended up going back to the very reason why no-one would ever consider taking a Land Raider.

Even when they were all called Dreadnoughts in first edition (excluding the Screamer Killer Carnifex), White Dwarf 146 comes to mind with its large Dreadnought rules update for the vehicle template system, they were very different stats- and gameplay-wise.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.

True

Warhams-77 wrote:
Even when they were all called Dreadnoughts in first edition (excluding the Screamer Killer Carnifex), White Dwarf 146 comes to mind with its large Dreadnought rules update for the vehicle template system, they were very different stats- and gameplay-wise.

They may have small differences, but really, a Dreadnought/Hellbrute/Wraithlord/Carnifex all basically fulfill the exact same role of being a big stampy generalist death machine. Hence, if Loyalist Dreads were seen to be 'suffering' because of a lack of attacks in close combat making them obnoxiously easy to lock down forever, then it's 99.9% certain that the other various very similar units are almost certainly in the exact same boat.

And if 2-3A made a generalist Dreadnought too easy to tarpit with only 5-6 models, how in hell is it in any way remotely fair that a dedicated close combat only machine (ie: Maulerfiend), is perfectly fine with 3-4 WS3 attacks?

Clearly all Walkers in general need some help to make them less prone to being tied down by a tiny number of enemies... Some, such as Sentinels, Killa Kans, Riptides, etc... which are dedicated shooters of course should be easier to tie up with only a few models.
But it's clear by GW's own boosting of the Loyalist Dread that Walkers and their closest MC equivalents need a boost.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Chaos of course lost out because Jervis is a god damned moron who wanted there to be an obvious difference between the Loyalist vs. Chaos versions, hence, the removal of the Infernal device rule.

True

Every single rules issue that CSM's currently suffer from is because of Jervis... apparently being Marines -10 is our punishment for making his son cry non-stop for an entire year because we won the EoT campaign when we weren't supposed to?!

tneva82 wrote:
And there's no reason to expect chaos dreadnoughts don't get +2 when CHAOS FAQ comes out.

Except like, every single thing they've done to Chaos since 4th edition. But other than that, no reason to expect they don't get +2. No reason to expect that at all.

 Wolfblade wrote:
link: https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1640089679644998/1640088706311762/?type=3&theater

Man, they REALLY hate the Blood Angels.

 Frankenberry wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
link: https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1640089679644998/1640088706311762/?type=3&theater

Man, they REALLY hate the Blood Angels.

Pretty much. I am shelving mine completely. 100% will not buy any more. They even made sure to make our Start Collecting formation absolutely garbage.

What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.

Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.

u mad about dolls

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.

I've already lowered my expectations for the orkies. I'm assuming mob rule 7 & 8 will be just more "squabble" (i.e. kill yourself D6 times at ST+1) and cybork will be "no, it doesn't stack, so it's effectively useless" and Green Tide will be "ask your opponent to if you can use the old book" without providing any link to a pdf (even though they promised one.) All other change requests will just simply be "no." At this point I don't even think we'll get anything for walkers because they were never 2 attacks. Ork units don't need to "punch their weight" like the imperium do.

 EnTyme wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Well now I'm back to not knowing what order they want multiplication and addition to be done in, since Space Wolves and Blood Angels apparently do it differently.

Well, those aren't quite the same situation. Furious Charge is +1S on the charge, Thunder Wolf is +1S all the time. In other words, TW changes the unit's profile, FC does not. Thusly, in the case of the TW, you add the +1 before you multiply, but after multiplying for FC. This may be a better discussion for YMDC, though.

That's only because they decided to change how that's counted to avoid having to explain how to calculate TWC strenght properly or have IC's with S9 and TWC with 10.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
What exactly were you expecting out of a FAQ? It already provided buffs for 6 units.

Pretty much anything would be better than what we got. We will have to languish with a garbage codex and no worthwhile support. With 8th Edition coming up, I don't think we will see anything good. CSM at least have rumors of some pretty good support incoming.

We have the some of the nicest sculpted torsos, legs, heads, vehicle parts, dreadnought chests, librarians, tank bits, not to mention by far the best-looking jump pack units. ^.^

If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.

Unlike the other non-loyalist marines (Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels), the Blood Angels parts benefit from being highly interchangeable with all of the standard kits.

Back on topic, the Scouts and Dreadnought buffs are great.

The rest of the questions were pretty much what I expected, with some nice clarification on the 3-stomraven turn 1 charge that hardly anyone uses (too high points).

Games Workshop re-released the Looted Tank datasheet via today's blog post

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Blog/ENGWD021_025_web.pdf

It was only available in WDW in 2014 afaik

 Talys wrote:
If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.

You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?

'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.

Now I want to make the Ultra Dark Blood Wolf Scars, the ultimate chapter that can use anyone's rules!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.

You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?

'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.

This is exactly my opinion. I have the ability through my C:SM stuff to run my Blood Angels using the Raven Guard rules and get better results, but I don't want to. I want to run Blood Angels as Blood Angels and not have them suck. I want to run my Baal Predators and not have them suck. I want to be able to use my Tactical Squads and their Heavy Flamers. I want my Fast Rhinos.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Every single rules issue that CSM's currently suffer from is because of Jervis... apparently being Marines -10 is our punishment for making his son cry non-stop for an entire year because we won the EoT campaign when we weren't supposed to?!

The EoT campaign was actually quite funny.

Chaos did not win due to being OP or broken or anything like that. Chaos won because their playerbase was actually more organised and co-ordinated their results to seize key objective sectors while the Imperium ran around like headless chickens and fought amongst themselves. The differences in the two forums for the campaign were unreal. One side had posts urging results to be turned in for X, Y and Z and the other was too busy talking smack or complaining that they didn't want to do X, Y or Z.

The end result was that Chaos won because they co-ordinated their efforts. They knew the fights they couldn't win due to army percentages (i.e. everyone knew the DA players were going to throw in for Caliban, everyone knew certain sectors of the Cadian gate were going to be where Imperials threw everything) and resorted to taking all the sectors around them to build an advantage.

GW acted shocked at the result...to be fair, it was the fault of the playerbase rather than the rules and it amazes me that GW had such a kneejerk reaction in the editions following. There are quite simply too many personal vendettas and self-serving interests in the design team and it shows.

Cruddace with IG, Phil Kelly with Eldar ... furthermore it seems that rules are playtested in a vacuum - they abolished the playtester pool after the GK and Daemon leaks in 5th. The result was instead of tournament level players being able to provide feedback and show what shenanigans they could do we got people like Cruddace and JJ who believe that armies can only be played in a certain way and are determined to hammer that point across.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.

You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?

'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.

The DA FAQ disgusted me with their stance on the Deathwing detachment autolosing on Turn 1 because of that damn rule.

And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?

Use Unbound. Use Unbound.

When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'

That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?

What?

Well, Chaos lost the BFG side of things, but yeah.

I think the punishment thing is a myth, Jervis was at our local GW the other week, and everyone who I've talked to (I couldn't attend, work) said he's a really nice guy. I can't imagine him or the company purposefully smiting Chaos, especially since Daemons of Chaos wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is (for played right) if this were the case.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Now I want to make the Ultra Dark Blood Wolf Scars, the ultimate chapter that can use anyone's rules!

Well that's what tournament marine armies do anyway. Paint in whatever, use whatever rules happen to be most powerful. Bringing lots of bikes? Scars. Lots of infantry? UM or imperial fists.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
If you just wanna have a stronger force, call them Red Scars, Iron Templars, Blood Templars, whatever... and add your Centurions, Gladius, and whatever other flavor of cheddar you feel like And when you want to tone it down or be more fluffy, call them Blood Angels or Flesh Tearers, and play sanguinary guard, DC, furiosos, etc.

You do realise that some people would like their army to be good, not their army pretending to be something that's good, right?

'Counts As' is never the answer. You shouldn't need to steal someone else's rules to make a viable force from the army you've chosen.

This is exactly my opinion. I have the ability through my C:SM stuff to run my Blood Angels using the Raven Guard rules and get better results, but I don't want to. I want to run Blood Angels as Blood Angels and not have them suck. I want to run my Baal Predators and not have them suck. I want to be able to use my Tactical Squads and their Heavy Flamers. I want my Fast Rhinos.

@HBMC & Cas - Yeah, I do, and sure, I would prefer to have more powerful Blood Angels. But sometimes we can't have everything we want I would also like better Dark Eldar, and I'm sure that a lot of people would like better Imperial Guard, Tyranid, CSM, etc. etc. Playing 40k since 1989, I'm simply resigned to the reality that these egregious balancing disparities have existed for nearly 30 years and will for the foreseeable future continue. The 4 options are to play another game, play another faction, play them as intended, or use/mix the models with other kits to effectively play them as another faction.

My point was that what the Blood Angels players have that other non-loyalist factions Astartes don't have is the ability to use the models (which I genuinely think are superior) as a custom successor chapter -- not a Counts As -- and I mean, it's not like you have to paint them red. Whether they're purple, blue, yellow, or black, I think they're just awesome sculpts. They also share many vehicle frames that are similar/identical to standard models. In contrast, if you like the Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Grey Knights sculpts, and you don't like their rules, adapting those models are pretty rough. But I mean, there's nothing wrong with making White Scars out of Ravenwing kits, if that's your thing, right?

The great thing about Blood Angels, and really, why I decided to model them currently, is that I can use a lot of the models as both red-painted vanilla marines, or as true Blood Angels. I would actually say that 90% of the time, I play them as Blood Angels, and don't really mind the reduced power level, because the people I play with are pretty reasonable people, and don't try to play the absolute most powerful army that they can possibly bring to crush me. On the other hand, I DO want to play a bike army as white scars, sometimes, Iron Hands other times, Black Templars, etc. -- and I don't have the time to paint 100 basic space marines and a half dozen Rhino chassis models in 6 different colors, especially not at the quality that I would find acceptable to play with. I'd rather just add the bikes, centurions, death company, furiosos, stalkers, etc. as I go along, and be able to play them as whatever makes me happy at the time.

And by the way, I get that Baal Predators suck. But, let's be real, all Predators suck

I think Baal Predators are cool, but then I'm talking about the aesthetic value. The twin-Assault Cannons are great. Only thing better is the "Predator Decimator" we made that has the turret, but Hurricane Bolter sponsons.

Talys wrote:But sometimes we can't have everything we want...

So... just lie back and think of Sanguinius?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think Baal Predators are cool, but then I'm talking about the aesthetic value. The twin-Assault Cannons are great. Only thing better is the "Predator Decimator" we made that has the turret, but Hurricane Bolter sponsons.

Talys wrote:But sometimes we can't have everything we want...

So... just lie back and think of Sanguinius?

I would love an actual Predator Decimator! The models even exist, it just needs rules.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

And the staple response from a GW Manager on the page?

Use Unbound. Use Unbound.

When pointed out that at higher tier competitive level play and hell, most store events that Unbound was not an option his response was to 'not give negative feedback on a FAQ but to go to TOs instead.'

That's right. To address problems with core rules and detachments and to give feedback about a decision we....go to people that don't have anything to do with them at all....?

What?

Well, yes, if the solytion is to use Unbound armies, and your sole reason for not doing that is that the people running games you want to play in won't let you, then suggesting that you try to get those people to change the way they run their games isn't actually that unreasonable.


Of course, that's if you accept that may using Unbound is the solution to the problem, which it isn't. It's potentially a fun alternate way to create armies, but it doesn't address the balance issues for people wanting to use Battle Forged lists.