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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.

1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.

Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.


You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.

1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.

Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.


You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is

lol.

My Sororitas fielded 102 models in my last game against ~150 orks.

"40k is a skirmish game"
Lol.

I am going to be one of those that thinks the firing arcs and facing were rather stupid. They were not realistic in any way unless one had a certain way of suspending disbelief.

First of all a tank could only shoot when stopped at point B after travelling from point A even though these were highly advanced equipment that should at this point be able to shoot at any point while travelling between A and B.

Second, most of the vehicles available tend to be rather agile barring Imperial technology(which is still stuck in WW2 era) which means that at any point these tanks/vehicles should be able to rotate at will. This becomes especially ridiculous when thinking of Vypers, Venoms, Raiders, and the more agile vehicles.

The rules were designed around Leman Russ schematics which meant that every advanced technology(and therefore rules) was in essence a WW2 tank in practice. This just isn't realistic at all.

In general those rules just made vehicle designs limited and boring(everything had to be in essence a World War 2 tank by design) and nearly impossible to balance unless the design was always in the traditional form. I mean, god forbid somebody set the sponsons of the Landraider in the aft slot. That player in essence was ruining their own game even though it looked cool. This rule was anti-kitbashing(something that the game used to endorse) as you were either kitbashing for advantage or disadvantage.

Also, unless you are playing Custodes this game is far from skirmish these days.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.

1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.

Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.


You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is

Orks, nids, IG, chaos, and genestealer cult all routinely field over a hundred models in a list, sometimes up to 200, that is absolutely company size.

In addition, about 10 vehicles is a company. Many 40k armies field that sort of strength.

Remember, lots of people play 40k at 2k. That is absolutely company strength for all but the most elite armies in this game.

It's about 2,000 points for stripped down company of Space Marines isn't it?
3 Superheavy tanks, 10 leaman Russ... Definately company scale at 2k.

What do I expect form the "Big FAQ" in March?

1. Very Little Rules Errata: I don't expect GW to update unit rules unless those rules don't do what they are supposed to do OR lead to player confusion. AM Grinding Advance is a prime example. Player's couldn't accept the simple concept that staying stationary is the same as moving 0", so they added errata to spell it out.
2. Lots of FAQ Questions Answered: Any questions from Codexes that need answers after their 1st Post Release FAQ will be updated.
3. Matched Play Rules Updates: They may incorporate some of the Beta Rules, and maybe other rules, into the Matched Play part of the game. I don't expect any rules changes to Open or Narrative Play.
4. Matched Play Point Updates: At least to correct the outliers that are having too much impact on Matched Play.

What do they need to do?

1-3 Above

4a: Massive Overhaul of Matched Play Points: GW needs to take a serious look at Match Play Points and how Tournament Players use them to optimize their list. They then need to learn from that to shape the point levels of units to get players to bring list that are both more "balanced" and "background consistent". What do I mean by this?

Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.

Bare-Bones Slot Fillers and Road Blocks: You see them in nearly every competitive list. A unit that is purchased with only compulsory equipment to make it as cheap as possible. These units exist either to fill a slot in a FOC or to serve as bubblewrap and speed bumps. GW should like at minimizing or even eliminating some of the cost of upgrades in these units to encourage the use of the "proper" unit. If the cheapest Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon for a unit were 0 and instead the cost was incorporated into the unit cost, a lot more AM Grenade Launchers and Space Marine Flamers or Heavy Bolters would appear in the game.

Would love to see the removal of all the silly primaris restrictions. Won't happen, but it'd be nice

 alextroy wrote:

Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.

You don't consider having to take a Prime for every CMD unit a premium cost?

No?
Who would take Plasma Guns on a deepstrike unit and _Not_ bring something to stop them overcharging? In any army? Ever?

You're taking the prime if you're taking a command squad or a regular squad.

Chrysen wrote:
Would love to see the removal of all the silly primaris restrictions. Won't happen, but it'd be nice

Next best thing would be to at least give us a Primaris equivalent of a Rhino (assuming the Repulsor is their equivalent of a Land Raider). One of the big advantages of Inceptors is they don't need transports and can be protect from alpha-striking.

Regarding fire arcs, the problem is they then introduce all sorts of fiddly movement as players try to get them positioned correctly. Some detail can add flavour to the game but some just make it less satisfying.

I would like to see something done to address the strength of alpha. Something like the old Night Fighting rules on the first turn to help blunt T1 shooting a bit. Many games are over before one player gets a proper go.

 LunarSol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.

You don't consider having to take a Prime for every CMD unit a premium cost?

As AdmiralHalsey noted, you're going to take a Prime anyway, so not really. And as I noted, the Prime will be just as effective either way. Sure you lose you melee weapon for the Command Rod, but you know your taking that if you have more than one MT unit anyway.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.

1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.

And it makes it harder to value tanks since some have better firing arcs than others. It's way simpler to just expect a tank to be able to shoot everything.

The big thing I'd want is some changes in detachments for matched play. Somehow balancing soup (no "free" 3cp for being battleforged maybe) and you can only use stratagems that match your warlords keywords.
I'd also want flamers to have 2d6 hits pick the highest and ignore cover saves. If people think that makes them too good then raise their points, just make them feel special.

Also drop sicarian ruststalkers 5 ppm.
And make rubric marines' inferno boltguns free and give the squads the icon of flame for free as well.

PiñaColada wrote:

Also drop sicarian ruststalkers 5 ppm.

Ruststalkers and Infiltrators need more than just a point drop to be useful. Without some added utility, they just won't have a place. Making them simple pump-and-dump melee units doesn't work at all, since the Imperium already has a million flavours of that that are better in every way. They need meaningful utility that allows them to work well with the greater Admech army.

Right now, I wish we had a date for this FAQ. If it's going to balance the game/shake up the "meta" then it should be coming sooner rather than later, but we have heard nothing.

Honestly, I am just going to be hopeful they fix enough. This FAQ should be basically a mini-CA as well as clarifying rules; they need to adjust datasheets, change points, remove/add/change wording, etc. for it to be well-received.

 Fafnir wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Also drop sicarian ruststalkers 5 ppm.

Ruststalkers and Infiltrators need more than just a point drop to be useful. Without some added utility, they just won't have a place. Making them simple pump-and-dump melee units doesn't work at all, since the Imperium already has a million flavours of that that are better in every way. They need meaningful utility that allows them to work well with the greater Admech army.

1) Ruststalkers get their grenades back or get given the same grenade rules as Reivers. Them being able to 'turn off' enemy Overwatch would make them and Infiltrators a bit more viable.
2) Infiltrators get their debuff aura back. Again, this would be a Huge Deal.

Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.

PiñaColada wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.

So here's where the problem comes from with Ruststalkers:

Last edition, they were intended to be fielded en masse...but their points & monetary cost never really allowed for people to do that.
It was showcased by how their weapons got better AP if they survived the fightback and/or if they rolled 6s to Wound during the first round of close combat.
Add to it the Chordclaw having 'Molecular Dissonance'(granted Fleshbane; which in turn was always wounding on a 2+ with that weapon)--they were a glass knife that could be deadly as hell IF you had a way to shut down Overwatch. Stuff like the Chordclaw made it so that the Ruststalker's piddly Strength value didn't really matter; they had a way to get wounds in as needed.

firing arcs.............no...just no

 Kanluwen wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.

So here's where the problem comes from with Ruststalkers:

Last edition, they were intended to be fielded en masse...but their points & monetary cost never really allowed for people to do that.
It was showcased by how their weapons got better AP if they survived the fightback and/or if they rolled 6s to Wound during the first round of close combat.
Add to it the Chordclaw having 'Molecular Dissonance'(granted Fleshbane; which in turn was always wounding on a 2+ with that weapon)--they were a glass knife that could be deadly as hell IF you had a way to shut down Overwatch. Stuff like the Chordclaw made it so that the Ruststalker's piddly Strength value didn't really matter; they had a way to get wounds in as needed.

I gotta be honest, I was on a hiatus from 40k so I missed the last 5 or so editions and as such have no experince with admech on the tabletop apart from 8th, when they brought me back to the hobby. So what would you propose for them, more going back to that "glass-knife" build?

Also, hard pass on firing arcs. That's one mechanic I'm very happy to be rid of

PiñaColada wrote:

I gotta be honest, I was on a hiatus from 40k so I missed the last 5 or so editions and as such have no experince with admech on the tabletop apart from 8th, when they brought me back to the hobby. So what would you propose for them, more going back to that "glass-knife" build?

In general, AdMech got a lot of stuff removed from their weapons/wargear that really shouldn't have been. The 'glass-knife build' wouldn't really work this edition(partly because the Killclade which allowed for Run->Charging) without Ruststalkers dropping heavily in points and getting unit sizes increased...which given the $46/5 pricetag isn't really an option most people would enjoy I think.

Ideally, they'd be changed to be able to shutdown Overwatch when charging and getting something that let them either decrease enemy LD within a certain range or some kind of thing allowing for them to be meaner in CC.

Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the Stealth USR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.

Additionally Transauranic Arquebi need to be upped in Strength or be given a rule making them deal 2-3 Mortal Wounds in addition to the normal damage they would deal on a shot. They had a USR last edition called "Armourbane", which allowed you to roll 2D6(cumulatively) for Armour Penetration instead of a single D6. It meant that a relatively low strength Sniper weapon was able to punch way outside of its weight class.

WHEN is this faq coming?

gendoikari87 wrote:
WHEN is this faq coming?

March.

Duh.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
WHEN is this faq coming?

March.

Duh.

technically it’s march now. Wish they’d be a bit more specific

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
WHEN is this faq coming?

March.

Duh.

He was obviously asking when in March.

Duh.

 Kanluwen wrote:
.

Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the Stealth USR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.

.

First off, thanks for the insight. The ability you're describing sounds like Slaneesh Quicksilver Swiftness to me. So unless I misunderstand it exists in the game already and as such at least isn't "too wordy". As much as it sounds interesting I highly doubt anything like this would be enacted though. Unless something is particularly egregious it'll probably be ignored or tweaked in points, maybe some stat modifiers but I seriously doubt they'll be adding many rules.


But this FAQ has to be coming out towards the end of March right? Seems like they wouldn't do it before Tau or the week after so it basically has to be the tail end imo

Chrysen wrote:
Would love to see the removal of all the silly primaris restrictions. Won't happen, but it'd be nice

Or the removal of the silly primaris.

PiñaColada wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
.

Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the Stealth USR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.

.

First off, thanks for the insight. The ability you're describing sounds like Slaneesh Quicksilver Swiftness to me. So unless I misunderstand it exists in the game already and as such at least isn't "too wordy". As much as it sounds interesting I highly doubt anything like this would be enacted though. Unless something is particularly egregious it'll probably be ignored or tweaked in points, maybe some stat modifiers but I seriously doubt they'll be adding many rules.

I'm sometimes bad at explaining ideas. What I'm envisioning is that enemy units within the Infiltrators' radius would be unable to strike first, even if they charged--unless they had some special rule of "this unit always strikes first".

It's basically the same effect as Quicksilver Swiftness, just coming at it from a weird direction/explanation. Ideally it would be a way to 'shutter' an enemy unit from being able to strike before it gets wiped out if the Infiltrators are nearby.

But this FAQ has to be coming out towards the end of March right? Seems like they wouldn't do it before Tau or the week after so it basically has to be the tail end imo

I would guess the 25th or March 31st.

Infiltrators are fine. They are not fantastic, but they are usable as infantry killers due to thier deepstrike, high number of pistol shots, and good melee stats. They are basically better rievers. They also do still have an aura, just the -1 ld aura is not nearly as strong as it was in 7th.

Ruststalkers struggle because they are a fragile unit with no ranged attacks in an army with no transports. I think they at least need the ability to advance and charge. You basically are fishing for mortal wounds with thier weapons, so a buff would be increasing thier number of attacks. In keeping with thier old rules of getting better after round 1, one idea would be granting mortal wounds on 5s or 6s after round 1, but that may be too strong

What changes do you expect to see...

I expect Terminators to be boosted to 3 wounds across the board, and Paladins to get up to 4.

Not wishlisting here, thinking GW is going to do the right thing with Tau / Necrons / etc coming out. From everything I can tell, the Xenos codexes are going to have a lot of AP -3 / multiwound firepower.

Terminators already suffer with all the Plasma in the game, they are going to be completely sidelined unless they become tough enough to withstand a turn of high powered shots.