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.

 Ghaz wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 davou wrote:
Didnt they say FAQ were for clearing up rules issues and yearly CA was for points adjustments?

FAQ is also explicitly stated to be for balance changes

From Warhammer Community, emphasis added:

2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs
Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.

So by 'balance changes', they don't mean points adjustments.

points = rules therefore this can include point changes

No, points = points.

Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.

But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...

Would like to see tactical marines and CSM equiv get a rule giving you one command point per squad of ten taken. Wont make them auto takes and wont fix most of the issues but it will help a bitter pill go down.
Would also like to see a way for assault marines and CSM equiv to follow units that disengage on a leadership test.
Would like to see LoW models get some form of alpha mitigation, this could change from unit to unit. Getting your knight or primarch plowed turn 1 without ever getting to move the model is not fun.
Would like to see less spike in heavy weapon damage. All d6 weapons drop to d3+1. This keeps them relevant, gets rid of 1 damage las shots and also gets rid of 6 strings which instant gib models.
Would like to see better LoS rules.
Would like to see point changes in the FAQ for out of control units like dark reapers. Waiting a year for point changes on overtly broken units is just to long. The longer they wait the more entrenched those models players become thus more salt when a change happens.
Would like to see some GK changes. I would say more on this but I am not a GK player.
Would like to see some significant 1kson changes on bonkers things like soul rippers in groups of 10 and shaman/asp sorcs only drawing from Change (there are only six spells and one of those spells being a potentially dead due to list content) means that often asp sorcs are left with only repeats or mini smites if the beta rules go forward.
and lastly.....
Would like to see some changes to chaff and horde infantry to make them less appealing takes and close the huge gulf between them and elite infantry.

You know, nothing major or anything.

 Galas wrote:
Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.

But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...

Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.

But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...

Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?

The rumours are only in relation to IG so if they end up doing it just for Leman Russes people will rage, yeah.

I think without grinding advance most Leman Russ variants become unplayable. But at the same time it is an hamfisted rule. Just remove it and buff the guns that need to be buffed.

If they get rid of grinding advance my guess is they just reduce the points of the tanks so that people buy/field more of them.

Armor spam will become a thing and tournaments will become rock, paper, scissors as no TAC list will be able to deal with the skew (10 LRBTs or 200 nids/orcs)...

bananathug wrote:
If they get rid of grinding advance my guess is they just reduce the points of the tanks so that people buy/field more of them.

Armor spam will become a thing and tournaments will become rock, paper, scissors as no TAC list will be able to deal with the skew (10 LRBTs or 200 nids/orcs)...

Well, they won't be able to drop the cost by half so the net effect would be more wounds, but fewer shots than now. T8 is still a risky thing to price too low though.

 Galas wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.

But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...

Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?

The rumours are only in relation to IG so if they end up doing it just for Leman Russes people will rage, yeah.

I think without grinding advance most Leman Russ variants become unplayable. But at the same time it is an hamfisted rule. Just remove it and buff the guns that need to be buffed.

If they'd take away their stupid insistance that non-random damage be capped at 3 they'd make things a lot easier for themselves.

It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.

Magnus does 4. Wraightknight glaive is 6 as well Too many flat damage weapons above 3 would be a bit much in my opinion.

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.

Thanks. But all it does is serve to make me wonder even more as to why so many heavy weapons are only 3 or d6 if they've already made exceptions to the rule. Like why does heavy ordinance, especially those of advanced races not do 4 or 5? Or even d3+1?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

Sorry, was thinking of the Seismic Hammer of the Ironclad Dreadnought and got the names mixed up. The Seismic Hammer has a static damage of 5.

 Sim-Life wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.

Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?

Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.

Thanks. But all it does is serve to make me wonder even more as to why so many heavy weapons are only 3 or d6 if they've already made exceptions to the rule. Like why does heavy ordinance, especially those of advanced races not do 4 or 5? Or even d3+1?

Because it makes a huge difference.

3 damage is 4 successes to kill something with 11 wounds (predator). 4 damage takes that down to 3. 5 is in an odd spot and 6 goes to 2.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.

But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...

Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?

Yeah, that plus increasing the cost of Infantry would probably cause a massive reduction in people playing straight AM - and yet have minimal effects on the Soup lists people complain about.

Adjusting Grinding Advance might happen, but I doubt it'll just get stripped out entirely.

And yes, treating AM as a punching bag in this FAQ will undoubtedly cause some rage.

Another thing i'd like to see, which isn't outside the realms of possibilities, is all "Chapter Master" style HQs give +1CP to the army.

Special characters that already do this would get bumped up to +2CP to represent their "greater strategic abilities".

This would mainly be a special character thing and would be dependent on them being the warlord.

Destroyers and Breachers going up to 3+ BS
knights, or at least armiger, going in admech detachments without losing battleforged

I can see them ripping out double shots on grinding advance and making the bc 2d6. Balances the punisher. Some others.

40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

I wonder if that potentially means there are significant changes being done.

Wayniac wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

I wonder if that potentially means there are significant changes being done.

I'm sure there are - this is being billed as a twice yearly broad strokes FAQ/balancing tool. I highly doubt that this is just going to be answers to a few questions and done.

Mostly nice to have a time frame.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.

Hopefully they come out with the FAQ. Do you think it will change some of the soup? I am not being salty I am just curious due to the way some tournaments are rumored to be going.

 Ghaz wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.

That doesn't necessarily contradict the other statement.

 RiderOrk wrote:
Hopefully they come out with the FAQ. Do you think it will change some of the soup? I am not being salty I am just curious due to the way some tournaments are rumored to be going.

You mean 1 40 man tournament that placed a name only restriction on soup?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.

It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.

Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.

That doesn't necessarily contradict the other statement.

It kinda does, since it also includes the days before AdeptiCon.

And this would be the first time GW gave contradictory information right?