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.

"With proper buffing units" is unacceptable. For such a price, having only 30" range, they shouldn't need a babysitter on top of it. That's too many points for a unit firing single shots out to 30". And -1 to hit armies completely hose them. And carnifexes with hats.

What I want from the faq is either some nerf to FNP-style save, or some buff to invulnerable save, possibly both. Because the current situation where invulnerable save absolutely sucks compared to FNP is pretty bad imo.
Is it just me though?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 davou wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Great. So I have an event in May, and no idea what this will do to my list or how I'll be able to correct for it, or even if the event organisers will include it or not.

Thanks Geedubs, particularly for saying you had it all ready to roll at Adepticon, before waiting till it was over before going 'LOL JOKES ON YOU.'

I bet if they hadn't addressed the feedback from Adepticon you'd be all "Thanks Geedubs, 6 months of flyrant spam".

As opposed to whatever spam happens after the thingy is released? I'll take Flyrant spam, at least I own those.

"Fix the game.... Unless its broken in a way that benefits me directly"

I didn't say, 'Fix the game' I said, release the FAQ when you said you would, because businesses should be able to handle their own deadlines.
Or does this not apply if your business is expensive plastic models?

Actually they said "In March, after Adepticon", so they are still in time, and even if they don't because Adepticon revealed something major to fix, then that's still fine if in the end it makes the game better.

I mean, we stuck with invisibility with a whole edition without any hope for it to ever be changed before edition change, one or two weeks more is more than fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What I want from the faq is either some nerf to FNP-style save, or some buff to invulnerable save, possibly both. Because the current situation where invulnerable save absolutely sucks compared to FNP is pretty bad imo.
Is it just me though?

Hmmm, i think that's just you.
Invul will always save you, FNP is trampled by multidamage weapons.

Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Plasam is an across the board problem not just terminators. Plasma should never have been s7 s8 it should have stayed at s6 is safe s7 is gets hot like always has outside of the heavy variants. Powercreeping plasma was a huge mistake but unfortunately GW have stuck too it so the only option left is to price it at the appropriate cost which is about twice its current price.

In terms of pricing, what do you think of the suggestion I've seen of swapping the costs of plasma and melta weapons?

I genuinely don't think it would be enough to cut plasma spam down plasma at s7/8 is just more reliable damage compaired to melta, it has to be significantly more expensive than where it is like + 10points to not make it the auto take best option.

davou wrote:What if plasma weapons inflict a wound on the bearer for every roll of one on the dice? That way A person that re-rolls the dice still looses the model and any extra's spill over to the squad? Even if you have a bonus to hit roll, the 1 still nukes you.

Or better, it nukes you for the damage profile of the weapon itself worth of mortal wounds

1 No
Great cheap bodies spaming plasma guns don't care about the wounds expensive units would never want to be taking plasma.

Doesn't prevent cheap disposable units from maxing out as they are a thow away unit thats already made its points back.

I can't wait any longer to buy more models!!! (actually I haven't stopped but I really should wait until the new FAQ, instead I've just not been buying guard).

So we were supposed to get the survey results in January, no word on these yet and now the FAQ has been delayed as well (and my boss losses it if we miss a deadline by hours...)

Maybe this means the FAQ will be a more comprehensive update than just rules clarifications and actually will touch on balance (not sure if this is a good thing, given GWs history with "balance)?

bananathug wrote:
I can't wait any longer to buy more models!!! (actually I haven't stopped but I really should wait until the new FAQ, instead I've just not been buying guard).

So we were supposed to get the survey results in January, no word on these yet and now the FAQ has been delayed as well (and my boss losses it if we miss a deadline by hours...)

Maybe this means the FAQ will be a more comprehensive update than just rules clarifications and actually will touch on balance (not sure if this is a good thing, given GWs history with "balance)?

I mean they've specifically stated they're going to address balance issues in these FAQs.

bananathug wrote:
I can't wait any longer to buy more models!!! (actually I haven't stopped but I really should wait until the new FAQ, instead I've just not been buying guard).

So we were supposed to get the survey results in January, no word on these yet and now the FAQ has been delayed as well (and my boss losses it if we miss a deadline by hours...)

Maybe this means the FAQ will be a more comprehensive update than just rules clarifications and actually will touch on balance (not sure if this is a good thing, given GWs history with "balance)?

I have stopped buying models all together. Last FAQ I got burnt really bad, almost as if GW new what models I was buying and then nerfed them. They even nerfed the Giant Chaos Spawn (which I had bought three) by doubling its point cost. It was good but barely competitive, I am pretty bitter about it. Anyway I would suggest waiting.

Does anyone think we will see Fortification or Drop pod point reductions? They all seem a pretty overcoasted at the moment.

I don't so much expect it to happen, but would love to see command points reworked. I love the idea and it adds a whole new refreshing dimension to the game which was welcome. I don't think it should be tied to detachments though. I'd love to see something like each player gets a set amount per turn or per player turn. as the most expensive ones I am aware of are 3CP I would say that a good place to start. 3-4 cp per game turn. you can use them defensively or offensively completely up to the general/warboss/hivemind. Then bring back the old force organization chart so the min 1 hq and 3 troops have to be met to field an army. I realize imperial knights will need a different force org and maybe some armies also get custom ones but overall 1 hq 3 troops plus 3 slots of each other slot (heavy, elite, fast attack and flyer per force plus 1 lord of war (and one dedicated transport per unit of course). The current meta just seems too paper rock sissors. I would love to see take all comers lists come back.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I don't so much expect it to happen, but would love to see command points reworked. I love the idea and it adds a whole new refreshing dimension to the game which was welcome. I don't think it should be tied to detachments though. I'd love to see something like each player gets a set amount per turn or per player turn. as the most expensive ones I am aware of are 3CP I would say that a good place to start. 3-4 cp per game turn. you can use them defensively or offensively completely up to the general/warboss/hivemind. Then bring back the old force organization chart so the min 1 hq and 3 troops have to be met to field an army. I realize imperial knights will need a different force org and maybe some armies also get custom ones but overall 1 hq 3 troops plus 3 slots of each other slot (heavy, elite, fast attack and flyer per force plus 1 lord of war (and one dedicated transport per unit of course). The current meta just seems too paper rock sissors. I would love to see take all comers lists come back.

Old force org was 1 HQ, 2 Troops. I also don't think some armies work well in the old force org but I do agree there is probably too much flexibility right now.

Spoletta wrote:
Invul will always save you, FNP is trampled by multidamage weapons.

Invul won't work when you have better armor, FNP do.
Invul won't work against Mortal Wounds, FNP do.
The multi-wound thing doesn't matter at all on big characters with lots of wounds. On the FNP is WAY better than invul.

Nor FNP nor invul are better than the other. They are contextual, for some units one is better, for others is the contrary, etc...

Ferrus126 wrote:

bananathug wrote:
I can't wait any longer to buy more models!!! (actually I haven't stopped but I really should wait until the new FAQ, instead I've just not been buying guard).

So we were supposed to get the survey results in January, no word on these yet and now the FAQ has been delayed as well (and my boss losses it if we miss a deadline by hours...)

Maybe this means the FAQ will be a more comprehensive update than just rules clarifications and actually will touch on balance (not sure if this is a good thing, given GWs history with "balance)?

I have stopped buying models all together. Last FAQ I got burnt really bad, almost as if GW new what models I was buying and then nerfed them. They even nerfed the Giant Chaos Spawn (which I had bought three) by doubling its point cost. It was good but barely competitive, I am pretty bitter about it. Anyway I would suggest waiting.

Glad I am not the only one who feels that way.

Ferrus126 wrote:
Does anyone think we will see Fortification or Drop pod point reductions? They all seem a pretty overcoasted at the moment.

I don't think so, because GW probably doesn't seem them as a problem. They are delaying the FAQ to address concerns arising from Adepticon. Feels like squeaky wheels get the attention, everything else just waits.

Ferrus126 wrote:

bananathug wrote:
I can't wait any longer to buy more models!!! (actually I haven't stopped but I really should wait until the new FAQ, instead I've just not been buying guard).

So we were supposed to get the survey results in January, no word on these yet and now the FAQ has been delayed as well (and my boss losses it if we miss a deadline by hours...)

Maybe this means the FAQ will be a more comprehensive update than just rules clarifications and actually will touch on balance (not sure if this is a good thing, given GWs history with "balance)?

I have stopped buying models all together. Last FAQ I got burnt really bad, almost as if GW new what models I was buying and then nerfed them. They even nerfed the Giant Chaos Spawn (which I had bought three) by doubling its point cost. It was good but barely competitive, I am pretty bitter about it. Anyway I would suggest waiting.

Does anyone think we will see Fortification or Drop pod point reductions? They all seem a pretty overcoasted at the moment.

The FAQ isn't just nerfs you know. The aim is to balance models so if they over-nerf something you've bough chances are.it'll be buffed in September.

 Sim-Life wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Great. So I have an event in May, and no idea what this will do to my list or how I'll be able to correct for it, or even if the event organisers will include it or not.

Thanks Geedubs, particularly for saying you had it all ready to roll at Adepticon, before waiting till it was over before going 'LOL JOKES ON YOU.'

I bet if they hadn't addressed the feedback from Adepticon you'd be all "Thanks Geedubs, 6 months of flyrant spam".

It's going to be broken game anyway with another spam. Big deal. Actually getting answers to unclear rules is more important than getting latest set of GW's meta change(not balance. Change) intended to bring more cash.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Great. So I have an event in May, and no idea what this will do to my list or how I'll be able to correct for it, or even if the event organisers will include it or not.

Thanks Geedubs, particularly for saying you had it all ready to roll at Adepticon, before waiting till it was over before going 'LOL JOKES ON YOU.'

I bet if they hadn't addressed the feedback from Adepticon you'd be all "Thanks Geedubs, 6 months of flyrant spam".

It's going to be broken game anyway with another spam. Big deal. Actually getting answers to unclear rules is more important than getting latest set of GW's meta change(not balance. Change) intended to bring more cash.

Gw couldn't control the meta like that if they tried. Can we lay that particular argument to rest. This isn't LOL were people rush out to buy the new hotness en masse. In most everyone I know who does uses secondhand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tournaments have painting requirements. Even if I rushed out to buy several boxes of the new hotness that still several hours of work before they are of any use.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure Meganobz have 3 wounds already, no?

Also, how is it unfair? Terminators, with the exception of TH/SS Assault Terminators, have been trash for those same 20 years. They still are. You really shouldn't let historical stats in other editions influence balance in the current one. That way lies madness.

Yeah, they are 3W now that termies are 2W. If termies become 3W I'd expect meganobz with 4W.

Another example could be grotesques, they were 3W in 7th edition and 3W now. If termies jump from 1W to 3W in just one year I'd expect grotesques being 5W at least.

I love my wolf guard terminators, they're definitely not trash. And terminators in general must be a close combat oriented unit, some sort of theavy hitters. SM have too many shooty options anyway. They don't need more durability but more punch in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Guys guys... maybe instead of buffing all 2W models with +1 Wound... making 2D damage weapons irrelevant (Because autocannons are surely destroying armies left and right)... we don't... rebalance plasma?

Hm? Plasma is the one 2D weapon that is easely spammed and its actually good agaisnt nearly everything.

Exactly this, if plasma spam is too scary just nerf it.

Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

I think they just need buffs/synergies that let them strike with 4-5 attacks each. They are decently durable IF you have other threatening multiwounds models.

The deepstriking ability should save them from plasma for at least 1-2 turns.

Of course the tipycal SM army is shooting oriented and termies are easy to counter. When I use my SW, which are still an index crap army, I have deepstriking termies, outflanking wulfen plus the fast wolf guard bikers and TWC, all buffed by 1-2 characters which give them the re-rolls in combat and/or +1A. I usually also have 3 tanks for more target saturation. My termies don't suffer from being too fragile but from being not very killy if not buffed and just ok if buffed.

 Earth127 wrote:
Gw couldn't control the meta like that if they tried. Can we lay that particular argument to rest. This isn't LOL were people rush out to buy the new hotness en masse. In most everyone I know who does uses secondhand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tournaments have painting requirements. Even if I rushed out to buy several boxes of the new hotness that still several hours of work before they are of any use.

All they need is change point costs and change them heavily. They don't need to get them perfect. They just need to make sure it's different enough it's going to cause effect. Going too far to other direction is standard operation for them.

And 2nd hand still has to have been bought before from GW so even if they encourage just 2nd hand that still increases 1st hand sales...Otherwise 2nd hand market would dry up. And I know people who buy stuff 1st hand so...

GW obviously benefits more when tournament players change armies en masse than when they keep them. If things were perfect balance tournament players wouldn't have any NEED to change armies. They MIGHT but they wouldn't NEED. With GW swinging randomly meta to anything that's not same as before(they don't btw even need to be able to alter direction to specific meta. As long as it's different it's good. They don't care what is new broken meta as long as it's different to last) they need to get new models all the time.

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Gw couldn't control the meta like that if they tried. Can we lay that particular argument to rest. This isn't LOL were people rush out to buy the new hotness en masse. In most everyone I know who does uses secondhand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most tournaments have painting requirements. Even if I rushed out to buy several boxes of the new hotness that still several hours of work before they are of any use.

All they need is change point costs and change them heavily. They don't need to get them perfect. They just need to make sure it's different enough it's going to cause effect. Going too far to other direction is standard operation for them.

And 2nd hand still has to have been bought before from GW so even if they encourage just 2nd hand that still increases 1st hand sales...Otherwise 2nd hand market would dry up. And I know people who buy stuff 1st hand so...

GW obviously benefits more when tournament players change armies en masse than when they keep them. If things were perfect balance tournament players wouldn't have any NEED to change armies. They MIGHT but they wouldn't NEED. With GW swinging randomly meta to anything that's not same as before(they don't btw even need to be able to alter direction to specific meta. As long as it's different it's good. They don't care what is new broken meta as long as it's different to last) they need to get new models all the time.

Especially the ones they don't have in stock those sly geniuses.

Honestly I think any kind of changes in rules will only be patching, not actual cure. There must be basic reshaping from the ground up, and I'm talking about the basic space marine which - for better or worse- is the staple of comparison to everything in the game. If the most iconic staple is not usable, there is no way to balance anything else around it. You nerf the reapers, something else that used to suffer from reapers emerges as the top dog. Currently armor save is not working as they thought it would and it costs way too much. Because of that the edition has been changed to a horde style, and because hordes can be very dangerous very fast, shooting has been improved a lot. So most armies nowdays have stupid amounts of shooting compared to survivability. Then they go and give everyone -1 to be hit to manage such heavy shooting, and then people complain about things being too hard to hit because -1 effects can sometimes stack. At the beginning of the edition everyone went crazy about "the edition of flamers" but I rarely see any flamers used any more.

I get it that trying to rebalance 10+ armies at the same time is crazy, but I'm afraid that if they only use the top tournaments as a guideline for the FAQ then normal everyday games will become extremely boring and streamlined. FAQ writers need to consider not "What happened at Adepticon" but instead "Why did the things at Adepticon happen". So not "People played 7 flyrants" but "Why did people decide to play 7 flyrants?"

I'm afraid they will only do the first.

So do we put the March faq clock next to the squats clock or plastic sisters of battle clock?

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

 Zid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

or you know, Marines get 2+ Terminators get 1+ armor...... solves both problems

 Dysartes wrote:
At the rate we're going, the change I'm starting to expect to see is the release date - to April

I am amused that I called the delay

 Dysartes wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At the rate we're going, the change I'm starting to expect to see is the release date - to April

I am amused that I called the delay

Honestly, I feel like it was a gimme for anyone saying it was going to be delayed.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

or you know, Marines get 2+ Terminators get 1+ armor...... solves both problems

In Age of Sigmar nearly all Seraphon (Lizardmen) have the rule to ignore the rend (AP) of weapons unless is -2 Rend or better. They could give the same rule to Terminator armour. Or the reducing ap 1 point with a minimun of 0. That works too.

 Galas wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually most 2W infantry is fine, it's just termi that suffer. Personally, i would change the Crux Terminator to reduce incoming AP by 1 instead of giving a useless 5++ to a 2+ model.

Thats... an excellent idea TBH.

or you know, Marines get 2+ Terminators get 1+ armor...... solves both problems

In Age of Sigmar nearly all Seraphon (Lizardmen) have the rule to ignore the rend (AP) of weapons unless is -2 Rend or better. They could give the same rule to Terminator armour. Or the reducing ap 1 point with a minimun of 0. That works too.

How do you do this without making Custodes even more OP?

Increase their cost? Also basic custodians don't wear terminator armour.

Remove Custodes and their flying hippo models from the game would be a nice start.

Better to have a Rogue Trader army with a Navigator, mercs and other imperial units than some luny faction like golden Hill Giants in the empire.