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.

People seem to have a pretty shaky grasp of how long a year is in this thread. GW had better hurry up and get that FAQ out before people start complaining it's "a year" late.

 alextroy wrote:
And didn't Linked Fire move an ability that used to be part of the Fire Prism itself into a Stratagem? GW seems to be giving CP cost discount when they do that.

Killshot used to be an inherent rule for Predators too. Same with Linebreaker shells for Vindicators, Tremor Shells for Thunderfire Cannons and a few others

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Linked fire - requires 2 tanks within LOS - gives reroll hits and wounds vs the same target.
kill shot - requires 3 tanks within 6 inches of each other - gives +1 to wound vs the same target.

+1 to wound is worse than reroll wounds in every situation. Reroll hits is a huge additional bonus - no grouping requirement - 1 less tank requirement.

Are you of the opinion that link fire needs to be nerfed down to the level of suck of kill shot? Or do you believe that eldar stratagems should just be better than space marines ones...because they are eldar?

You are not being fair here, you are leaving out the biggest bonus of killshot, +1 damage.

That somehow makes up for lesser requirements and rerolling everything else instead?

Theres a bit of a rules conundrum in the YMDC section right now regarding transports. If the FAQ team is paying attention at all that ought to be cleared up.

 davou wrote:
Theres a bit of a rules conundrum in the YMDC section right now regarding transports. If the FAQ team is paying attention at all that ought to be cleared up.

More like some making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd rather GW address more important things.

Actually it does make a difference in game play. It is important to know if an embarked unit counts as being on the table even though the representation of the model is not on the table. If you have units in a flyer and the flyer is the last model on the table at the end of an opponent's turn are you tabled or not? If you embark into a vehicle on turn 1 on turn 4 is your model destroyed since it is not on the table since it's after turn 3?

A little clarity would be nice.

I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Actually it does make a difference in game play. It is important to know if an embarked unit counts as being on the table even though the representation of the model is not on the table. If you have units in a flyer and the flyer is the last model on the table at the end of an opponent's turn are you tabled or not? If you embark into a vehicle on turn 1 on turn 4 is your model destroyed since it is not on the table since it's after turn 3?

A little clarity would be nice.

And that's where Dakka^2 jumps the shark (for the 20th time?). People legitimately arguing that units are destroyed after turn 3 if they're in a transport.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

Or they just wanted to do it that way so people aren't told to "Consult Codex: Eldar" for the effects of a Stratagem?

If they're gonna Nerf Pox walkers, just cap them out at max unit size.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Yes sir, poor layout lol
But yeah they have looser requirements on their stratagems, like "drukari model" or "kabal unit" as opposed to "have 3 of these tanks"

I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Yes, it should have come out four days ago.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Eh... Scourges, Ravagers, and Razorwing Fighters look really good. Other than that, most things look to be solid but reasonable, with a few mediocre things here and there. It's not Tyranid good, or 5E DE good, but it's definitely looking like one of the better books they've put out this edition.

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Killshot kills tanks read with heavy bolters, it doesn’t need a buff

It needs a buff just by comparing it to the fire prism strategem. How else are you going to balance things if not by balancing them vs other strategems that do the exact same thing.

Well won\t comment on exactly on these two since I'm not familiar with either army but I would argue that just because 2 things do exact same thing by rules doesn't make them equal. For example Kurov's aquilla. On 5+ you get spent CP back. I'm pretty sure other armies have similar item to give. Are they balanced? I would argue no. Don't recall armies that DO have such but let's go for scenario where orks would get one(thinking cap reimagined). IG would actually benefit MORE from this heirloom/whatever orks call them. Why? IG army is way better set up to get CP's which means they get more CP back. IG has dirt cheap useful troops they want anyway while bread&butter ork troop choice costs ~200 pts(vs ~50-60 pts for IG). Yes grots are but they don't want to spam them in similar scale to IG spamming infantry squads. Then when we go for brigade for 9 CP....Well for IG this is dirt easy and there's very little bad tax choices to take to fill in requirements. For orks...Well for starters we hit into the issue that in 2k game orks want about 150-200 boyz MINIMUM so 5+ squads. That's 1000pts+ for troops.

Then FA we have very poor choices so 3 FA is going to get either expensive(stormboyz, another big infantry blob that's while effective is also eating up points a lot if you go for 3 of them along with boyz). For IG we are looking at scout sentinels as options for FA tax. ~120 pts and unlike many ork choices those aren't even all that bad choices as the scout move and cheap cost gives them role for dealing with deep strikers! For elite...Same thing. Cheapest useful slot is for orks waagh banner nob but that's not automatic choice either. Most useful choice is kommandos and....Wait it hits into same thing! Useful but expensive choice. Say 5 boyz mob+grot+3 stormboyz+3 kommandos=VERY expensive brigade.

Heavy support orks have it actually okay as our best choice(kustom mek cannon) is also rather cheapish option so comparable to IG's 3 mortar choice.

End result? Well while IG can easily get 3 battallions or even brigade+battallion orks in practice are looking at 2 battallions or maybe 2 battallions+spearhead. Guess who gets more CP's? And guess thus who gets MORE CP's from heirloom/whatever? (note: As IG player I'm on opinion Kurov is too good. It's simply too much of a obvious choice. Hell we can spend CP to get it if we want some other heirloom, none which btw are nearly as obvious "take this" as Kurov's, and it pays itself back easily. Meanwhile on other armies I wouldn't be going for equilavent as easily. Less CP's to spend in the first place, other awesome options so I would be spending CP's more often to get more items than with IG)

Point: Need to look at bigger picture than just individual rule text. Specifically where it is applied. Albeit in this case SM strategem does sound bad deal compared to linked fire.

 alextroy wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

They said on Facebook that the Tau FAQ and the big FAQ will drop simultaneously and that the former was waiting on the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

Mmm, delicious salt. The DE codex is on of my favorites so far, not because of power level, but because it did a good job of translating fluff into crunch and with few units you’ll feel bad putting on the tabletop. IMHO it’s what they should all aspire to.

Ice_can wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
I got to look at the DE codex and my first thought was Marines and the other early Codexes majorly suffered for it.

The DE codex has a lot of great stratagems plus some meh ones, some straight from CWE (Fire and Fade).

I dunno, to me it feels like either they "phoned it in" or they said "Meh, they have to buy this because the old codex isn't compatible."

I'm assuming you mean they phoned in the marine codex?

The new dukari codex contains the usual OP eldar nonsence.

I have the DE codex and it doesn't look overpowered. Honestly I don't see many durkhari lists being absolute top tiers. The most competitive ultramarines and ravenguard lists are not inferior to the best drukhari combinations IMHO.

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Yeah! They should at least give us a 50% discount for these upcomming FAQ to make up for the fact that they made us wait! /s

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

You're right. We shouldn't let them make any excuse! They should release it so that we can complain that they didn't fix the things they saw at Adepticon. How dare they remove more opportunities to bitch?!

But they have us this perfect opportunity to bitch about being late. It's a bonus on top of whatever they fail to address in the FAQ. Win, Win!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

I don't know about you, but I prefer that they delay a FAQ by just a couple of weeks if it means that it will include significant, good changes that it would otherwise not have included. I suspect I'm not alone in that. GW is presumably making the calculation that more people would be annoyed by them putting out a FAQ right after Adepticon that doesn't address what many see as some of the biggest issues with the game than would be annoyed by them putting out a better FAQ a few weeks later.

Of course, the delay is annoying. It would be better if they put their FAQ in a time machine and released it 6 months ago. But the question is: did they fail to release just as good of a FAQ earlier because they lacked sufficient incentive to do so? That seems unlikely. I mean, what reason do they have to drag their feet? Surely it's much more likely that what's going on here is that they lack competence, and were just unaware of various issues until Adepticon put them into stark relief. They should fix their overall process so that they do a better job with balance and rules writing full stop, but given that they are not great at this surely it's better that they delay the FAQ for a brief time in order to address certain issues rather than leave those unaddressed until the next scheduled major FAQ. Like, the thing to be annoyed about is the extent to which codexes come out with very obvious imbalances, which many players can immediately see will need fixing, and that GW seems oblivious to these until something makes them pay attention. That they take the time to try to get it right once they are paying attention is not the thing to be annoyed about.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

expect it in a few days (think it was tuesdays they tend to come out?)

Probably just delayed to come to with the Big FAQ.

They said on Facebook that the Tau FAQ and the big FAQ will drop simultaneously and that the former was waiting on the latter.

Hmm - seems a little odd to hold the Tau FAQ up when it should be its own thing.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

I don't know about you, but I prefer that they delay a FAQ by just a couple of weeks if it means that it will include significant, good changes that it would otherwise not have included. I suspect I'm not alone in that. GW is presumably making the calculation that more people would be annoyed by them putting out a FAQ right after Adepticon that doesn't address what many see as some of the biggest issues with the game than would be annoyed by them putting out a better FAQ a few weeks later.

Of course, the delay is annoying. It would be better if they put their FAQ in a time machine and released it 6 months ago. But the question is: did they fail to release just as good of a FAQ earlier because they lacked sufficient incentive to do so? That seems unlikely. I mean, what reason do they have to drag their feet? Surely it's much more likely that what's going on here is that they lack competence, and were just unaware of various issues until Adepticon put them into stark relief. They should fix their overall process so that they do a better job with balance and rules writing full stop, but given that they are not great at this surely it's better that they delay the FAQ for a brief time in order to address certain issues rather than leave those unaddressed until the next scheduled major FAQ. Like, the thing to be annoyed about is the extent to which codexes come out with very obvious imbalances, which many players can immediately see will need fixing, and that GW seems oblivious to these until something makes them pay attention. That they take the time to try to get it right once they are paying attention is not the thing to be annoyed about.

simply oh put what you ask for is unreasonable. After AdeptiCon there’s other tournaments they’ll need to address under this expect that they “take their time and get it right” ... and that’s because they will never get it right. This is the perfect case where the best is the enemy of good enough because you won’t come close to perfection and by being late you’ve lost the faith of a part of the fan base and judging by dakka it’s already super salty

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Gw isn’t known for brilliant business decisions....

 Ordana wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate it isn't the Big FAQ, but what happened to the Tau 2 week FAQ? Shouldn't it've been out by now?

What incentive do GW have to put out FAQs to their promised timescale if their audience are quite happy to accept excuses like 'But Adepticon!' for why deadlines are missed?

Holding the Faq is actively harming GW's profit margins. People are holding off on buying for their tournament armies waiting for the changes.
That's your incentive and they obviously saw reason to delay it.

Tournament players are such a small, insignificant source of income compared to casual players that they could cancel this FAQ and it would have zero impact on their bottomline. Just like every edition before this one.