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.

If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.

And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.

feth. I just started an army. I mean, I haven't invested into too many raiders yet, but having a cap on three basically cripples them. Almost everything in the army needs a transport, and 3 raiders and 3 venoms is not nearly enough to do it.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh the 0-3 doesn't apply to troops? Fair enough. Since it's per detachment I assume?

Why would you assume that? I think the 0-3 limit is per army total. It's questionable how this will apply to transports and to squadrons, but I'm mostly happy with this limitation. I assume squadrons will still count as 1 unit, and transports will be limited. Very few lists that weren't trying to abuse the gak out of spamming overpowered units will be effected. And fluffy lists like white scar bikers can still take 3 large squads of them. And guard armored companies can still take most of their vehicles in squadrons to circumvent this.

So White Scars can still take three large unweildy units of Bikes easily targetted and brought down by morale, and DEldar can't have their transports, but Guard can still spam their tanks just fine. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that's not entirely fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That restriction better have some text saying "Intended for organised play" so casual Matched Play doesn't get completely fethed.

Martel732 wrote:
I have no expectations, really. I don't think points change until CA, which is the real fix. The FAQ is more like rearranging chairs on the Titanic without points changes.

Yes and no? Whilst individual unit imbalance needs points to compensate, broader things such as soup can be readjusted through changes to the rules.

 CaptainBetts wrote:
Finally some good news for Grey Knights (I think)!

Coming from 4chan.

Spoiler:

Grey Knight Paladins are now 50 points, down from like 60.
(Grandmaster?) Nemesis Dreadknight is now (down to?) 210 points.
Purifiers look to be 28 points each, I think they were 29 before.

Looks like there are some points changes in the FAQ, but we've seen that sort of thing before (for example, there were points changes in Index Xenos 2 FAQ):

Spoiler:

Thoughts?

If point changes are coming in the FAQ, it really does beggar the question as to why we need to pay for Chapter Approved. Or why GW doesn't divorce the gaming supplement from the balance supplement.
I realise that there is the whole 'business wants to make money', it just would seem really inconsistent to have some points changes behind a paywall whilst others aren't.


Getting back to the original topic of the thread, what I would expect to see from the FAQ would be the following:

1. If your army is Battle Forged, only units of the same <Faction Keyword> as the Warlord benefit from the trait (Chapter Tactics, Craftworld Discipline, etc.) of the <Faction Keyword>

Idea is to weaken soup between different codices and soup between different factions in the same codex.
Soup is quite prevalent at the highest levels of play and a nerf to it is necessary.
Its a soft-ish nerf, as it still allows you to ally in your CP battery, your filler to the holes in your list and so on, it just makes that ally a little worse than it would be in a mono army of its own.

2. a) Strength from Death no longer replaces other army wide abilities.
b) Word of the Phoenix may only target units that have the Strength from Death Ability
c) Ynarri units in a detachment no longer stop the detachment from being a Craftworld/ Drukhari/ Harlequin detachment

Strength from Death is a crap rule and Word of the Phoenix is far too powerful of a buff on the units it can currently effect.
The current way to build a competitive Craftworld army is to have a Ynarri detachment and then pick the unit that benefits most from shooting twice, the unit that benefits most from moving after wiping something out in CC, Yvraine and chaff to fill out the detachment. Then fill out the rest of the army with Craftworld detachments.
I suspect the same will happen with Drukhari so long as SfD exists in its current state.

This change would turn the Ynarri part of the index into a special character addition to the other Eldar books. It is intended to isolate the faction until SfD gets a rewrite in the codex, or the codex has separate point values for Ynarri Dark Reapers, Ynarri Shining Spears, Ynarri Kabalite Trueborn and so on so that it can be balanced independently of the other Eldar books
The other option would be to price Yvraine (and probably the Yncarne) out of matched play to icebox the faction.

3. a) Dark Reaper unit size is 3-5
b) Dark Reapers no longer always hit on 3's*
c) Dark Reapers go up in price
d) Tempest launchers increase in price.

Somewhat self explanatory. Lowers buff efficiency, stops them from breaking some of the targeting rules, lowers the overall efficiency of the unit and hits the undercosted Exarch weapon.

*Whether or not the always hits on 3's is replaced with ignoring the -1 to hit from flyers or allows DR to move and fire Heavy weapons without the -1 to hit would depend on what the 3's to hit was meant to achieve and whether or not any buff is required in the first place

4. Shinning Spear unit size is 3-6

Cuts down on their buff efficiency and allows more opportunity for them to be hit by return attacks. This and the SfD change above should move SS back into being the flank controller and suicide unit they're designed to be.


Further changes that I'd really like to see would include:
> Falling Back:
Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you
choose to Fall Back, your opponent may choose to Pursue with a unit that would no longer have enemy models
within 1" after a Fall Back Move would have been made.
Compare the Move characteristic plus D6 of the Unit electing to Fall Back to the Move characteristic of the
Unit that is Pursuing.
If the value is greater than that of the Pursuing unit, then the Unit has Evaded Pursuit.
If not, they may not Fall Back and suffer Mortal Wounds equal to the value that they failed by.

If the Unit has Evaded Pursuit or the opponent did not or could not Pursue, then the Unit makes a Fall Back Move.
The unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it counts as having Advanced
unless it can Fly.


Idea is to help out assault and in particular combined assaults with fast and slow elements.
Close combat Jump Infantry and Bikes get a lot more value from their M characteristic and meched assault troops get a lot of value from having their transport in combat with them.
Its still possible to have a screen unit hold up the assault unit and let other elements disengage
The rule heavily rewards picking and choosing what your faster elements engage rather than just charging everything that you can survive the return hits of.

> Drop the price of most Aspect Warriors by 1 and make the Exarch a 5 point upgrade

Makes the choice of running minimum Aspect squads with Exarchs vs large ones/ no Exarch an actual choice.

> Swap the rules for War Shout and Mandiblasters. Give Scorpion Chainswords the chainsword rule where the weilder can make an extra attack with it. Make the Masters of Stealth deployment option a separate Exarch upgrade

Gives Banshees and Scorpions defined combat specialisations. Banshees hit the heavily armoured and are squishy as hell, Scorpions are the blender and can take a few hits.
Last thing makes the scorpions a valid choice for Line Infantry as opposed to pigeonholing them as scout elements.

> Power Armour
I'm going to preface this as I'm not a marine player and I'm not sure how well the following changes would work. Purpose is to give Tacticals a role other than 'less efficient Devastators'.
Anywho, changes:
Boltgun: Gain an extra shot in Rapid Fire range. (1 shot between 24" and above 12", 3 at 12" and below)
Tactical Doctrine: When a Tactical Squad fires Overwatch, they successfully hit on a 5 or a 6 when firing Boltguns. Furthermore, after a Tactical Squad has Charged or been Charged, they may make an extra attack in the following Fight Phase.
Tactical Experience: Models in a Tactical Squad ignore the -1 to hit penalty from moving and firing Heavy Weapons.
Pricing: 10 points if Guardsman are still 4 ppm, 12 if Guardsman move to 5 ppm.

Pricing was determined by comparing bolter marine output vs a Guardsman. Guard outshoot the nuTacs at 24", but get outshot by a larger margin within 12".
Melee wise, nuTacs outperform Guardsmen in the first round.
The changed Boltgun at 12" is as effective as a Shuriken Catapult vs. MeQ and more effective vs GeQ
The improvements to overwatch and first round of combat is to help the Tacs be able to fight at 12" whilst not giving the same advantages to Devastators.
Move and Fire Heavy weapons is to solidify the Tacs tactical niche as the mobile and better defended shooty squad, whilst devastators are the more efficient and fragile shooty squad

Regarding CA and points.

CA isn't just about points. There have been many other free points, but mostly for singular sheets

Im still not certain if we'll actually see them adjusted in faq, but I'd welcome it...especially for weaker armies.

 Fafnir wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.

feth. I just started an army. I mean, I haven't invested into too many raiders yet, but having a cap on three basically cripples them. Almost everything in the army needs a transport, and 3 raiders and 3 venoms is not nearly enough to do it.

Hey at least you have raiders AND venoms. Poor orks have..trukks and then expensive in money and even worse chinork. Whee.

Then top of that this doesn't even fix brokeness and indeed makes it worse. Most broken armies always benefit most from these highlander esque units. That's been SHOWN on real tournaments over and over again. It's now suddenly going to magically work better if GW implements it? Same rule, different author, somehow different effect on balance? Yeah nope.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.

Are they though?

Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:

Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70

Total - 1253 points

Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?

I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.

If they are gonna put a 0-3 max for any unit, can they remove the Tau commander limitation? So I can run a batallion with 2 Tau commander and a Vanguard with another one.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.

Are they though?

Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:

Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70

Total - 1253 points

Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?

I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.

I think Cephalobeard's point is that that army would be absolutely terrible.

Yeah. Sure it might work(though scales horribly. Fine at 1500 pts. Whatabout 2500? 3000?). It would suck though. Meanwhile the truly broken armies just laugh at this.

For me my orks would get hurt by this. Meanwhile IG just shrugs it off. Now remind me. Which one was considered more powerful? IG or orks. Pretty sure IG so why is it orks would be getting bigger nerfbat here...

Highlanders have been tried in many tournaments. It has been shown over and over to create unbalance rather than fix it. That's the nature of beast when you apply silly blanket limitations without actually fixing problems.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.

Are they though?

Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:

Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70

Total - 1253 points

Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?

I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.

Wow, I didn't realize just how screwed mono-slaanesh would be under the new system. Thanks for illustrating just how terrible they'd end up.

Your second point doesn't make any sense. No one is going to take large units that are susceptible to morale. What's more likely is that armies that have several different extremely strong MSU options (Eldar, Niids, Guard) or armies that are largely immune to morale anyway(Nids, Guard Chaos) are going to get a buff while any army that does get forced into taking larger units, simply stops being played altogether.

How would mono-Slaanesh be any worse off under the proposed 3 unit cap? What unit(s) are they taking more than 3 of that makes them significantly better than having to stick to max 3?

Or is mono-Slaanesh just boned either way? Because that’s a very different discussion.

IG would be impacted by a 0-3 limit actually, it would prevent plasma scion spam (they would have to take the troop version).

In any case, a 0-3 limit (if it is true) isn't aimed at stopping factions like IG that are good without going against the game's principles. A good IG list is made by a line of tanks and artillery screened by lots of expendable guys. Working as intended, that's how guard should work. Maybe working too much (recent results don't confirm this), but that would be another problem.

This change would be made to stop the silly lists (flyrants, Dark Talons, PCrawlers, assassins, enlightened and so on).

Yes IG loses some power builds but they have replacements available...Orks meanwhile struggle much more. At HS they have 1 viable unit. Ditto elite(well okay maybe 2 since you might want 1 painboy) and fast attack.

IG? They aren't short of good options. So while their best build might go away the replacements aren't nearly as bad as orks.

This limit just makes game balance WORSE. As is usual when applying blanket restrictions without actually fixing problem. Ie when you design game like GW does. Let's just hope for sake of game it's bogus rumour.

The Slaanesh list example is a bad joke, as ALL their units are overcosted at this point. Just compare Seekers to Reaver Jetbikes or the Chariots to Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers. Or Daemonettes to Bloodletters. And so on.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
And, again, things like mono-god Daemons are ruined. Each FOC Slot tends to only have one option.

Are they though?

Take Slaanesh as an example. Not counting Troops, Special Characters or generic units (Furies and 2 kinds of Daemon Prince) they have the following units:

Herald of Slaanesh - 66
Keeper of Secrets - 223
Seekers - 19ea, max 380
Fiends of Slaanesh - 46ea, max 414
Exalted Seeker Chariot - 100
Seeker Chariot - 70

Total - 1253 points

Taking 3 of each unit yields nearly four thousand points without a single Troops selection, Special Character or any of the six allowable Daemon Princes! Are you seriously suggesting that they’re useless at 2000pts if you’re capped at 3 each of non-Troop units?

I can see some people arguing that this means taking large units susceptible to morale rather than MSU. Honestly? Good. If all this restriction does is force people to stop gaming the system to ignore the morale phase and snagging extra unit leaders for free, then that’s for the good.

So not doing the thing two of the game's central mechanics strictly punish (Morale and Detachment building) is considered gaming the system? I'm guessing taking Troops to capture objectives and generate Command Points is gaming the system too, because the game actively encourages it?

tneva82 wrote:
Yes IG loses some power builds but they have replacements available...Orks meanwhile struggle much more. At HS they have 1 viable unit. Ditto elite(well okay maybe 2 since you might want 1 painboy) and fast attack.

IG? They aren't short of good options. So while their best build might go away the replacements aren't nearly as bad as orks.

This limit just makes game balance WORSE. As is usual when applying blanket restrictions without actually fixing problem. Ie when you design game like GW does. Let's just hope for sake of game it's bogus rumour.

The issue is you are comparing a codex army to and Index army. We have no idea how orks will be impacted by their codex. As for being impacted now, I really don't see it competitively (unless this applies to troops). I guess they cannot run Storm Boy spam, or Kommando Spam (neither of which seem to have been performing on top tables), only 3 Weirdboyz? They can only take 9(?) Kustom Mega Cannons? But either way, they may change greatly with codex release and as such should not be the banner for stopping broken armies at the top.

You have no evidence that this limit actually makes the game worse, you keep comparing it to highlander, which it isn't. It is more akin to a less restrictive version of the old FOC which only let you take 3 of a slot other than troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah. Sure it might work(though scales horribly. Fine at 1500 pts. Whatabout 2500? 3000?). It would suck though. Meanwhile the truly broken armies just laugh at this.

For me my orks would get hurt by this. Meanwhile IG just shrugs it off. Now remind me. Which one was considered more powerful? IG or orks. Pretty sure IG so why is it orks would be getting bigger nerfbat here...

Highlanders have been tried in many tournaments. It has been shown over and over to create unbalance rather than fix it. That's the nature of beast when you apply silly blanket limitations without actually fixing problems.

We don't know how it will be implemented maybe it is like the detachment "restriction" a suggestion for balance and they will scale it, and we hear 0-3 because that is what it will be at 2k.

I don't see truly broken armies laughing at this much, does it hurt IG not really, are they one of the truly broken armies, data doesn't back that up. My only issue with an army wide 0-3 is that it helps soup armies more than mono-faction.

Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.

The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.

The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.

This. Also, please can we have Death Guard terminators remember how to use power fists, so my lovely FW Grave Warden models aren't just proxies?

Pretty please? :/

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh the 0-3 doesn't apply to troops? Fair enough. Since it's per detachment I assume?

Transports not being included would be a major issue for some armies.

Thinking Dark Eldar and Sisters in particular here.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.

The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.

This. I never take a Chaos Lord for my DG, he simply feels wrong, I don't want an Alpha Legionary infiltrating my army comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh the 0-3 doesn't apply to troops? Fair enough. Since it's per detachment I assume?

Transports not being included would be a major issue for some armies.

Thinking Dark Eldar and Sisters in particular here.

Harlequins too, they don't work without everything starting out in Starweavers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it's 0-3 total across the army then Dark Eldar are simply boned, they can't work without Raiders.

yeah.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Some high level competitive 40k players, one of which is a play tester, hinted at the FAQ being a possibility over the weekend, and revealed lists they're playing on Sunday.

Surprise, no more than 3 of any non troop unit.

Have you got a source on this? From memory we've had quite a few similar rumours pointing to 'FAQ release tomorrow' and similar that turned out not to be true.

I don't want to get my hopes up of an FAQ this weekend if it's not going to come out then :/

With the 0-3 limitation IG can take 9 Leman Russ but Ad Mech can only take 3 Onagers? If they implement this rule they should adjust vehicle rules so that either each vehicle is a selection or all vehicles can be bought in squadrons of 3 and then played independently on the board.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Points cost increase for the Chaos Lord in the Death Guard Codex and give him Disgusting Resilience please

I think that the Chaos Lord would benefit WAY more highly from staying where it is. The Chaos Lord is your generic, cheap HQ slot in any of the major CSM armies, and making it more expensive to make it harder to kill would make it more of a tax than anything.

The point here is, though, that it is frustrating not to have a Death Guard lord have Death Guard traits. Screw efficiency as a reroll bubble, I want all of my marines T 5 Disgustingly Resilient. That would be both more stylish and elegant, which is why we already do that in our casual games.

This. I never take a Chaos Lord for my DG, he simply feels wrong, I don't want an Alpha Legionary infiltrating my army comparing sorceror and plaguecaster, the difference would be about 15 points, I'd pay that without even thinking twice.

The Plaguecaster also gets the Mortal Wound aura over the Sorcerer, so 10 points might be better. That's how much I've always paid for my lord after we agreed to up his stats with my regular opponent and it has always felt better that way. Chaos Lords might not be the thing that causes anyone too much headaches if it gets a bit more durable

ERJAK wrote:

Wow, I didn't realize just how screwed mono-slaanesh would be under the new system. Thanks for illustrating just how terrible they'd end up.

So New-GW(TM) is still not able to write proper army books or do care if something is playable
If mono Slaanesh only works if you spam a view units, not the restrictions are the problem but the rules for the units