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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
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.

don’t forget tank commanders. That’s 11 in one detachment

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

Summoning gets around this limitation just fine.

 Mushkilla wrote:

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

Summoning gets around this limitation just fine.

Do you play Daemons?

By saying that, I can tell you don't play Daemons.

Guys stfu on restrictions they will happen or not there’s people here who are staunchly for them and against them. And no ones changing anyone’s minds. Take the discussion elsewhere

I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Mushkilla wrote:

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

Summoning gets around this limitation just fine.

Do you play Daemons?

By saying that, I can tell you don't play Daemons.

I do in fact play daemons, mono tzeentch summoning daemons (33% of my list tends to be reserve points).

I'm not sure if I expect a blanket change to how HQs are taken but due the nature of the delay (specifically being at adepticon when the Flyrantgate happened) it's going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.

yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.

yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject

You aren't the arbiter of what people get to discuss.

Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.

I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.

Just to remind everyone, Dakkadakka is a board for polite discussion about fun games of toy soldiers.

Cinderspirit wrote:
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.

Then summon the units. They very likely wouldn't be subject to a restriction then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:


I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.

There is an advantage to bringing in whatever you need. I often want to do it, but I haven't found the space in my list for it. With as fast as Slaanesh is there guys will be in combat and not moving much anyway.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I think you've somehow entirely missed the point of the thread "What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?" in the "General Discussion" section of this forum to a relatively hilarious degree.

yes and this one topic has been discussed to fething death it’s time to change the subject

You aren't the arbiter of what people get to discuss.

no, but at this point your all just repeating yourselves and going in circles, it’s time to agree to disagree and change the stupid subject.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
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.

Then summon the units. They very likely wouldn't be subject to a restriction then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:


I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.

There is an advantage to bringing in whatever you need. I often want to do it, but I haven't found the space in my list for it. With as fast as Slaanesh is there guys will be in combat and not moving much anyway.

I'm sure you may have a use for the ability in your games. That, unfortunately, does not mean by and large that the ability is a good ability.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.

I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.

For context I play match play, Dominate and Destroy style missions (6 objectives, progressive scoring, kill points). I haven't attended a tournament in 8th. I get a game in once a week with the daemon codex. So if that invalidates my opinion for you that's fine.

But in my experience Summoning has loads of benefits, to list a few of them:

-Adapting to your opponents list.
-Adapting to the mission.
-Adapting to the current state of play.
-Recovering from the loss of key units, say loosing your fluxmaster to a lucky round of sniping early in the game. Just summon a new one.
-On the fly clutch psychic powers (like infernal gateway) that you might not want in your list all the time.
-Bringing on reserves turn 4, 5, 6, and 7.
-Not spending CP to deepstrike.
-Keeping your opponent on guard. Having 6 flamers in reserve (168pts, 1CP), is not the same as having: A daemon prince, or 20 pink horrors, or 6 flamers, or 5 screamers, or 10 brimstones, or two units of 10 blue horrors, or a changeling, or two units of 3 flamers, etc.
-Getting around the reserve restrictions.
-Keeping your first turn army footprint small for when you inevitably go second.

Just my opinion though.

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.

Same. I have a converted Chaos Lord and I hate using him because he feels like a poser and not a real Death Guard model simply because he lacks DR and T5.

Anyways, the 0-3 restriction I think will be okay, same if they restrict using <Imperium> and <Chaos> (maybe <Aeldari>?) keywords for Battle-forged. I'm curious if any of those changes are legit though or just typical 4chan trolling, since it's hard to tell when they are being serious and when they are trying to rile up the community for lulz.

Also, as a Death Guard player, I hope they nerf the Poxfarm and PBC spam lists into the ground, so a more balanced Death Guard force can be used.

What I would really like to see is them introduce "non-compulsory Troops" to things like ripper swarms, cultists, poxwalkers, etc. where they do not count as mandatory choices; the idea would be you can't fill a detachment with them as your only troops choice, you need "real" troops choices.

 Mushkilla wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Then I fear we play very, very different kinds of 40k. Which is completely fine. It's just a different perspective.

I play this game only competitively, and there is a near zero benefit to summoning, and I'd also rather simply have the models in the army, rather than relying on not moving to bring in more.

For context I play match play, Dominate and Destroy style missions (6 objectives, progressive scoring, kill points). I haven't attended a tournament in 8th. I get a game in once a week with the daemon codex. So if that invalidates my opinion for you that's fine.

But in my experience Summoning has loads of benefits, to list a few of them:

-Adapting to your opponents list.
-Adapting to the mission.
-Adapting to the current state of play.
-Recovering from the loss of key units, say loosing your fluxmaster to a lucky round of sniping early in the game. Just summon a new one.
-On the fly clutch psychic powers (like infernal gateway) that you might not want in your list all the time.
-Bringing on reserves turn 4, 5, 6, and 7.
-Not spending CP to deepstrike.
-Keeping your opponent on guard. Having 6 flamers in reserve (168pts, 1CP), is not the same as having: A daemon prince, or 20 pink horrors, or 6 flamers, or 5 screamers, or 10 brimstones, or two units of 10 blue horrors, or a changeling, or two units of 3 flamers, etc.
-Getting around the reserve restrictions.
-Keeping your first turn army footprint small for when you inevitably go second.

Just my opinion though.

Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC, and for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad. It's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.

Restricting <Aeldari> faction keyword makes the remaining Corsairs models incapable of being fielded. They delisted the Corsair HQs (and more).

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
45 days late because hive tyrants?!?!?! And they expect what with their codex faqs? No way any of them will be useful if it takes 45 days to fix hive tyrants

Hello, welcome to Tau Hell... where we've also been waiting on our Codex FAQ, for a month now

Do you think sheild drones will survive this FAQ - if it ever does come? Even as a tau player I kind of feel like I am cheating when I use them.

I mean, the shield drone changes have been in place for a minute now, these were the changes we saw back from Index 2 just now printed in the Codex. I think they'll be fine because they have 0 offensive capability.

I will say, I had a hilarious time the other day preventing someone from using a Forgefiend by continually charging it with shield drones, shrugging off the overwatch, and preventing it from shooting for 2 battle rounds.

 Ordana wrote:

Ash87 wrote:
Would be nice to at least get a timetable here from GW.

I don't even care if it's going to be like, a Summer FAQ at this point, as long as I know a vague guesstimate.

That's always extremely frustrating because I've been sitting here for multiple weeks now going: "Should I play this week, or just wait?"

Why on earth would a potential faq coming out stop you from playing the game you enjoy?
Hold off on buying for tournament play I can understand. but not playing?
Teh feth.

Well it's obviously not stopping me from playing, but I always worry that I need to rejig my lists as Is, the added uncertainty of having to change them all because of FAQs is just that much more added in.

The wording significantly changed with savior protocols. It used to allocate wounds - now it allocates hits. Where by you can intercept las cannons for a single mortal wound but shield drones have a 5+FNP. I think it's exceptionally broken. Almost to the point that shooting armies will automatically lose to tau unless they have tons of indirect fire to target the drones first.

It used to guarantee the hit was intercepted AND allowed the drone to take its saving roll. This meant T'au could have their cake and eat it too. Offensive output with gun drones that were as resilient to anti-infantry weaponry as shield drones. That was a bit much.

Now, it's entirely guaranteed casualties on gun and marker drones, and a one third chance on shield drones. For an army that can't engage in the psychic or assault phases, that type of durability is necessary, and the counterplay of opponents targeting them is too.

Before it intercepted wounds - not hits. It is a huge difference - game breakingly so.

I'd love to see a balance fix for Soup, but hope they don't make soup impossible.

Sometimes, Marines should be backing up IG. Sometimes Corsairs should be coming to the assistance of their brothers. Cultists should have their faiths and works 'rewarded' by a bloodthirster showing up to eat everything (enemies first, friends later).

It should just be that mono-IG should be more common than IoM Soup. Eldar of various walks of life should be seen most frequently with others of that walk of life. Soup shouldn't be so "free". Except for Chaos, to an extent.

Honestly, I think they need to gut soup not because it's the right choice, but because it's the only way to stop it being a problem in Matched Play. Otherwise, the comp players will abuse it just because they can.

The T'au change is one more thing about the game that says "Bringing the right weapon for the job was a mistake".

Prior to 8th, if you had a hard target to crack, Plas wasn't going to cut it - you needed Melta. If you were facing hordes, that PG wasn't going to do much for it's points. Now, between a number of different changes, Melta is one of the worse weapon types out there. The small volume uber-strong shots aren't necesssary, because the weaker shots aren't that much less effective.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Invalidate? No. I just disagree. I was in the top 5-10 of Daemons for the faction the last two years in the ITC...

I imagine ITC tournament games only going 3 turns probably limits the value of summoning.

Jokes aside, how many tournaments games have you used a summoning list in?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
...for the love of Tzeentch I simply cannot approve of the ability. It's bad.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying summoning couldn't use a boost. But saying "there is a near zero benefit to summoning" is not true, when there clearly are benefits. Sure in your experience they might not be worth the trade off and thats fine.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
it's so bad that the exact same rule that exists in AOS is being or has been changed, or so I had heard.

Yes summoning is better in AoS, 18" range, unit doesn't need to be entirely within those 18" either so plenty of daisy chaining, it can also be used after moving. It can also be denied though as a lot of summoning abilities are powers.

As I said I'm all for summoning getting a buff. But currently it still has uses. Restricting the number of duplicate units you can take adds another use.

Correct. My statements are purely my own experience and opinion.

0-3 would be an epic mistake on multiple levels for the reasons already mentioned.

This is standard GW with this 0-3 stuff. Can you guys not see now how lazy they are as rules makers?

Then you look at these suspected changes to purifiers...it actually makes them worse.

If this is true it's just standard GW fail.

So how close did the thousand son's codex come out to that one tournament?
Or whatever codex it was, I just remember a codex came out a little bit before a tournament and GW said "no you can't use it".

Trying to use past issues to try and figure out a closer time frame

Martel732 wrote:
0-3 would be an epic mistake on multiple levels for the reasons already mentioned.

Straight 0-3? Yea. Otherwise there's a lot of potential nuance.

Because my spare predator for my kill shot list is making people rage quit.

Martel732 wrote:
Because my spare predator for my kill shot list is making people rage quit.

It might under new restrictions for other things. You actually might not need a buffer predator as often. Who is to say at this point?