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.
2018/04/13 17:01:16
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
techsoldaten wrote: Did GW release a statement saying the March FAQ is now the Summer FAQ, and will be released after another tournament?
I thought I saw this, but can't seem to find where it's mentioned.
Because it was a troll and a photoshop...
And not after another tournament. I believe GW actually said it will be out in time for their own GT Finals (12-13 may)
2018/04/13 17:21:04
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
...So what I'm saying, is that we need an angry post Now.
Anger over incomplete and potentially incorrect information based on the assumption that GW leaked us the rule.
If GW wanted to gauge a proper reaction wouldn't they leak the whole rule with some clarity like the purifier screenshot? Occam's Razor my friend.
Occam's razor assumes the most simple explanation is the correct one. I wouldn't apply this rule to ANYTHING GW does.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/13 17:22:54
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
I still want to know if the nerf is going to be tied to keyword or not. The current rumors are kind of pointless against lots of armies with nearly identical units that have different datasheets. Eldar could make a Supreme Command Detachment with an Autarch, an Autarch Skyrunner, Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings and Autarch with Warp Jump Generator. Marines can do all 5 spots. Captain, captain in cataphractii, captain in gravis, captain in terminator, captain on bike. Both of those without using any named characters. Despite space marine players claiming it is one per game, they can actually fill a supreme command detachment with grandmasters as long as they are all different chapters. For example, Generic CM, Marneus, Pedro, and Kayvaan. Chaos can have 3 winged demon princes, and 3 regular since they use different sheets. Tyranids cannot have 6 Hive Tyrants because they use the same sheet. The list goes on, but I think you get the point.
2018/04/13 17:39:02
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
techsoldaten wrote: Did GW release a statement saying the March FAQ is now the Summer FAQ, and will be released after another tournament?
I thought I saw this, but can't seem to find where it's mentioned.
Because it was a troll and a photoshop...
And not after another tournament. I believe GW actually said it will be out in time for their own GT Finals (12-13 may)
"On time" should be with a month of lead-up so people can actually adjust their lists to accommodate the new rules. Adding new units or expanding existing ones in a army can take a great deal of time, and if these changes are as sweeping as what is being rumoured, we could see entire armies invalidated. GW needs to get this out quickly if they intend on using it for their tournament.
2018/04/13 17:40:04
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
2018/04/13 17:40:24
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
gendoikari87 wrote: Wow didn’t notice that ... so 1 man in charge of a bunch of women.... because that’s not terribly sexist in 2018
What the heck?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/13 17:40:42
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
2018/04/13 17:49:26
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
We can postulate over if the rule change would have the intended effect at the top level or not all we want... but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Again, if a rule comes with this many sub rules to make it work right... the original rule is probably really bad and there should be a lot of consideration given to alternatives instead.
Kinda like every piece of legislation passed anymore: they need so much more legislation to work correctly that it just begs the question: what was the function of this rule to begin with? To create more bad rules?
2018/04/13 17:53:37
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/13 17:57:50
2018/04/13 18:03:53
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
SOB get Ordo Hereticus
Grey Knights get Ordo Malleus
Deathwatch get Ordo Xenos
Then you give Assassins, SoS the (Ordo) keyword.
Possibly Astra Telepathica should get (Ordo), and Custodes could get Ordo Specialist.
That makes it so that you can take assassins or SoS with Grey Knights, SoB, DW, or Inquisition, and more or less cleans up the hanging chad factions.
It's fluffy, functional, and easy.
So they would ally under "Ordo"?
Not exactly. (Ordo) is the Inquisition Equivalent of (Chapter) or (Regiment). There are 4 Ordo's explicitly mentioned in the index. Ordo Hereticus hunts rogue psychers. Ordo Xenos hunts Xenos. Ordo Malleus hunts Chaos, and Ordo Specialist which is essentially a catch-all for all of the smaller ordos. So my solution wouldn't allow Grey Knights to share a keyword with SoB beyond Imperium. But it would allow them to share a keyword with Inquisition, Assassins, and SoS which generally have the generic (ordo) that allows you to pick a specific Ordo you align with.
It doesn't rebuild soup. Just lets you take Assassins, Inquisition, and SoS as part of either Grey Knights, Deathwatch, or SoB.
2018/04/13 18:21:10
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Purifying Tempest wrote: Look at how many caveat and exemption and clarifications the suggestions of the limit unit limit has caused here...
They be creating this discussion at every level of the game.
This is how you know it is a bad rule.
If the rule has to be backed up with exemptions and caveats and clarifications and on and on... it is just a bad rule.
Well, tag8833 just made a pretty elegant solution to part of it, so, it all really depends. Will limiting to 3 have the intended effect? It's impossible to know right now, because we have literally no details.
We can postulate over if the rule change would have the intended effect at the top level or not all we want... but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Again, if a rule comes with this many sub rules to make it work right... the original rule is probably really bad and there should be a lot of consideration given to alternatives instead.
Kinda like every piece of legislation passed anymore: they need so much more legislation to work correctly that it just begs the question: what was the function of this rule to begin with? To create more bad rules?
^This. The solution also is painfully limited to Imperial only. It also raises the question of how an army qualifies for exemption. Why do Grey Knights get soup, but not admech? What about Eldar? Why can't deathwatch marines work with other chapters despite being made of other chapters? Why are only Tau limited by the Commander keyword, and yet 3 of each daemon prince is legal? What about celestine which has the Astra Militarum keyword, but would never be allowed with Guard under this fix? If it is keywords, how similiar to things have to be to count? Tank Commanders have to fight with plain Leman Russes for a spot? Are rhinos the same as a razorback? Which transports if any are limited? Do transports have to start out with a unit in them to not be restricted? Does summoning count towards your limit? If Imperium is going away as a keyword, what about smaller keywords that are still bigger than 1 Codex like "Adeptus Astartes"? The list goes on....
2018/04/13 18:26:41
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/13 18:38:31
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
Spoiler:
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
Currently the rule is: bring what you want. There is no limitation, and things more-or-less work. Of course, models who are not balanced properly ruins this by it allowing you to stack those models to multiply the advantage across a bigger percentage of your army. But is that a problem with the ruleset or a model? Spam has been around since people found out that you can stack certain models to gain advantage, and since people discovered that not all models are made equal. So long as models are not equal (same stat lines equal), there will always be spam... whether it is infantry spam which invalidates heavy weapons, or vehicle spam which invalidates light weapons... on and on into the rock-paper-scissor of concepts game.
Now, there are a FEW exceptions to that rule made.
Named characters have a line in their dataslate that says 1 per army.
Tau Commanders have a limitation.
But so far, that's really the only limits. 2 exemptions to the global rule of "bring what you want".
In order to implement the heavy-handed 3/unit... now you have to ask all of those questions you asked me... and more. And now you have to ask them from the prism of EVERY faction that has a ruleset and ask: is this fair for them, or do we exempt them? You generate a huge list of restrictions, caveats, sub-bullets, and work-arounds that the solution becomes WORSE than the ailment it was made to address.
Some armies only have limited selections per slot. Are Sororitas players going to be penalized for really only having Fast Attack units? Oh, we're killing soup, AND you can only bring 1x of each HQ type and 3 of each non-troop selection... RIP that army. I mean, they're winning so many tournaments, definitely gotta keep our eyes on Dominion and Seraphim spam... they can kill models and stuff with that much melta. They can bring in some Retributors, too, but many Sororitas lists bring in those Rets and transports, and can still pack 4+ Fast Attacks... because that's what they have to work with.
Then consider vehicle squadrons... how do you fix those? Do we allow all vehicles to squad, or none? If I only have 3 Heavy Supports for my army... does that mean I have to actively choose between Killshot (lol), Linebreaker Bombardment, and having a squad of lascannon Havocs? None of that is particularly overpowered, even when spammed... so why is this a concern that needs to be addressed?
Did ANY of that actually address the problems with 40K, currently?
- Scenarios reward playstyle (ITC vs Adepticon scenarios artificially empowering/depowering units/codices)
- Terrain being garbage, hence leading to the above point
- Flying Hive Tyrants may be overpowered for their cost level, compared to the competition in their codex for the slots, thus deforming the environment when taken in mass
- Soup being really powerful and setting the tone for the entire edition (yeah, don't limit troops... that fixes IGCP batteries, fixes it right up)
You cannot remove spam from the game. If Leman Russ models are busted, but I can only take 3... guess what? I'm taking 3 Leman Russes because they're busted. Then the standard for "spam" becomes maxing out your FOC with "busted" units. And every high level tournament player will find the right combination of "busted" units that exploit the scenario to skew the advantage to their direction. That's why this rule will not work. If you force me to take Fast Attacks because you banhammered stacking Heavy Supports and HQs... that's fine, I'll just go and get Dominions in Immolators or Seraphim, drop in Celestine... look, Outrider of good Fast Attack. If I want to saturate you with vehicles, that's cool too... Hellhounds are REALLY good.
Let's stop swinging at everything. Most of the models did nothing wrong.
2018/04/13 18:38:32
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
.
My post appears to have gone right over your head.
Those are speculated/rumored variants of this rule all with varying degrees of effect and consequence. None of which can be appropriately addressed without the context in which they are surrounded.
I can't tell you if they address the problems, because I don't know the rules. We've already discussed the "whack-a-mole" issue over several pages so i'm not going to go over that again. The same problem exists when you adjust points BTW.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/04/13 18:46:49
2018/04/13 19:09:18
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
Asmodios wrote: I'm really surprised with the hate at delaying the FAQ to include recent major GT results. Personally, I'm all done for them taking their time so we need less smaller FAQs down the road
Why have a release schedule if you're going to delay it for tournaments that happen on a weekly basis?
Where was last weeks 500+ participant tournament?
Where is this weeks?
Where is next weeks?
Its 1.5 months from Adepticon to the next big tournament (Warhammer Fest and the week after London GT).
The 20 people in the back of your FLG doesn't provide the data GW is looking for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/13 19:09:44
2018/04/13 19:32:34
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
gendoikari87 wrote: Wow didn’t notice that ... so 1 man in charge of a bunch of women.... because that’s not terribly sexist in 2018
Actually the weirder quirk there is that you have a pysker in charge of a bunch of people who's whole role and purpose is shutting pyskers down and killing them.
2018/04/13 19:51:38
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
2018/04/13 19:58:11
Subject: Re:What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
WindstormSCR wrote: I think this FAQ is now too many things to too many people and by delaying it they're only fueling the hate that will come no matter what they end up doing.
So it was in 4th/5th, so shall it apparently be again.
That was always going to be the case. There was always going to be vast amounts of salt regardless of what was in it.
2018/04/13 20:01:09
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
but there have been so many scenarios already pointed out where the rule flat out doesn't work... and creates problems that are bigger than the current problem.
Which one though?
Limit 3 full stop?
Limit 3 except troops?
Limit 3 except troops and transports?
Limit 3 per detachment?
Limit 3 per combat role?
Is the limit or name or keyword?
With soup? Without soup?
I'm not sure I want to piss off Ming.
Spoiler:
This... this right here. This is why the rule is bad. You see all the questions? That is just scraping the tip.
Currently the rule is: bring what you want. There is no limitation, and things more-or-less work. Of course, models who are not balanced properly ruins this by it allowing you to stack those models to multiply the advantage across a bigger percentage of your army. But is that a problem with the ruleset or a model? Spam has been around since people found out that you can stack certain models to gain advantage, and since people discovered that not all models are made equal. So long as models are not equal (same stat lines equal), there will always be spam... whether it is infantry spam which invalidates heavy weapons, or vehicle spam which invalidates light weapons... on and on into the rock-paper-scissor of concepts game.
Now, there are a FEW exceptions to that rule made.
Named characters have a line in their dataslate that says 1 per army.
Tau Commanders have a limitation.
But so far, that's really the only limits. 2 exemptions to the global rule of "bring what you want".
In order to implement the heavy-handed 3/unit... now you have to ask all of those questions you asked me... and more. And now you have to ask them from the prism of EVERY faction that has a ruleset and ask: is this fair for them, or do we exempt them? You generate a huge list of restrictions, caveats, sub-bullets, and work-arounds that the solution becomes WORSE than the ailment it was made to address.
Some armies only have limited selections per slot. Are Sororitas players going to be penalized for really only having Fast Attack units? Oh, we're killing soup, AND you can only bring 1x of each HQ type and 3 of each non-troop selection... RIP that army. I mean, they're winning so many tournaments, definitely gotta keep our eyes on Dominion and Seraphim spam... they can kill models and stuff with that much melta. They can bring in some Retributors, too, but many Sororitas lists bring in those Rets and transports, and can still pack 4+ Fast Attacks... because that's what they have to work with.
Then consider vehicle squadrons... how do you fix those? Do we allow all vehicles to squad, or none? If I only have 3 Heavy Supports for my army... does that mean I have to actively choose between Killshot (lol), Linebreaker Bombardment, and having a squad of lascannon Havocs? None of that is particularly overpowered, even when spammed... so why is this a concern that needs to be addressed?
Did ANY of that actually address the problems with 40K, currently?
- Scenarios reward playstyle (ITC vs Adepticon scenarios artificially empowering/depowering units/codices)
- Terrain being garbage, hence leading to the above point
- Flying Hive Tyrants may be overpowered for their cost level, compared to the competition in their codex for the slots, thus deforming the environment when taken in mass
- Soup being really powerful and setting the tone for the entire edition (yeah, don't limit troops... that fixes IGCP batteries, fixes it right up)
You cannot remove spam from the game. If Leman Russ models are busted, but I can only take 3... guess what? I'm taking 3 Leman Russes because they're busted. Then the standard for "spam" becomes maxing out your FOC with "busted" units. And every high level tournament player will find the right combination of "busted" units that exploit the scenario to skew the advantage to their direction. That's why this rule will not work. If you force me to take Fast Attacks because you banhammered stacking Heavy Supports and HQs... that's fine, I'll just go and get Dominions in Immolators or Seraphim, drop in Celestine... look, Outrider of good Fast Attack. If I want to saturate you with vehicles, that's cool too... Hellhounds are REALLY good.
Let's stop swinging at everything. Most of the models did nothing wrong.
3 exceptions, custodes special contemptors are 0-1 per detachment too, which is rather odd if you ask me.
2018/04/13 20:10:02
Subject: What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?
2500 pts Raven Guard, painted 
