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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:

People that were salty about GW continue to be salty about GW.
People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW.
People who want 40k to be something it isn't are continually disappointed.
People who are comfortable with 40k where its at are fine.

Earth shattering FAQ, that was.

Uhh - I don't think you are paying attention. If going backwards doesn't make you upset - there is just no saving you.

Q: When a Psyker in my army casts the Quicken psychic
power on one of my units, can that unit Advance when it makes
this move?
A: Yes.

Doesn't this go against the previous FAQ, stating if a unit advances in the movement phase, then gets to move again due to a power/ability/stratagem they use the same movement value as they used in the movement phase. This reads like you now choose to advance, then potentially roll another advance die instead?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

Do you know what a summary of changes is? It should include all the changes - otherwise it is not a summary.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I didn't think I could think less of GW's dev team but they did it.

I am not surprised by this statement. Not because I agree with you, but because I expected you to have that outlook.

How could you not agree? The only real changes they made could have been drawn up in approx 10 minutes and they delayed the FAQ over 2 weeks.

ITT:
People who read the "FAQ summary" explicitly labelled as a summary, and then complain it wasn't long enough, while ignoring literally every other FAQ updated today.

Do you know what a summary of changes is? It should include all the changes - otherwise it is not a summary.

Here was me thinking that summaries usually had less content than the things they summarized, rather than just being a copy & paste.

I think the changes to deepstrike and the 0-3 limit will shift the meta significantly, and probably in a good way.

I wanted more points changes, but I can understand not wanting to change too many things at once.

Hopefully these will be most of the major rules changes we need, and the focus in chapter approved can be on tweaking points to make the armies more balanced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW..

I'm disappointed in the lack of some changes. I'm just not making grand statements about how much I hate GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People that weren't salty about GW continue to not be salty about GW..

I'm disappointed in the lack of some changes. I'm just not making grand statements about how much I hate GW.

I think some disappointment is fine. I'm a bit disappointed myself, as there are a few things I'd've liked to see that weren't addressed.

When I say "salty" I mean "irrationally upset" not merely disappointed.

About what I expected honestly. The CP increase surprises me, if only because it makes cheap guard battalion even more powerful.

the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

 Earth127 wrote:
the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

Yes. Baneblades used to be, RAW, able to overwatch even if an enemy was already standing within 1". Now, they can still shoot, but cannot overwatch, which is an excellent change. Even as someone who benefitted from the earlier RAW, being able to have essentially unstoppable overwatch was very much anti-fun, especially combined with Defensive Gunners stratagem, et al.

jcd386 wrote:
I think the changes to deepstrike and the 0-3 limit will shift the meta significantly, and probably in a good way.

I wanted more points changes, but I can understand not wanting to change too many things at once.

Hopefully these will be most of the major rules changes we need, and the focus in chapter approved can be on tweaking points to make the armies more balanced.

I totally agree and this makes me very optimistic about the direction of the game

Kdash wrote:
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

I still try to stick to the rule even when not at a tournament, because where and when I will be playing a given list is not always the same. Better to be more restrictive when it is unnecessary, than to learn of new restrictions after you've gotten accustomed to working without them.

Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

You mean the same suggestion that limits to 3 Detachments

Yeah, every game is free to play 0-10 datasheets with 10 detachments at 1000 points on a 12*8 table if they want to
the same as they may use the matched play rules

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

I think all the tournement rules will be the standard for matched play and pick up games in most areas. They are in mine, anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

Before anyone asks:

Custodes, BA, GK

Audustum wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Dude, they took this long for this? this is nothing. Guard are going to rule supreme again.... them and DE

All but 3 armies have changes (currently). The FW and Index FAQs are updated as well.

Before anyone asks:

Custodes, BA, GK

Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

Possibly but the changes to deep strike are a big screw you to BA, Guilliman gets another buff. Like at this point Marines are dead and people just need to accept that fact.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Eh, people in the News and Rumours thread said the CP for Battalions and Brigades have been changed to 5CP and 12CP lol... I'm presuming they've got rid of the 3CP for battle forged... If not... One of my lists now has 20CP?!?!

Question... Does this list follow the rule of 3?

You mean the rule that isn't a rule and is only a suggestion to be used in tournaments?

I still try to stick to the rule even when not at a tournament, because where and when I will be playing a given list is not always the same. Better to be more restrictive when it is unnecessary, than to learn of new restrictions after you've gotten accustomed to working without them.

In answer to the original question - yes it does adhere to the rule of 3 rule. The HQs are essentially 1 commander, 3 fireblades and an etheral. Could prob swap things around to go 2 commanders and still have enough threat whilst keeping the brigade + battalion format. (still also contains drones, a riptide, ghostkeels, broadsides etc etc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:


Basically GW just told all Marine Players to F the H off.

Or maybe they forgot to upload them?

Possibly but the changes to deep strike are a big screw you to BA, Guilliman gets another buff. Like at this point Marines are dead and people just need to accept that fact.

Raven Guard now become a premier assault army, either hitting all at once, or in a couple of waves. 14CP is now not really "unobtainable" for them, and gives them plenty of options to just use SftS instead of deepstriking. Also, with the deep strike change, you might see a drop off of certain screening units, meaning you're more likely to be able to get into the position you want.

Of course, you still get hammered if you lose the roll off to go first, but it's potentially survivable.

Yeah I was hoping for a sfts Nerf this FAQ

 Earth127 wrote:
the counterargument they gave on stream was that armies that could already acces massive amountys of CP didn't get as big a benefit: diminishing returns.

Also is this new?
Pages 118-125 – Baneblade, Banehammer, Banesword,
Doomhammer, Hellhammer, Shadowsword, Stormlord
and Stormsword, Steel Behemoth
Change the third sentence to read:
‘It can, except when firing Overwatch, also still fire
its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it (but only
its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target
units that are within 1" of it – its other guns must target
other units).’

Yeah the issue is not a guard army it is say a custodes army that was running a guard CP factory just got 2 extra CP. So it helps elite armies by making a cheap guard battalion even more of an auto pick.

As expected by I think a lot of people they have gone for the simplistic solution, while not really adressing the underlying issue that was upsetting the player base.
They have also made any non codex faction eg assasins, sos, LOF fallen etc untenable in matched play

Ice_can wrote:
As expected by I think a lot of people they have gone for the simplistic solution, while not really adressing the underlying issue that was upsetting the player base.
They have also made any non codex faction eg assasins, sos, LOF fallen etc untenable in matched play

I take it you didn't read the FAQ then?

I did but who's going to give up a full detachment to field a minimum of 3 assasins? As you have yo make a legal vanguard detachment without an HQ. Such a bizarre way to solve the problem.