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.

Let's hear it Dakka.

Well, I could use some more Dark Reapers anyway, soooo....

If they don't I think you definitely will hear some gripes.

My bud has a sheer issue with reapers right now and I only have 5 and haven't even been using my eldar recently. This is funny to me as I've been winding him up about getting more for a while. I'm actually building a wraith army and will probably get rid of my failcast reapers eventually but hey ho.

I told you so.

[Does this thread count as unrelated?]

If it doesn't have point changes, but they address certain abilities and units, i'll be okay with that.

The game can see balance improvements without points changes.

I'm really hoping they do something with keywords. It's gotten really, really out of hand, and their FAQs are inconsistent on how keywords are treated from army to army.

If they released a statement saying you can only have 1 faction keyword per unit, and that a detachment must use the same faction keyword (this should exclude 'super keywords,' like 'Aeldari,' 'Imperium,' 'Chaos') I would be very happy. It should not be this hard to determine what buff works where. GW is dropping the ball big time with keywords.

 Marmatag wrote:

I'm really hoping they do something with keywords. It's gotten really, really out of hand, and their FAQs are inconsistent on how keywords are treated from army to army.

Do you mean like the recent Daemon keyword nerf? What other high profile ones are you hoping they tag?

Go about my business as usual. It's a game. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

 Lance845 wrote:
Go about my business as usual. It's a game. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner folks.

Additionally I will become super passive-aggressive opponent to all Eldar players. So, really, nothing new.

FAQs likely will have no point changes, they already said that that will be the yearly chapter approved's domain.

FAQ is just that. An FAQ.

As I only play narrative games with PL I don't care what they do with points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

I'm really hoping they do something with keywords. It's gotten really, really out of hand, and their FAQs are inconsistent on how keywords are treated from army to army.

Do you mean like the recent Daemon keyword nerf? What other high profile ones are you hoping they tag?

No the daemon keyword made sense to me, it's how some of the other ones work together, like Death Guard using CSM stratagems, or Eldar sharing multiple keywords - Ynnari, Alaitoc.

I would also change the detachment and army construction rules. "Super" keywords are also problematic.

As an Eldar player, one cannot have enough Dark Reapers these days.
Too bad for the rest of the universe.

I honestly just want it to be over with.

Because every passing day I get more and more paranoid IG are going to get nerfed into the ground even though at worst they'll tweak us a bit.

MrMoustaffa's "the mole people are in league with the illuminati" predictions

-Company/tank commanders limited to one per detachment
-plasma and melta costs swapped
-guardsmen 5ppm

Those would all be pretty fair changes and I'm highly doubtful they'll happen in March.

Im mainly hoping CP's and strategems are limited to the detachment that generates them, and that there is something thrown in where your warlord must be from the largest points detachment to limit IG allied shenanigans. I know the new trend would be "1,0001pts guard 999 other" but a guy can dream.

I chose, "Do nothing because I don't care."
I would have anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:


No the daemon keyword made sense to me, it's how some of the other ones work together, like Death Guard using CSM stratagems, or Eldar sharing multiple keywords - Ynnari, Alaitoc.

I would also change the detachment and army construction rules. "Super" keywords are also problematic.

Ah, yea. I would be HUGELY surprised if GW was tuned into that and actually decided to implement a fix on this round of FAQs.

 Lance845 wrote:
Go about my business as usual. It's a game. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Yep. This should have been an option. But, much like the March FAQ, it really doesn't matter.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Go about my business as usual. It's a game. Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Yep. This should have been an option. But, much like the March FAQ, it really doesn't matter.

It's more of a comedy thread than anything.

Wait for CA in December. No one knows what the mid-year FAQs look like.

Martel732 wrote:
Wait for CA in December. No one knows what the mid-year FAQs look like.

That's a loooong slog. Maybe they can make enough relevant changes without points. Interesting times in any case.

Maybe read what they have changed and then decide if that means its new army time untill CA 2018 and hope they actually do a good job of making a balanced game at attempt number I've lost count now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wait for CA in December. No one knows what the mid-year FAQs look like.

That's a loooong slog. Maybe they can make enough relevant changes without points. Interesting times in any case.

Considering the old slog was wait for a new edition of the game I think everyone will manage just fine.

What a dang mess this CA business is. Out of principle I really hope none of you buy this nonsense. It sends them the wrong message. Unless of course the CA actaully makes an attempt to balance the game...which it wont.

I welcome ca. So i have to disagree.

I will keep playing because the game is a lot of fun even in his state right now.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wait for CA in December. No one knows what the mid-year FAQs look like.

That's a loooong slog. Maybe they can make enough relevant changes without points. Interesting times in any case.

Considering the old slog was wait for a new edition of the game I think everyone will manage just fine.

True. I do think i'm becoming a bit spoiled. Never hurts to push for more though.

Even if they do adjust some things we still have a bunch of books that will likely throw it into chaos again anyway.

I want the option "I don't care".

 lolman1c wrote:
I want the option "I don't care".

Well, you can't have it! You lose, sir! Good day!

[willywonka.jpg]

I'm missing the option "Nothing, as I play in a friendly meta devoid from TFG's and WAAC-hats."

It's a good poll, but I feel like it deserves multiple choice. I just put some straps on several of my paper bags so that I can wear them around my face hands free to hyperventilate AS I'm typing "I told you so" with one hand and punching the wall with the other.

Rage!!!!!!

Carry on and purge the heretic should have been an option because that's my vote.