What will you do if the March FAQ does not have point changes?

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.

**Grimgold**

I love polls like these, how about a new answer, not care and be happy GW is continuing to supporting the game with rules updates to address balance.

**An Actual Englishman**

Continue to live my life, happy in the knowledge that this is just a game.

**daedalus**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Continue to live my life, happy in the knowledge that this is just a game.

Wow. And I thought I had my priorities out of whack.

**Daedalus81**

Grimgold wrote:
I love polls like these, how about a new answer, not care and be happy GW is continuing to supporting the game with rules updates to address balance.

That is what I intend to do.

**WarOne**

I voted "I told you so" only because I refuse to be wrong.

Also, are the daedaluses multiplying lately?

**AnomanderRake**

WarOne wrote:
...Also, are the daedaluses multiplying lately?

I'd expect so. The only place I've run across the name Daedalus referenced in 40k canon it's an obscure Hive Fleet, and one thing Tyranids are noted for doing is multiplying.

In response to the original question I'm going to take my usual approach, and rewrite the things that need rewriting on my own. I've been needing to rewrite things that GW has rendered unplayable or deleted since 5e at least (with the death of the Inquisition), nothing new is happening here.

**Spoletta**

Poinit changes are not the only way to fix stuff.

That said, we already had FAQs changing point values, so anything is possible at this point.

**Crazyterran**

Nah, just make aspect warriors require a squad of every other aspect warriors before you can take a second squad of any one type.

Just hamdistedy ruin all aspect warriors, because GW.

**Kanluwen**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
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

Doing this would pretty much kill Guard as anything but Allied Soup.

We don't exactly have an abundance of HQ choices with <Regiment>. It's Company and Tank Commanders. Platoon Commanders(the other <Regiment> Order issuer) are Elite choices and Tempestor Primes are keyword locked to Militarum Tempestus.
Commissars are trash in both HQ and Elite format; always will be unless they revert the nerf.
Primaris Psykers aren't <Regiment>.

If we make it so Company Commanders are 1 per Detachment, then let's make Techpriest Dominus 1 per Detachment! Let's make everyone be 1 per Detachment!

**Galas**

Lets make troops 1 per detachment too. All highlander all the time.

**Blackie**

Where's the "I couldn't care less" option??

I'm still playing with 3 indexes, all I want is at least one codex to play with

Also dark reapers are not an issue since I don't see any player fielding more than 10 of them in my area.

**Earth127**

Of course I'm gna say I told you so, caus I did.

**Mmmpi**

I said buy more reapers, which is going to happen eventually, nerf or not. I only have five of the 3rd ed micro-reapers, so I'll be wanting to expand the squad, and then eventually replace them with newer ones.

**dracpanzer**

Purge EVERTHING!!!!

**dkoz**

You forgot the option for do nothing because points aren't that bad as is.

**Tiberius501**

I'd say some stat changes for a couple of things would be better than points changes at this point, though I don't know how they could do that without having to make certain datasheets irrelevant. Stuff like Deathshroud Terminators for the Death Guard could do with an extra wound each. I guess you could make them a little cheaper again but then their bodyguard rule and amount of high Strength/Damage attacks would be undercosted. Stuff like that need some stat tweaks in my opinion

**Aetare**

So many good options here...

**Racerguy180**

didn't GW say no points changes for FAQ and the points changes are for CA?

**Lance845**

Racerguy180 wrote:
didn't GW say no points changes for FAQ and the points changes are for CA?

They havent said anything either way. Just that march and july? Would have major balancing faqs and november would see a new ca.

**Grimtuff**

ITT- everything that is wrong with the 40k playerbase

IOW many of the replies here amount to "I don't care. Caring about these things is for WAACers and if you care you are one". A balanced game is better for everyone, whether you play casually or not.

**tneva82**

Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- everything that is wrong with the 40k playerbase

IOW many of the replies here amount to "I don't care. Caring about these things is for WAACers and if you care you are one". A balanced game is better for everyone, whether you play casually or not.

Or not actually. There are those after all who don't use points to begin with. Or even power levels. Changes in either are irrelevant for those.

**NH Gunsmith**

The choices in this poll are terrible.

**Arachnofiend**

tneva82 wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- everything that is wrong with the 40k playerbase

IOW many of the replies here amount to "I don't care. Caring about these things is for WAACers and if you care you are one". A balanced game is better for everyone, whether you play casually or not.

Or not actually. There are those after all who don't use points to begin with. Or even power levels. Changes in either are irrelevant for those.

Yeah, and there are people who don't play Warhammer 40k at all! They wouldn't care about these changes at all!

**tneva82**

Arachnofiend wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- everything that is wrong with the 40k playerbase

IOW many of the replies here amount to "I don't care. Caring about these things is for WAACers and if you care you are one". A balanced game is better for everyone, whether you play casually or not.

Or not actually. There are those after all who don't use points to begin with. Or even power levels. Changes in either are irrelevant for those.

Yeah, and there are people who don't play Warhammer 40k at all! They wouldn't care about these changes at all!

No need to go that extreme.

You DO know you need neither points nor power levels to play 40k? I have been doing that for years. Results in more balanced games even.

**auticus**

True. Because the points themselves are not balanced, so relying on an unbalanced mechanic for balance cannot give balance. It gives structure and allows for deckbuilding but definitely not balance.

**Elbows**

I'll just keep playing the way I play 40K...

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
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.

How would be make an army with only 1 CC or TC? We need 3 unique HQ's. Crap-spam Commissar lords? Also, Tank Commanders are rather expensive as HQ's.

Unless they alter the detachment structure to reduce the HQ requirement, I have to oppose 1/detachment restriction on common, basic HQ's. While it does make sense that your company only has one captain and doesn't make sense that it has 3, not everybody is the Space Marines with a hundred unique HQ options that aren't being used. I think IG has Commissar Lord, CC, Tempestor, and TC for generic leaders.

**Ordana**

Just Faq's and no changes would lead to dark days for ITC tournament play as Eldar take over for another year.

**Porphyrius**

Marines have:

-Captain
-Lieutenant
-Chaplain
-Librarian
-Techmarine

Guard has:
-Company Commander
-Lord Commissar
-Primaris Psyker
-Tank Commander
-Tempestor Prime

Now granted some of the Guard choices don't get regimental benefits, but in terms of numbers they aren't that different and from a fluff perspective marines have the same problem (i.e. you probably shouldn't have 2 captains).

If you were referring to the fact that many of those marine HQs have separate datasheets depending on their wargear, then that's a different story.

**Kanluwen**

Porphyrius wrote:
Marines have:

-Captain
-Lieutenant
-Chaplain
-Librarian
-Techmarine

Guard has:
-Company Commander
-Lord Commissar
-Primaris Psyker
-Tank Commander
-Tempestor Prime

Now granted some of the Guard choices don't get regimental benefits, but in terms of numbers they aren't that different and from a fluff perspective marines have the same problem (i.e. you probably shouldn't have 2 captains).

If you were referring to the fact that many of those marine HQs have separate datasheets depending on their wargear, then that's a different story.

Literally only the Company Commander and Tank Commander are 'generic' in that they're <Regiment>.
Everyone else has locked in keywords.