40k March FAQ is Finally here 4/16/18

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Crimson wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I used to think that, but the recent threads here demanding bannig of stuff like allies or index options in the name of balance have changed my mind. Frankly, I rather have a less balanced game with more options than a more balanced game with less options. Of course any balancing efforts which do not result de jure or de facto removal of options are welcome.

There is a balance in the middle.

Having options is great. I like options. But, they shouldn't be of mind boggling complexity. But nor should they be sacrificed purely for sake of straight forward game play.

2nd Ed was the former. So many odd little rules (losing one point of your AP roll for every 12" of range to the target is a favourite anecdote of mine), and the wargear cards created ridiculous characters, especially if combined with pokey Psychic boosting.

3rd Ed? Well, the game was stripped right back, and for my money became somewhat anaemic, and lacking in spectacle.

3rd Ed was a far more playable game, and no mistake. But for me, 2nd Ed, despite its horrendous flaws, was more fun.

I can't and won't comment on modern 40k in that way, as due to work I've barely played since 6th Ed, so my point of reference just isn't there.

**Daedalus81**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.
Somewhat of a false equivalency. People aren't angry about GW doing FAQs, they are angry that so many are needed in the first place, when hiring a SINGLE Proofreader/technical writer would have fixed 90% of the issues.

Do you not understand how the pace of codexes creates problems before they can tackle them? And, no, they can't playtest every spam.

If this was a year and a half from now and all the books were out you'd have a better point.

**The Phazer**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

There is a balance in the middle.

Having options is great. I like options. But, they shouldn't be of mind boggling complexity. But nor should they be sacrificed purely for sake of straight forward game play.

2nd Ed was the former. So many odd little rules (losing one point of your AP roll for every 12" of range to the target is a favourite anecdote of mine), and the wargear cards created ridiculous characters, especially if combined with pokey Psychic boosting.

3rd Ed? Well, the game was stripped right back, and for my money became somewhat anaemic, and lacking in spectacle.

3rd Ed was a far more playable game, and no mistake. But for me, 2nd Ed, despite its horrendous flaws, was more fun.

I can't and won't comment on modern 40k in that way, as due to work I've barely played since 6th Ed, so my point of reference just isn't there.

I like mind boggling complexity when it's fluffy, and don't really care about extremes of balance if it contradicts it.

I still quite like the current approach, the only issue is that GW won't sell me a set of digital rulebooks that are up to date and don't require traipsing back and forth to FAQs. I'd happily pay a sub for it even.

**H.B.M.C.**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Do you not understand how the pace of codexes creates problems before they can tackle them?

That's not an excuse for poor proofreading and technical writing.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Duskweaver wrote:

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced, because after all those formation detachments created pretty fluffy armies. I'd disagree though.

**Sunny Side Up**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Duskweaver wrote:

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced, because after all those formation detachments created pretty fluffy armies. I'd disagree though.

Balanced, no? But they attempted to emulate the background (along with being an aggressive sales pitch).

A lot of stuff in 8th Edition does as well.

Chapter Tactics (Craftworld traits, etc..) are anathema to balance. Two different, advantageous traits that are applied "for free" cannot perfectly equally apply to 50+ units and come out perfectly matched in all conceivable combinations. One's inevitably going to be superior, unless "add-on" rules are also priced in points (and different point values for different game sizes and for different units depending on how much or how little they benefit a given unit or combination of units).

For a tournament edition, something more akin to early 3rd or the 4th Edition Chaos book, where Chapters, Legions, Craftworlds are "only different paint jobs" would likely be inevitable. But people enjoy the nod to background in the rules, actually making one sub-faction stealthier and the other faster and the third one more resilient, or whatever.

The downside is, as these cannot be balanced (as long as they are free), that the 0.01% of the player base that is the tournament scene will abuse these traits in list building, but that's a small price to pay for giving the other 99.99% of the player base that more immersive gameplay experience.

**Whazgog Da Despot**

Duskweaver wrote:

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

I agree 100%

I can't speak to nitty-gritty balance issues, but how about GW just gets rid of HQ spam detachments, or spam detachments in general? Sure, someone will inevitably complain about not being able to field an army made up entirely of tanks, Hive Tyrants, etc, But if the game is supposed to be representative of "war in the 41st millennium", having the ability to spam the types of armies we're seeing doesn't seem very fitting or make much tactical sense. No general would field such armies and an actual invading 'nid force wouldn't look like the Tyranid army that won Adepticon.

**gorgon**

I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

**Kirasu**

gorgon wrote:
I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

Because GW is fully embracing and supporting the tournament scene? Or have you missed that they have been streaming every round from every major tournament lately? Proper fixes at the top level of game play trickles down to ALL levels as you tend to notice major balance problems when you're playing competitively.

**Formosa**

I for one am happy about this, taking feedback for FAQS for matched play at tourneys is a bloody good thing and if such a massive issue was shown at Adepticon, then damn right they should delay the FAQ to take that into account!

Always happy to bash GW for being stupid, but also happy to praise them for doing the right thing.

**zamerion**

Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

**topaxygouroun i**

zamerion wrote:
Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

What about the weakest armies in the game?

i hope they don't limit themselves only into balancing only the armies that are under the spotlight.

**Duskweaver**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced

Umm... no? I honestly have no idea how you got that from anything I said. What I'm talking about is really orthogonal to the issue of 'balance'.

Balance is about how big a variance there is between the 'good' and 'bad' choices. I'm more concerned with making the 'good' choices match the lore (or, rather, to ensure that fluffy choices are generally also 'good' ones). I agree that 7th edition had awful balance, but that would have been the case even if the rules hadn't tried (incompetently) to encourage fluffy armies.

Whazgog Da Despot wrote:how about GW just gets rid of HQ spam detachments, or spam detachments in general?

I think this is the wrong approach. I don't want to ban non-fluffy choices. I want to make sure that the fluffy choice is generally superior, so that people won't want to field non-fluffy armies.

Rather than banning the five-Flyrant detachment, I'd rather change the Flyrant to make taking five of them not be worth it.

Scaling points costs might be a solution. E.g. your first unit of a particular type costs X points per model, but your second unit of that same type costs X+y points per model. So spamming multiples of the same thing gets expensive quickly. Obviously, your basic core units (like SM Tactical Squads) would be exempt, because they're supposed to be taken in multiples.

But I've not thought this through at all, so there's probably some massive flaw I've not realised.

**gorgon**

Kirasu wrote:
gorgon wrote:
I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

Because GW is fully embracing and supporting the tournament scene? Or have you missed that they have been streaming every round from every major tournament lately? Proper fixes at the top level of game play trickles down to ALL levels as you tend to notice major balance problems when you're playing competitively.

You're not making any sense to me here. GW has structured 8th edition 40K to support *three* formats for play. HQ spam and similar constructions aren't an issue at the open and narrative play levels since those formats are self-policed and not focused on balanced gameplay.

Issues with army construction are only possible in a matched play format, and it's highly questionable whether they're bonafide issues there. As I stated, the TOs of the largest tournaments EASILY could have addressed it, but they've chosen not to. Attendance also seems to be doing just fine at these events. And we've seen that the metas at different events lend themselves to certain armies and constructions and not others.

So if the point being advanced here is that GW needs to step in because (apparently) some non-competitive players don't like the look of competitive armies at certain events...yeah, that doesn't make even a little bit of sense to me. I'm all for addressing unclear rules and fixing abuseable rules loopholes. Those fixes do help everyone. But HQ spam isn't either of those two things. The tools to address that are right there in the rulebook already.

**Galas**

topaxygouroun i wrote:
zamerion wrote:
Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

What about the weakest armies in the game? i hope they don't limit themselves only into balancing only the armies that are under the spotlight.

Well, if they nerf the more powerfull armies by default the weaker ones will become more competitive. But yeah, I think, for now, GW has done a good job in 8th with nearly all Codex Armies. Barring Grey Knights, and not-Guilliman Space Marines, all armies with a Codex are playable and in a, relatively, nice place, even if many can't compete with the most busted lists made of 2-3 units of 3-4 Codexes out there.
We can see the balance is much better than past editions because theres not two tournaments with the same armies at the high tables. just changing missions, secondary objetives, etc... changes completely what armies are at the top. Thats a good thing. (And its not like the top tables of big tournaments are the only thing one should look at to decide if the game is properly balanced)

**bullyboy**

I don't see why GW has to monitor the meta/tournament scene......do it yourselves. Don't want Command spam, disallow the Command detachment, simple. I'd rather GW keep an open environment and let tourny organizers determine what type of event they want to run. Change the points, change the detachments, etc. Don't be stale.

**rollawaythestone**

I'm glad they are considering tournament results when thinking about their game and potential FAQ issues. It's skewed data, but a large amount of it under relatively controlled circumstances relative to how the game is played generally. I think tournament performance can help them see the problem spots for units and armies that isn't really possible without large amounts of people purposefully trying to min/max to extremes.

**WrentheFaceless**

As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

**Grimtuff**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

**WrentheFaceless**

Grimtuff wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

It may very well could have been the most playtested edition, but you cant completely eliminate human error and catch every issue now matter how much its tested.

**ph34r**

I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

**Grimtuff**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

It may very well could have been the most playtested edition, but you cant completely eliminate human error and catch every issue now matter how much its tested.

No you can't, but when you go from virtually zero playtesting to making it one of the cornerstones of marketing for your new edition then you are going to be held in a higher regard and should expect the criticism that should come with it.

PP also caught a huge amount of flak from their playerbase from doing a similar thing from Mk2 to Mk3 by touting "3 years of playtesting", which many players threw straight back in their faces after (in their opinions) this was not the case. PP took this on the chin and made the Community Integrated Development (CID) system to let the players be the beta testers prior to release.

**Galef**

ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree

-

**Andykp**

Kdash wrote:
So.. are you saying that, if GW made a “tournament” version of the game that was completely balanced, you’d still prefer to play the previous unbalanced version of the game????

If the game is balanced across the board, and everything was at the point where an FAQ wasn’t needed for 25% of each army’s special interactions, then there wouldn’t be any problems.

The moment the game is balanced, and is balanced around the GW missions, is the moment we will see things start to move forward. Just because something is unbalanced in ITC or ETC doesn’t always mean it is unbalanced in GW chapter approved missions, but there is still the possibility of it being so. Also, just because a unit hasn’t won an event, doesn’t mean it isn’t unbalanced overall – as we all know, there are other factors involved in winning an event, besides how OP a unit is.

Once the game is balanced around the ruleset, you’ll see or formats start to disappear imo. For example, ITC Champions missions only exist because they are trying to create a balanced format in an unbalanced game. Noone wants to play a competitive game that depends on how many units you have in your army, or whether you can infiltrate onto the relic and run away first turn. ETC missions are just a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom – modified slightly in an attempt at balancing out a few issues.

But – until GW gets their ruleset into line, they will of course have to take things like ITC into account, as that is one of the most public faces of the game. Only time will tell what will happen.

When I play none of the issues come up so the game is balanced enough for me already. My mates don't take and army of spores and tyrants or nothing but dark reapers so. Most of the rules queries on here don't come up because we wouldn't dare try and twist wording to ludicrous levels. Played for fun the game works fine and balance isn't an issue. These issues around balance only come in when people play to win regardless of setting or fluff. At which point it stops being 40k. Also to the original post copy and pasting internet power lists isn't imagination, my armies all have huge back stories and make sense. That takes imagination.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

Buy and paint things because that are cool and fun and fit your armies style. Even if you never play them! Things YOU like. I glance a FAQs but pay more attention to errata. FAQs tend not to change how we play.

**Elbows**

Andy is describing the "catch" in all of this.

One game for two audiences. When people ask me how 8th is, I say "good fun, with the usual caveats". The caveats are that it sucks as a competitive/tournament minded game. The game is as broken as it's ever been. So to me, "competitive" 40K is a sham. However, as a basis for creating a fun game between friends, it's well above some previous editions.

If you play 40K hyper competitive, or your enjoy beat-face tournaments, you really have little room to complain, as you've elected to play the game in that fashion. You don't "have" to play it that way, and honestly GW never posited that it was supposed to be played that way. So when you choose to play a competitive game of 40K without reigning in the nonsense with your own common sense...you're kinda asking for trouble.

The game is always in the hands of the players. We're not beholden to anything unless we choose to be (i.e. tournaments, and even GW's rules etc.). 40K is not, and has never been, a properly balanced game suitable to serious competitive play. I don't think GW will change this in the future, regardless of the people who want it to.

**Red Corsair**

Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Or, they could simple use the past few months worth of 250-500+ player events that last 8 games and save thousands of billable man hours and have it done in no time.

This is a good thing, I would rather they use community play testing then try to tackle the impossible behind closed doors by themselves. Or would folks rather they take 10+ years to put out a balanced FAQ again/errata again?

This is a very good sign, I am fine with rules being less then perfect so long as they are willing to correct them. Expecting them to get it right the first time is a mistake. Chess isn't even balanced and is FAR less organic then 40k with a fraction of the moving parts.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Duskweaver wrote:
In theory, there are two types of army.

Type A is the pure fluff army that looks exactly like the game's lore states most armies in the setting are. The SM Battle Company. The Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and retinue plus stormtroopers and a squad of Deathwatch. The Craftworld Eldar army that's primarily Guardians.

Type B is the pure competitive/tournament army where fluff and model-coolness are irrelevant. Twinky special rule interactions and the absolute best bang for your points-buck.

In an ideal game system, A and B are the same. The armies that best fit the fluff also work best in the game. The factions in the game's setting are trying their hardest to win all their battles, so the armies they have decided are the best should also be the best in the game.

But the ideal game system doesn't exist.

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

This.

**Irbis**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Chapter Tactics (Craftworld traits, etc..) are anathema to balance. Two different, advantageous traits that are applied "for free" cannot perfectly equally apply to 50+ units and come out perfectly matched in all conceivable combinations. One's inevitably going to be superior, unless "add-on" rules are also priced in points (and different point values for different game sizes and for different units depending on how much or how little they benefit a given unit or combination of units).

Wrong. What traits should do is to encourage fluffy armies by boosting particular playstyle of faction you're interested in. Say, White Scar hit and run, BT assaults, Ultramarines tactical planning and coordination. BT trait might make their assault squad 'better' than UM one, but who cares, you picked up UM because you like thinking combined arms force, not berserkers, and you get bonus to that. One combination is better than other? Buff weaker one, done. You have nice and fluffy force because your units synergize well, not because you were limited in choice.

In encouraging character, the traits in 8th edition succeeded pretty well, I think. The problem is not traits. It's the ridiculously stupid decision to then throw away the playstyle focus by allowing allying cherrypicked detachments consisting only of units well meshing with Trait X, when detachment next to it spamming units that want Trait Y. It never happens in the books, so why it should happen in the game? IMO, the only detachment that should be allowed to have different trait to your warlord's is patrol/auxiliary one, if that.

Duskweaver wrote:
Scaling points costs might be a solution. E.g. your first unit of a particular type costs X points per model, but your second unit of that same type costs X+y points per model. So spamming multiples of the same thing gets expensive quickly. Obviously, your basic core units (like SM Tactical Squads) would be exempt, because they're supposed to be taken in multiples.

Eh, that would increase book keeping significantly. I do like Tau solution (limiting certain rare units to 1 per detachment), but then you get loud whine you're not allowed to spam your broken OP gak anymore, instead of being glad you got to keep it in at least some form. I suspect scaling price would elicit the exact same WAAC response, sadly, while not being better in any way.

**Da-Rock**

Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

You do realize that this game is not built first for Tournament Play? Right? They make more money off of all player types.....Tournament players are the only ones who pull a "New England Patriots" win at all cost attitude.

Since I played in both world's I understand the allure of Tournament play and that of Casual.....unfortunately, many do not and they are the ones who piss and moan the most.

**ph34r**

Andykp wrote:
Buy and paint things because that are cool and fun and fit your armies style. Even if you never play them! Things YOU like. I glance a FAQs but pay more attention to errata. FAQs tend not to change how we play.

I just want the units to fit into the army and not go up in points forcing me to cut models I just painted y'know