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.

**topaxygouroun i**

Platuan4th wrote:
topaxygouroun i wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what Aggamemnon and I were actually responding about.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you just may want to re-read the quote chain and its actual context.

this has to do:
What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now?

I said that in previous years, well painted armies really got awarded extra victory points in tournaments, even official GW ones. And I agree to that. So yeah, if you are a good painter you should get special consideration. Because you promote the hobby better than others (me included).

Yeah, I was around for those years. But that's not really special consideration, just part(or not these days) of the event and still isn't addressing the actual thing that Slayer-Fan was saying.

What Aggamemnon is saying as special consideration is more akin to those stupid "painted armies get Preferred Enemy against unpainted" type rules. Or in this case that well painted armies should be allowed to ignore certain army build rules because they're well painted.

I wonder if implementing something like that would incentivize people to move their arses and paint their armies at last. "-But should that be your problem/call? Are you entitled to judge them on how they spend their time?" Probably not. Then again, I kind of suck at painting. I can do highlights I guess, but I cannot blend or feather to save my life. Yet I spend the effort. I take time out of my schedule to do my half-assed tabletop level painting and play with painted and based models, to the extend that I have the skill to make them. I do that not only for me, but also to be able to offer my opponent a nice game evening. Same way I try to remember my rules and learn how to move my gak fast around the table. Then -and I'm afraid this could sound a little elitist-, I would appreciate a lot to know that I'm playing someone who also dedicated their time to offer me a nice experience too, and they did not just spend their time above the faq pages and trying to devise the waac-est list ever.

**Irbis**

Jidmah wrote:
The real problem child of 8th so far has been the ally system

As much as the 6th edition ally chart was maligned, by complainers who hated it disallowed some broken combos, I actually liked it. It had both fluff and balance in mind, I'd like to see some variant of it brought back (such as some Imperial/Eldar/Chaos keywords not playing well with others). Also, ally detachment (patrol?) for anything that is not your warlord faction would be nice, too.

DominayTrix wrote:
You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

I love how people still beat that dead horse after last half dozen books (none of which featured -1 to hit, I might add), and doing so after seeing Dark Eldar previews really takes the cake. Do keep up, it's not 2016 anymore

SeanDrake wrote:
HH is still more balanced than 40k

Wrong. Again, it's not 2016 anymore, do keep up. Claiming HH is 'balanced' when you have Custodes, SW, and TS in it trumping everyone else with laughable ease (also, Dracosan spam and certain admech lists) on list building stage (and is only ""balanced"" by depth of your bank account seeing best unit spam is expensive in $$) pretty much shows your opinion on game balance can be safely discarded in its entirety. Not even Codex vs Index climb in 8th is anywhere near as bad as some matchups in HH, and that is just army rules, never mind broken ruleset it works on. Skewing your game to such degree when everyone is MEQ sure takes special effort

**BoomWolf**

Irbis wrote:

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

You ARE aware that the tau commander spam never even ranked highly, and the only reason why people played it was because index-era tau had nothing that was decent except commanders (who were good mind you) and gun drones (who were too good even)

The coldstar now IS too good, but that's actually codex stupidity and in the index he was borderline playable at best.

What they SHOULD have done there was to make commanders less of a gunboat (limit the guns, don't add more damnit!) and give them an actual aura like every other "commander" in every other army has-rather than the sheer stupidity of making coldstars broken and then applying a limit on it.

The only people being punished are people like me, who just played regular old battalions with 2 commanders around (my case was R'alai and a coldstar) and now literally can't field a legal battalion without T'au sept specific named characters despit owning well over 5k points worth of models.
A powergamer is not punished at all, he just spams patrols with a coldstar+a "tax" 5 fire warrior squad, who is honestly the least tax "tax troop" unit I can think of.

**Tiberius501**

I hope they do something to help dreadnaughts, slowly waddling up the table to get sniped by a couple of lascannons hurts my Blood Angels and their dead veterans who deserve a second chance at greatness.

#savethedreadnaughts

**DominayTrix**

DominayTrix wrote:
You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

Irbis wrote:

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

Broken unit despite Commander spam lists having a grand total of 4 top placing lists on Blood of Kittens pre-codex. Adepticon and LVO were both pre-codex and yet Tau still didn't place when Commander spam was allowed. They were just a classic "git gud" unit that people had to learn how to beat. They are like a tootsie roll tootsie pop, crack them open (read: kill the drones) and get at the delicious center(read:kill the Commander). If they were truly as broken as you think they are they would have easily been placing well at tournaments. Especially the Index only tournaments early on. 1.The space marine captain argument is applies to oranges. Space marine captains apply a non-stacking aura. Commanders are mostly just a BS2+ platform. A better comparison would be the Greyknight Grandmaster dreadknight which IS unrestricted and spammed by their most "competitive" list. Or hive tyrants which are obviously spammed. 2. Space marines have more units in their potential roster than any other army in the game. Of course they aren't going to be bothered as much by a limitation on HQs. It is armies like Tau which have 3 types of choices for HQ that are going to suffer. You know like all the armies I listed that will also suffer.

**casvalremdeikun**

Until the Chapter Tactics equivalents are limited to Infantry, Bikes, and Dreadnought equivalents the way it is for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines, I really don't want to hear gak about being handicapped. When Xenos get to apply those rules to literally their entire codex, it is pretty bs. Sure, there are some very potent and probably broken combinations for Space Marines, but they are corner cases. If my Vindicators were ignoring cover or blowing holes in the sides of buildings (hahahahahahha, buildings! Because everyone uses buildings) like they would if they were Xenos, they might actually be worth their points.

And honestly, if they limited Captains and Chapter Masters to one per army, it would be no skin off my butt. I don't think you will ever see more than one Captain in a Space Marine army.

And the Tau Commander limit was likely to try to get people to run Crisis squads rather than a ton of Commanders.

**chaos45**

yes marine chapter/legion rules basically being a copy paste from 30k as in only applies to infantry/dreadnoughts....when every new army for everyone else gets their special rule on all the units is pretty BS...and really IMO hurts marines on the competitive scene..

Until GW goes back and repairs marines they will only be an add on force to another army that is really making the marines be worth using. A pure marine list is pretty garbage on the competitive scene....the only "marine" armies that are good ally in things like IG an such...or chaos cultist spam because CSM are absolutely worthless.

**Byte**

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:I do have sympathy for people like Byte who suddenly find a unit they have maxed out on is suddenly gutted in effectiveness just before a tournament.

HOWEVER
What were you expecting? This isn't the old days any more when an OP unit remains OP for X years until the next codex rolls around - you knew the unit you were spamming was OP, and rolled the dice to maximise on it before an FAQ came around.

People these days who spam OP units must expect their composition and strategy to have the shelf life of an FAQ window.

Flyrants wouldnt be in the FAQ discussion of not for the the Adepticon results. Before that. Nobody cared about them (in general ). So no I wasn't expecting this. Anyone being honest can say they did either. No way anyone foresaw a 'nid meta breaking list dominanting and subsequent outcry.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

Totally misconstrued. I have hours and hours of painting layers and highlights my Flyrants. Effort lost. Thats all. That was the only point. No over reaction required.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

Guy said he was going to tournaments. In tournaments you can bet your ass the other people will also bring their waac lists. You don't go to have fun, you go into a battlefield of rules lawyers and half-inch-debaters. You better be prepared. As long as the FAQ is not out, he is entitled to play all his flyrants.

As for the painting stuff, it is important - especially nowdays- to remember that warhammer is more than the strategic part of a battle. It used to be so that well painted armies actually received extra victory points in tournaments. I feel that nowdays people go around discussing the FAQ and the nerfs and the balance, and they completely skip the biggest part of the hobby because of it. The guy bought 5 flyrants and spent the effort and time to paint them nicely. He is obviously affected multiple ways if GW decides to change their ruleset every 3 months (ie decide to make Flyrants 0-1 per detachment like the commanders). Not only due rules/play wise, but also because it could be that he is stripped off all the effort and time he spent in case he now has to either shelf his flyrants or buy more troops to make them playable again. Warhammer is not a computer game, where you get to restart with new units 5 mins later. It takes money and effort and time, storage space and transportation.

Bottom line:

1. GW should playtest more.
2. Guy is allowed to bring a -for the moment- legal list to a tournament, even if the list is waac. People who also go to the same tournament will bring their own waac too.
3. It is not ok for people to go apeshit on someone because they want to play a strong list at the tournament.
4. More aspects than plain rules matter to the hobby. I would gladly accept to play against 7 excellently painted flyrants, even if I knew I would probably lose. I would probably not accept to play against a guy who brings 7 empty bases and says "ok proxy flyrants". That's because I can see and appreciate the effort spent by the first dude, and I know there's more in his list than just his desire to win.
5. GW should playtest more. Before they release armies.

This guy gets it. Well said. Bravo.

**ian**

I could batch paint 7 flyrants pretty quick to a good standered, would you still want to play the list ?

**Dandelion**

Irbis wrote:

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

Since when were Tau commanders equivalent to chapter masters? Sure some of them can lead a whole campaign, but most only lead a handful of cadres, of about 100 troops each.

Anyway, my 2 problems with the commander "fix" is the fact that we didn't get a sub-commander "shas'el" option and that commanders are STILL too good. Coldstars took the previous cheese and cranked it up to eleven! And most relics are weapons! Honestly, with those two changes the limit was required to not break the game, but why did they go that route in the first place? I would have preferred an actual nerf.

Limiting HQs would have been fine had that been the plan from day one. That way we could have given every faction proper "lieutenants".

**mrwhoop**

Irbis mentions captains and thats the Tau commander equavalent. Leads 100 guys and should be limited. I also dont want to see 3 jp thunder hammer capts in a list (looking at you BA)

**Slayer-Fan123**

Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have), people take pride in how their army looks, even if YOU decide it WAAC. The stuff is better painted and better converted than a lot of the casual crap you see in the stores and on this website, and somebody here has the audacity to say they have no sympathy that the person might not be able to bring the army they wanted.

The best example was a 7th edition army list of White Scars with a supplemented Riptide Wing I believe it was. It is surely a Fluff Abomination, but you know how hard it is to paint White Scars, let alone giving the Riptides a similar paint scheme? Yet everything was lovingly done and looked great on the table.
I can't find the picture as I don't remember which tournament it was, but when I do I'll post it here.

Basically, we can easily say screw your "properly fluffy" army even though it's invalid just hitting the table.

**Platuan4th**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have),

You're so wrong it's hilarious.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have), people take pride in how their army looks, even if YOU decide it WAAC. The stuff is better painted and better converted than a lot of the casual crap you see in the stores and on this website, and somebody here has the audacity to say they have no sympathy that the person might not be able to bring the army they wanted.

The best example was a 7th edition army list of White Scars with a supplemented Riptide Wing I believe it was. It is surely a Fluff Abomination, but you know how hard it is to paint White Scars, let alone giving the Riptides a similar paint scheme? Yet everything was lovingly done and looked great on the table.
I can't find the picture as I don't remember which tournament it was, but when I do I'll post it here.

Basically, we can easily say screw your "properly fluffy" army even though it's invalid just hitting the table.

I'm sorry, but just because someone has painted something really nicely does not make it cool to do dumb things with it. I can appreciate you're a good painter while still being unsympathetic that you made poor choices.

**Slayer-Fan123**

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have), people take pride in how their army looks, even if YOU decide it WAAC. The stuff is better painted and better converted than a lot of the casual crap you see in the stores and on this website, and somebody here has the audacity to say they have no sympathy that the person might not be able to bring the army they wanted.

The best example was a 7th edition army list of White Scars with a supplemented Riptide Wing I believe it was. It is surely a Fluff Abomination, but you know how hard it is to paint White Scars, let alone giving the Riptides a similar paint scheme? Yet everything was lovingly done and looked great on the table.
I can't find the picture as I don't remember which tournament it was, but when I do I'll post it here.

Basically, we can easily say screw your "properly fluffy" army even though it's invalid just hitting the table.

I'm sorry, but just because someone has painted something really nicely does not make it cool to do dumb things with it. I can appreciate you're a good painter while still being unsympathetic that you made poor choices.

And your bad decisions should be rewarded instead?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Platuan4th wrote:
Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have),

You're so wrong it's hilarious.

Then act like you get the point instead of being rude.

**AdmiralHalsey**

No-ones decisions should be rewarded!

Their your models, you brought them, you painted them how you want. Great for you. It doesn't entitle you to anything, or bar you from anything. You painted them in a way you liked, that's it own reward. If I like them, I'll admire or compliment you for them, but that's the extent of paintings relevence to the hobby as a game. Visual. Admiration. It has no other affect on the game, nor should it.

Some people literally just collect 40k to collect and paint it. Great for them. It's their hobby to do as they wish. But we're discussing the gaming side of the hobby. This isn't a painting FAQ thread.

**yellowfever**

Jesus this thread is a whine fest.

**Hulksmash**

@Byte

Adepticon probably didn't have an influence. But Europe certainly did since they've been stmoping over a lot of the scene over the pond for a while now.

**Agamemnon2**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have), people take pride in how their army looks, even if YOU decide it WAAC.

Touché, friend. I do not wish to debase myself by attending a tournament, that much is true. Your eloquence, friend, in no way lessens to basic point: The quality of someone's paintjob doesn't entitle them to special consideration here. Or rather, I treat it with the same compassion that is shown me when I lament my conversions of certain special characters, weapon options, &c. being made illegal by a new codex revision.

yellowfever wrote:
Jesus this thread is a whine fest.

What an astute observation, comrade! Truly, we are humbled in the presence of a veritable juggernaut of intellectual and conversational prowess.

**Daedalus81**

DominayTrix wrote:
You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

Why is the barometer 3 battalions? Most armies run two. Many can't even conceive of any brigade. Why should we be concerned about an FSE brigade? Why are etherals who hand out 6+++ not worth something? What does not placing in tournaments have anything to do with balancing the book as it is now?

**Kanluwen**

Daedalus81 wrote:
DominayTrix wrote:
You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

Why is the barometer 3 battalions? Most armies run two. Many can't even conceive of any brigade. Why should we be concerned about an FSE brigade? Why are etherals who hand out 6+++ not worth something? What does not placing in tournaments have anything to do with balancing the book as it is now?

Farsight Enclaves can't actually take Ethereals. There's a rule preventing it. A Farsight Brigade is basically going to be set as 2x Fireblades and Farsight or a Commander filling out your HQs.

Building Battalions of any Sept besides T'au becomes difficult since T'au is the only one that has named characters(Darkstrider, Longstrike, and Aun'va) that don't have the Commander keyword.

Right now, many of the armies that "can't even conceive of any Brigade" aren't restricted from doing so based upon an arbitrary restriction upon a keyword that is one of the few HQ options--they're restricted from doing so based upon points and other factors.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you've never been to a tournament (and I know neither of you have), people take pride in how their army looks, even if YOU decide it WAAC.

Touché, friend. I do not wish to debase myself by attending a tournament, that much is true. Your eloquence, friend, in no way lessens to basic point: The quality of someone's paintjob doesn't entitle them to special consideration here. Or rather, I treat it with the same compassion that is shown me when I lament my conversions of certain special characters, weapon options, &c. being made illegal by a new codex revision.

yellowfever wrote:
Jesus this thread is a whine fest.

What an astute observation, comrade! Truly, we are humbled in the presence of a veritable juggernaut of intellectual and conversational prowess.

So because it happened to you, you don't care if something happens to this guy's army list? I hope I'm not understanding you right because that's a toxic attitude to have.

**Platuan4th**

Kanluwen wrote:
Building Battalions of any Sept besides T'au becomes difficult since T'au is the only one that has named characters(Darkstrider, Longstrike, and Aun'va) that don't have the Commander keyword.

Aun'Shi and Vior'la say hi.

**Galas**

Aun'Who?

**Kanluwen**

Platuan4th wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Building Battalions of any Sept besides T'au becomes difficult since T'au is the only one that has named characters(Darkstrider, Longstrike, and Aun'va) that don't have the Commander keyword.

Aun'Shi and Vior'la say hi.

There was supposed to be a part in there about how T'au is the only one with "multiple named characters" with that caveat.

**Lorek**

Slayer-Fan123, you need to reign it back in. You're bordering on violating Rule #1.

And Platuan4th made his reply because he's played at Adepticon; he's not the yokel you're trying to make him out to be. Simmer down.

**Dandelion**

mrwhoop wrote:
Irbis mentions captains and thats the Tau commander equavalent. Leads 100 guys and should be limited. I also dont want to see 3 jp thunder hammer capts in a list (looking at you BA)

Read it again:

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment,

That is a reference to the chapter master stratagem. He's brought it up a couple times.

But yes, Tau commanders are equivalent to marine captains as far as the armies are structured. If Tau commanders warrant limiting due to fluff then so do marine captains, farseers, warbosses or any other primary HQ.

The problem would of course be massively limiting army building because GW couldn't be bothered to balance a single HQ. So if GW wants to have super OP broken but limited units then fine, but at least give me normal, not broken, stuff.

**Byte**

Hulksmash wrote:
@Byte

Adepticon probably didn't have an influence. But Europe certainly did since they've been stmoping over a lot of the scene over the pond for a while now.

Understood and agreed. Another user broke it down for me and showed me all the results. My eyes were wide.

Thank you.

**gigasnail**

Byte wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
@Byte

Adepticon probably didn't have an influence. But Europe certainly did since they've been stmoping over a lot of the scene over the pond for a while now.

Understood and agreed. Another user broke it down for me and showed me all the results. My eyes were wide.

Thank you.

From the 40k community FB post announcing they are delaying the FAQ:

"we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback"

**Agamemnon2**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So because it happened to you, you don't care if something happens to this guy's army list? I hope I'm not understanding you right because that's a toxic attitude to have.

No, merely that I don't care any more just because he's taken the time to paint his models. I suppose it's regrettable, but I'd be lying if I said the plight of someone I'll never meet playing the game in a way I find personally repugnant and unentertaining evoked in me any serious sympathy.