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.

**Galas**

Guys I think the poster edited the image has a joke... not trying to pass it as fake.

**xeen**

Why do people do this and make fakes. Really you have nothing better to do?

**Daedalus81**

Galas wrote:
Guys I think the poster edited the image has a joke... not trying to pass it as fake.

Unfortunately some people are all too ready to believe it is real so without an express statement that it's a joke then we have to poke at it.

**Ash87**

So as per Facebook today Link it looks like the Necron FAQ will come out before the March FAQ, which will come out before GL.

So, it's between 2-4 weeks out?

**HuskyWarhammer**

Ash87 wrote:
So as per Facebook today Link it looks like the Necron FAQ will come out before the March FAQ, which will come out before GL.

So, it's between 2-4 weeks out?

In the comments they said they're delaying the Necron FAQ/bundling them all together.

**LunarSol**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Ash87 wrote:
So as per Facebook today Link it looks like the Necron FAQ will come out before the March FAQ, which will come out before GL.

So, it's between 2-4 weeks out?

In the comments they said they're delaying the Necron FAQ/bundling them all together.

9th edition announcement incoming!

**Ash87**

LunarSol wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Ash87 wrote:
So as per Facebook today Link it looks like the Necron FAQ will come out before the March FAQ, which will come out before GL.

So, it's between 2-4 weeks out?

In the comments they said they're delaying the Necron FAQ/bundling them all together.

9th edition announcement incoming!

Ryan Scott
Warhammer 40,000 Will we be getting a Necron FAQ before the big one drops, or is it pushed back also?

Warhammer 40,000
Ryan Scott Hey Ryan - that's the plan, yes

That's what I read, and that says to me that the Necron FAQ comes Before the Big FAQ. Then further down they say the Big FAQ is coming Before GL.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Ash87 wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Ash87 wrote:
So as per Facebook today Link it looks like the Necron FAQ will come out before the March FAQ, which will come out before GL.

So, it's between 2-4 weeks out?

In the comments they said they're delaying the Necron FAQ/bundling them all together.

9th edition announcement incoming!

Ryan Scott
Warhammer 40,000 Will we be getting a Necron FAQ before the big one drops, or is it pushed back also?

Warhammer 40,000
Ryan Scott Hey Ryan - that's the plan, yes

That's what I read, and that says to me that the Necron FAQ comes Before the Big FAQ. Then further down they say the Big FAQ is coming Before GL.

You missed the important part:

Ryan Scott
Warhammer 40,000 Will we be getting a Necron FAQ before the big one drops, or is it pushed back also?

Warhammer 40,000
Ryan Scott Hey Ryan - that's the plan, yes

Joby Cuellar
To which of the questions he asked?

Warhammer 40,000
Joby Cuellar To the "will the Necron FAQ come with the big one?"

I think that pretty clearly says Necrons are going with the FAQ/Tau

**Ash87**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

I think that pretty clearly says Necrons are going with the FAQ/Tau

To be blunt, I'm with you in that it says something, but I object to the use of the term "Clearly"

I've read over this chain of responses a few times and I go with my interpretation of it, but I can kind of see yours too. They also say at one point that they don't know anything for sure.

So maybe we'd be better reading Tea leaves to find the answer

**HuskyWarhammer**

Ash87 wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:

I think that pretty clearly says Necrons are going with the FAQ/Tau

To be blunt, I'm with you in that it says something, but I object to the use of the term "Clearly"

I've read over this chain of responses a few times and I go with my interpretation of it, but I can kind of see yours too. They also say at one point that they don't know anything for sure.

So maybe we'd be better reading Tea leaves to find the answer

I'll get the kettle. TBH, I had read it your way, initially.

**alextroy**

tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.

Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?

**daedalus**

alextroy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

GW didn't take away your 7th ed rulebooks. Anyone can keep playing Taudar and Demon-Orks in 7th edition games even now. The only requirement is finding someone willing to play 7th edition. When you think about it, in comparison, that requirement quite similar to playing 8th edition, or whatever edition D&D, or any other game out there with multiple editions.

**DominayTrix**

alextroy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.

Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?

Honestly it is kind of one sided that some allies got completely axed from the game, while other factions did not. Taudar was very good and is a solid argument against soup. Nobody likes an invisible riptide wing except for the person playing riptides. Soup has dominated the meta since 8th launched and is going to stay until it is removed. It is really annoying to have Taudar taken away because it is "too broken" and then have to read about Imperial/Chaos/Eldar soup for the entirety of the edition.

**ShaneMarsh**

These rumors don't seem all that believable, and the elements mentioned all seem to be 'hot button' issues to the community that are most likely to get a reaction.

Having said that, if it were real, 0-3 would be annoying but not too destructive. It would impact my Guard list as I'd have to drop some Company Commanders. I can't think of a list I run that would be affected beyond that since I don't tend to play Soup or take more than 3 unit choices per detachment of anything except troops anyway.

It is important to note that if these restrictions are by Detachment, it doesn't need to have all that great an impact.

**Crimson**

I really think that good old Senator Vreenak would have something to say about most of the 'leaks' in this thread...

**Inquisitor Kallus**

alextroy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.

Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?

Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top

**Slayer-Fan123**

Spoletta wrote:
Zarroc1733 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Zarroc1733 wrote:

Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...

You're naive if you think it'll cause people to run bigger squads. It's going to be avoided no matter what.

**casvalremdeikun**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Zarroc1733 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Zarroc1733 wrote:

Because I can make room in my army

Then you've self selected your restricted unit(s).

I can't for something that's banned.

Banned is the wrong word. What happens if tournaments make 1850 the new norm? I get that you're given less choice about how to arrange your list, but there are plenty of factors that do that currently.

But I have my own choice in the matter (hint, I wouldn't choose my interceptors, I'd probably cut my paladins). I get to choose what goes whereas with this restriction they'll choose for me that I am going to lose 3 squads of interceptors and a command point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying that it's the worst thing in the world. Just annoying when I've spent $200 on interceptors and I'll only be able to use half of them, unless I take 10 man squads but that doesn't accomplish what I'm trying to do. I'll survive. I'll make a new list. Maybe I can convert them to something else. Maybe they'll balance my codex and I'll have a good army and not need the interceptors in which case I can sell them to buy the models I need.

Who knows. But it does suck. Should GW listen to just me? No. I'm hardly representative of the hobby as a whole. But if no one shares their concerns for rules then rules won't be changed satisfactorily. So I'll complain for a bit then go on to playing with my plastic toy soldiers.

My real issue though is everyone who says just play narrative or open to use the units you want. I would if that was an available option

Making people play with bigger squads is actually part of the intention. At least that cute ability called ATSKNF would have a meaning...

You're naive if you think it'll cause people to run bigger squads. It's going to be avoided no matter what.

Pretty much. It will just cause them to run different units that serve much the same purpose as the ones they had to remove. Run three squads of Devastators and three squads of Hellblasters instead of six of one type, for example (not that I have ever seen anyone do this, but it is certainly possible). Big squads will never be a thing.

**LunarSol**

Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?

**Ice_can**

LunarSol wrote:
Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?

I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.

If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.

**alextroy**

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
alextroy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.

Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?

Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top

Congratulations. You got my point. Regardless of what GWs published Matched Play rules are, you can play whatever you want in Open or Narrative Play.

However, GW will make whatever restrictions they want to to make Matched Play work without regard for anyone's perceived entitlement to play with whatever models they happened to buy. Kinda like how Conscripts and Commissars disappeared from Matched Play when their rules changed.

**ERJAK**

alextroy wrote:
Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
alextroy wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Why? Why should anyone be entitled to play ANY army they want in a Tournament?

Howabout you have paid money for it? You don't see how it's immoral for GW to first sell you models and then ban them from use?

So all those people who purchased the latest cheese back in 7th Edition should be allowed to play Taudar and Demon-Orks? They paid for those models and GW banned them from play.

Should all the Open & Narrative players be allowed to play with the armies they purchased that don’t confirm to the current Match Play Rules in Matched Play? They paid for those models too.

Or does this concept have a Statute of Limitations for the publishment of 8th Edition?

Those models are not banned from play, the are usable in tau, eldar ork or daemon armies. Just because you cant take those specific combinations in matched play doesn't mean they cant be used. There is also narrative and open play on top

Congratulations. You got my point. Regardless of what GWs published Matched Play rules are, you can play whatever you want in Open or Narrative Play.

However, GW will make whatever restrictions they want to to make Matched Play work without regard for anyone's perceived entitlement to play with whatever models they happened to buy. Kinda like how Conscripts and Commissars disappeared from Matched Play when their rules changed.

The issue then becomes 'does this make matched play better?' which all the so called 'leaks' would not. In fact several of the changes would simply consolidate power even further among the top armies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?

I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.

If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.

Yep, the choice isn't between running 10man tactical squads(or devs, battle sisters, bikes, scouts, etc) or running multiples of your codexes worst units. The choice is between buying a better army or losing every game(or quitting).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShaneMarsh wrote:
These rumors don't seem all that believable, and the elements mentioned all seem to be 'hot button' issues to the community that are most likely to get a reaction.

Having said that, if it were real, 0-3 would be annoying but not too destructive. It would impact my Guard list as I'd have to drop some Company Commanders. I can't think of a list I run that would be affected beyond that since I don't tend to play Soup or take more than 3 unit choices per detachment of anything except troops anyway.

It is important to note that if these restrictions are by Detachment, it doesn't need to have all that great an impact.

Of course it doesn't affect one of the most all around OP armies in the game. That's the problem with it. The problem isn't that 0-3 is stupid(even though it is) the problem is that some armies straight up can't function, some armies take a pretty significant hit in power, and the armies that are currently top tier are almost completely unaffected.

**Crazyterran**

My Guilliman, 3 C-Mortis 3 Leviathan list with a techmarine wont be affected, so bring on the 3 limit!

Guess my actual competitive lists with Razorbacks will be, though...

**DarknessEternal**

Some of these "rumors" are laughable.

If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.

**Crazyterran**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Some of these "rumors" are laughable.

If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.

Heretic Astartes keyword? If cultists and poxwalkers dont have it, give it to them in the faq.

**Arachnofiend**

Crazyterran wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
Some of these "rumors" are laughable.

If "Chaos" wasn't a sufficient faction, there would be units in the Chaos Space Marine codex no army would be allowed to ever use, let alone an army from just that codex.

Heretic Astartes keyword? If cultists and poxwalkers dont have it, give it to them in the faq.

The CSM book has daemons in it. Mostly for summoning purposes I think, which would still be valid with this restriction (though the fact that summoning sucks would still render those entries basically invalid).

**Dudeface**

Ice_can wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
Arguably its just a nice protection for the consumer. Listen bud, if you think something is good enough that you should run 4 of them, its probably good enough that we're going to have to nerf it into the ground, so why don't you be a dear and limit yourself to only buying 3 of them before we make them obsolete. Okay?

I'd love to have more than one unit that GW point priced correctly in the codex, or chapter approved. Untill then you just have to take the least terrible option and attempt to make an army from that.

If you seriously think this will force people into taking larger squads your deluding yourself, thats never happening, squads loose points efficiency as you add models, thats just a quick way to get peiple to shelve armies.

That one unit is not priced correctly or people wouldn't want 6 of them, if everyone thing all units are sub par then they're even, hence balanced in theory.

**Lemondish**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Galas wrote:
Guys I think the poster edited the image has a joke... not trying to pass it as fake.

Unfortunately some people are all too ready to believe it is real so without an express statement that it's a joke then we have to poke at it.

You could visit the 40k page and see for yourself... it's a carbon copy of the initial delay announcement.

**Nightlord1987**

Shoulda dropped some Beta FAQs.

Im sure the main rulebook FAQs are done. They're just reevaluating the Faction ones.

**Fafnir**

Nightlord1987 wrote:
Shoulda dropped some Beta FAQs.

Im sure the main rulebook FAQs are done. They're just reevaluating the Faction ones.

Honestly, the entire release of 8th could have done well with a formal beta. That's basically how it started, just without the communication stream set up to allow the feedback needed. Just instead of taking feedback from the community to help develop the foundations, they're blindly rushing to slap together solutions from the loudest voice in every other direction.