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.

 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.

All the classic daemons, Fallen, Cypher. Same applies to Death Guard and Thousand Sons. They're codexes already contain units that make their detachment bonuses non-functional, making them illegal would just be hilarious.

 Fafnir wrote:

 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.

Folks, the fixes they put out over the last year and a half have not actually been ideas from the loudest voices, proving yet again that some people don't know what they're talking about.

This Faq is going to suprise everyone

 zedsdead wrote:
This Faq is going to suprise everyone

By actually coming out?

Hahaha, exalted!

 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

Oh please you can't be naive enough to not realize matched play is the playing style. If something isn'' possible in matched play it might just as well not exist. If you can do non-matched with matched play army that works but reverse is out


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

Ah yes ork trukks and chimeras are dominating tournaments right now!

Blanket limitations like this is how incompetent game developer breaks balance while ignoring the real problem. As such not even surprise gw would do that as they can be used as definition of incompetent game developers in dictionary

Isn't it funny how this supposed balance fix actually makes balance worse while ignoring real culprit? That's gw for you!

restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.

BrianDavion wrote:
restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.

At which point unit restrictions go from a bad idea to being totally arbitrary and actually being worse than doing nothing. You're going to let custodes bypass the restriction when the biker captain is one of the most spammed units in 40k? What happens if grey knights get a new book that breaks dreadnights and people start running 6 of those? What happens if grey knights get a 4-5 kit release and they aren't a specialist army anymore. Are we gonna refaq every faction in and out of this stupid limit every time a book comes out? What about soup armies using elite armies to bypass the restriction and then combining it with things like guard that weren't affected by the changes anyway to make soup that is EVEN MORE powerful than it was before?

It would be a better idea to make 6 Hive Tyrants mandatory for matched play regardless of faction, and I mean that seriously. Making 6 hive tyrants mandatory would put similar levels of arbitrary, pointless army building restrictions on people, but would also not make the game balance stupidly worse for the sake of...who the hell knows what the unit restrictions would ACTUALLY accomplish because they'd certainly make the balance worse.

Just finished my 5th special weapon squad for my Imperial Guard! Can't wait for the FAQ!

 ph34r wrote:
Just finished my 5th special weapon squad for my Imperial Guard! Can't wait for the FAQ!

I know the feeling, me too. Now I'm going to have to spred my 20 plasma gunning between command squads, special weapons and veteran squads!

Sigh!

No you won't because that 'leak' was bollocks.

Yeah. Given how long GW has been working on the updated FAQ since Adepticon, they certainly aren't just tossing in a quick fix rule to deal with the issues they have observed at the various tournaments. I'm hoping we get something more innovative and outside the current box then 0-X of Unit A.

GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.

See, that's fine for a single change. You could probably playtest a points change to hive tyrants in that amount of games...unless you end up with negative results. Because if the result is 'this change doesn't work' you'd need more.

But if you're changing up multiple rules, in a game with as many moving parts as 40k has, you could do a round of playtests with everyone who was at adepticon AND LVO playing 4 games each and still miss things.

To expand on this, everything in the game affects everything else. Nerfing Dark Reapers or Flying Hive Tyrants doesn't just make those units worse, it also makes all units they'd normally be strong against better. For example. what if nerfing Dark Reapers bumps Dark Talons+Dark Shrouds up to the point where it's almost impossible to deal with? Nerfing one unit could very well result in a completely unrelated unit becoming even MORE brokenly OP than that first unit was in the first place.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

You mean the change is drastic enough for US to playtest it unknowingly.

 Dedwoods42 wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
This Faq is going to suprise everyone

By actually coming out?

That was brilliant!

All I can see is this FAQ being a disappointment for many people. The longer it takes the more restless and hopeful people become.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.

If that's all they do in a week. I don't know how much work a Game designer has to accomplish in a week, but I'm sure it involves more that just play testing.


I guess we've come to the part where people complain GW play tests too much.

Well, we are play testing it, essentially.

They release it, we get to grips with it, we feed it back. They take it on board, make some changes based on our feedback. They release, we get to grips with it, we feed it back. And so on.

Yeah it's very obvious they Arnt properly play testing just look at the difference in power between ig and tau.

They give lip service to things like balance and playtesting but don't actually uphold it.

hobojebus wrote:
Yeah it's very obvious they Arnt properly play testing just look at the difference in power between ig and tau.

They give lip service to things like balance and playtesting but don't actually uphold it.

I mean, that's a little harsh. The game is more balanced than it's been for 2 editions (regardless of what the internet says) so it's not like they don't care, it's more like they just don't think about the game at its breakpoints as much as the player base does.

And then you have interesting questions that pop up as you make more codexes, for example: Which codex is closer to correct Tau or Guard? Which powerlevel should they be shooting for? Did they perhaps make the guard codex and decide that that was a higher powercurve than they wanted?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
GW had to have a baseline of what they wanted in the FAQ before Adepticon. What could they have possibly added that takes this long to shoehorn in?

The change is drastic enough to force them to play test it. I hope by the end they just open up the process to the community.

I know they need to playtest this stuff, but how many games do they actually play test? Take four guys, each of them plays the other guys twice each. That's 12 games and should give a decent baseline, then ask some of those "outside playtesters" to do a handful of games. That's like a week's work tops.

There are 16 codexes out right now. Add the next three, which will have gone to the printers a month ago. Several of them deviate quite far from the mean.

Make a change and check if it breaks any armies at list building - go back the the drawing board if it does.
Make another change and check list building again.
Play test it - two games is about an entire work day for two people.
If something comes back send it back. If not go to the outside playtesters who aren't paid and have their own jobs, too.
Meet with playtesters to discuss and make tweaks.

Do all of this over your normal job and deadlines.

Eh, the last one doesn't count, because it is within GW's power to make it their normal job.

ERJAK wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
restricting how many units you can take'll never happen, it won't touch the high end armies but it will hurt armies like custodes, grey knights and other armies that have limited avaliable options.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Specialist armies just need an additional sentence in their FAQ stating they ignore the usual unit restriction.

At which point unit restrictions go from a bad idea to being totally arbitrary and actually being worse than doing nothing. You're going to let custodes bypass the restriction when the biker captain is one of the most spammed units in 40k? What happens if grey knights get a new book that breaks dreadnights and people start running 6 of those? What happens if grey knights get a 4-5 kit release and they aren't a specialist army anymore. Are we gonna refaq every faction in and out of this stupid limit every time a book comes out? What about soup armies using elite armies to bypass the restriction and then combining it with things like guard that weren't affected by the changes anyway to make soup that is EVEN MORE powerful than it was before?

It would be a better idea to make 6 Hive Tyrants mandatory for matched play regardless of faction, and I mean that seriously. Making 6 hive tyrants mandatory would put similar levels of arbitrary, pointless army building restrictions on people, but would also not make the game balance stupidly worse for the sake of...who the hell knows what the unit restrictions would ACTUALLY accomplish because they'd certainly make the balance worse.

You adjust the FAQ, or release in a new FAQ to restrict certain units then, or you just remove the whole sentence at some point if required. It's a fluid edition, as new problems occur, new ways to solve it will be needed, or original solutions will have to be adjusted.

Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.

I can see it making sense to tie stratagems to your warlord.
So you only get to use stratagems for your warlord's faction.

 Grimgold wrote:
Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.

I could see that. I honestly think Strategems should only be available for the army that the Warlord is from. That would screw soup armies over hardcore though. Every army would still be able to use the basic Strategems though.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Top two predictions, a limit of three non-troops units per army, and you can select one detachment to be your primary and that is the only faction you get stratagems for.

I could see that. I honestly think Strategems should only be available for the army that the Warlord is from. That would screw soup armies over hardcore though. Every army would still be able to use the basic Strategems though.

That was the original point of stratagems, as a counterbalance to having more specific armies and would definitely cut down on all the agents of Vect that are going to be keeping an eye on literally every Eldar army in all future tournaments.
Sure they could probably do an extra level of stratagems in the next chapter approved - one or two fairly basic ones that are just Chaos/Imperial/Eldar.