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.

Yeah; if you had any hope for the game - this FAQ is all the proof you need to see to understand that the designers have ZERO clue what they're doing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kelligula wrote:

Blood Angels veterans please educate me if you think otherwise... but RIP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Holy moly - no more multiple saves.

WOW.

feth Iron Hands players huh?

GW doesn't even try to hide their complete disregard for them lol

You guys should read the rest of the stuff before you spaz out.

You're probably right. Is the GW site back up? I couldn't get to the FAQ page.

How do Imperial Knights play with the Rule of 3 is going to be interesting...

 Ordana wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You guys understand the deep strike thing is a BETA rule amd as such can be changed by your feedback right? Why are you bitching about a rule that is both no official and still subject to change.

Because it is likely to be adopted by most play groups just like the previous Beta rules were. And our whining here does not stop us from also sending feedback to GW?

Sure, but acting like GW hurt your baby is not discussing it.

The last Betas got mainstream when LVO pushed them out. Nothing says that these will do the same. There's also exemptions and other items to consider from the docs we don't yet have.

And above all - maybe we should TRY playing with them for a couple games and give proper feedback?

 Sim-Life wrote:
You guys understand the deep strike thing is a BETA rule amd as such can be changed by your feedback right? Why are you bitching about a rule that is both no official and still subject to change.

I know it's the Beta Rule, but it's one that I do not believe should become a full rule in its current form, so I am presenting this point of view on an internet message board about the discussion of plastic army men to try and convince others towards my perspective as to prevent this ruling from becoming official legislation.

Also I found it hilarious that when they were talking about limiting Alpha Strikes in the lead up to this rule in the stream, the guy used a squad of Hellblasters killing his Tesseract Vault Turn 1 as an example... Before immediately admitting that no, Hellblasters do not Deep Strike.

Reemule wrote:
How do Imperial Knights play with the Rule of 3 is going to be interesting...

It's why Amigers exist as a 3 per selection essentially.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
How do Imperial Knights play with the Rule of 3 is going to be interesting...

It's why Amigers exist as a 3 per selection essentially.

Keep in mind, there already are 4-5 knight datasheets, which is what the rule of 3 is limiting. So taking 4 Knight Errants would be no good, but 3 Errants and a Crusader would be fine?

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

fe40k wrote:
Yeah; if you had any hope for the game - this FAQ is all the proof you need to see to understand that the designers have ZERO clue what they're doing.

"ZERO clue" Seriously? Please contribute something thoughtful or refrain from clogging this thread with pointless, baseless, inane, hyperbolic statements. Cheers.

Geronimo509 wrote:
As far as the deep strike limit, they said it was half your units or Power Level, IF YOU'RE USING POWER LEVEL. If you're not using power level, all you have to worry about is the number of units you have.

They also said their were exceptions to the 1st turn deep strike limitation. So everyone who is having an aneurysm over that one should wait until they see the actual FAQs for what they play before they flip out too much.

I half expect drop pods to supersede this, that's their point right?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
How do Imperial Knights play with the Rule of 3 is going to be interesting...

It's why Amigers exist as a 3 per selection essentially.

Keep in mind, there already are 4-5 knight datasheets, which is what the rule of 3 is limiting. So taking 4 Knight Errants would be no good, but 3 Errants and a Crusader would be fine?

Yea, seems so.

Reemule wrote:
How do Imperial Knights play with the Rule of 3 is going to be interesting...

It's 3 of the same DATASHEET. Every Knight is a different datasheet. So no change.

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

Oh...

Good bye Fire Raptor spam.

Yep, no reason to use Iron Hands literally ever. Their specific Warlord Trait is garbage and the Trait doesn't even stack with then Ven Dreads because apparently that was just too silly!

At least they have that nice-ish Relic..

BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword cannot
be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your
Army Faction.

This is the new beta detachment anti soup rule.

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

That's just the big changes/general summary. A bunch of Codexes got their FAQs updated as well.

Just DL'd the PDF...


If this is their "big FAQ", consider me unimpressed.

Also...looking at their "Interim Points Review"...im left with two questions. 1st, they damn sure dont appear to be taking any holistic or consistent approach to any of thi (e.g. they reduced the cost of the now nerfed commissars...but not any of the other nonfunctional units like Vanquishers...)

2nd...why do DKoK units all have to be more expensive than their codex counterparts?


Edit: the Character issue still appears to remain...if you drop a character below 10 wounds it looks like you can no longer target it...

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

Oh...

The rest of the FAQs for specific factions are presented in the normal style as seperate documents.

 Ordana wrote:
I don't think I like the deepstrike change.
Feels like they fethed up deepstriking this edition and now that its not a single rule they can tweak they just slam a dumb restriction on it rather then fix dozens of individual rules.

Not being able to meaningfully Deepstrike turn 1 feths up so many armies/units.

I am so glad they did this. I kept screaming that turn one chargeable deep strike is way more powerful then people were thinking. The fact they have away to metigate it is fine now. It's going back more toward how it used to be.

 fraser1191 wrote:

Geronimo509 wrote:
As far as the deep strike limit, they said it was half your units or Power Level, IF YOU'RE USING POWER LEVEL. If you're not using power level, all you have to worry about is the number of units you have.

They also said their were exceptions to the 1st turn deep strike limitation. So everyone who is having an aneurysm over that one should wait until they see the actual FAQs for what they play before they flip out too much.

I half expect drop pods to supersede this, that's their point right?

Only exception is Genestealer Cult Ambush and Pre-game stratagems like the Raven Guard and Alpha Legion.

MalfunctBot wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

That's just the big changes/general summary. A bunch of Codexes got their FAQs updated as well.

Those are not live yet.

Someone explain me who autowon using Warlock Conclave. Or maybe I missed something lol.

DCannon4Life wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Yeah; if you had any hope for the game - this FAQ is all the proof you need to see to understand that the designers have ZERO clue what they're doing.

"ZERO clue" Seriously? Please contribute something thoughtful or refrain from clogging this thread with pointless, baseless, inane, hyperbolic statements. Cheers.

I'm sorry, but - as a player who has been holding out hope for a reasonable Ork codex (despite every indication that I really shouldn't be); this is the straw that breaks my will to play 40k.

How can any reasonable player, more importantly, developer; think that nerfing the weakest aspect of the game (Melee), on the most critical turn of the game (Round 1), with NO penalty to gunline armies - be fair in any capacity?

Stopping Melee armies from deepstriking round 1? Sure - but only if you also stop shooting armies from having effecitve shooting round 1 either.

And this isn't the first insane, knee-jerk reaction they've had either - there's countless examples that people can point out; I care, but not enough to dig for them. My only interest in 40k at the moment is in seeing if this change ever gets reverted.

If it doesn't - 40k 8th edition is dead, and that's not hyperbole.

Gunline armies WILL rule the game (as if they don't already, LOL). A free turn of shooting against your "entire" army? I say that in quotes, because if you think any of your points are disposable, well; I'm glad you think that playing 1000 points of melee vs 2000 points of gunline is fair.

Death Guard DP's can take a Plaguespewer now! NEAT!

fe40k wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Yeah; if you had any hope for the game - this FAQ is all the proof you need to see to understand that the designers have ZERO clue what they're doing.

"ZERO clue" Seriously? Please contribute something thoughtful or refrain from clogging this thread with pointless, baseless, inane, hyperbolic statements. Cheers.

I'm sorry, but - as a player who has been holding out hope for a reasonable Ork codex (despite every indication that I really shouldn't be); this is the straw that breaks my will to play 40k.

How can any reasonable player, more importantly; developer, think that nerfing the weakest aspect of the game (Melee), on the most critical turn of the game (Round 1), with NO penalty to gunline armies - be fair in any capacity?

Stopping Melee armies from deepstriking round 1? Sure - but only if you also stop shooting armies from having effecitve shooting round 1 either.

THE RULE ISN'T FINAL YET.

Why do people keep acting like it?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Kdash wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

FAQ LINK

Is that the entire FAQ?

Looks like it... 6 pages....

That's just the big changes/general summary. A bunch of Codexes got their FAQs updated as well.

Those are not live yet.

Well the Tau and DE FAQs are up and the space marine one has today's date. So I guess its been updated? Which I'm not even surprised, just disappointed

 Zid wrote:
Death Guard DP's can take a Plaguespewer now! NEAT!

Is...is there a model for that?