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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

I would really like this. Gunlines often end the game turn 1, or as good ass.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Yes, because being 16.666% more durable than other Space Marine Chapters is negative (sorry, except for two units!).

Stop pretending that the ONLY thing Iron Hands had was the ability to stack a 6+ on two units. Firstly, it's a tiny buff in the first place - probably didn't need to be removed, but it's not gamebreaking that it is. Instead, think of it this way - all your Dreads can have the 6+ as well as the Venerable - mini Venerables, if you will.

It's not "useless". It doesn't make Iron Hands "unplayable". That's blatant hyperbole and you know it. It would be warranted if they lost the ability to take their 6+ as well as another save (as I actually thought it said, when you were crowing on about it being making Iron Hands unplayable), but two units lost a 6+ save??!?
Sky must be falling down.

I don't think it needed to be done, but it's not this big deal like you're making it out for the majority of Iron Hands players.

blackmage wrote:but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Being playtested has never meant being perfect.

Plus, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GW have a different idea of playtesting compared to how most of Dakka seems to play.
I think GW are playing more relaxed, fluffy games, not trying to break the rules to get the best chance of winning. However, the competitive community does EXACTLY that - their idea of a good time is push the rules to their extremes and spamming the best things to do that. GW's playtest team probably didn't think of doing this, because that's not how they envisioned the game being played.

Anyway, onto my suggestions for fixing the beta:
Don't need to change the Brigade/Battalion CP. Leave them as 3/9 respectively. Instead, put in a rule like:

Logistical Nightmares: Command Points generated by a detachment may only be spent on Stratagems that are used on units with the same <Faction> keyword as the detachment that created them.
For example, an Imperium army is made up of a Cadian Brigade, a Catachan Patrol, an Ultramarines Battalion and Ultramarines Spearhead detachments. The 9 Command Points the Cadian Brigade generates can only be used on Stratagems that affect Cadian units. The two Ultramarines detachments may share their Command Points between eachother, as they are both Ultramarines. The Catachans have no access to Command Points, except the 3 from being Battleforged, which may be used to benefit anyone in the army.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.

Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.

I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.

I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?

GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"

GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"

GW is the ultimate troll.

Or you know you can still use them. Death Company can still turn 1 charge with a stratagem, and turn 2 is when you were (or should have been) bringing your heavy hitters in anyway. I mean were people actually letting you deepstrike charge things other than screening units? and if so other than happening a turn later what has changed?

Honestly IME this was prior to the FAQ

My opponent has a screen I need to kill before I can effectively deepstrike in and do damage to his core.

Now it is still

My opponent has a screen I need to kill before I can effectively deestrike and do damage to his core.


The change is much worse for armies relying on deepstrike shooting over screens, than it is for assault that needed to kill screens in the first place. Unless your game plan was turn 1 I deepstrike charge my opponents screen, which often resulted in your own units dying after killing 40 points of guardsman.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Yes, because being 16.666% more durable than other Space Marine Chapters is negative (sorry, except for two units!).

Stop pretending that the ONLY thing Iron Hands had was the ability to stack a 6+ on two units. Firstly, it's a tiny buff in the first place - probably didn't need to be removed, but it's not gamebreaking that it is. Instead, think of it this way - all your Dreads can have the 6+ as well as the Venerable - mini Venerables, if you will.

It's not "useless". It doesn't make Iron Hands "unplayable". That's blatant hyperbole and you know it. It would be warranted if they lost the ability to take their 6+ as well as another save (as I actually thought it said, when you were crowing on about it being making Iron Hands unplayable), but two units lost a 6+ save??!?
Sky must be falling down.

I don't think it needed to be done, but it's not this big deal like you're making it out for the majority of Iron Hands players.

blackmage wrote:but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Being playtested has never meant being perfect.

Plus, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GW have a different idea of playtesting compared to how most of Dakka seems to play.
I think GW are playing more relaxed, fluffy games, not trying to break the rules to get the best chance of winning. However, the competitive community does EXACTLY that - their idea of a good time is push the rules to their extremes and spamming the best things to do that. GW's playtest team probably didn't think of doing this, because that's not how they envisioned the game being played.

Anyway, onto my suggestions for fixing the beta:
Don't need to change the Brigade/Battalion CP. Leave them as 3/9 respectively. Instead, put in a rule like:

Logistical Nightmares: Command Points generated by a detachment may only be spent on Stratagems that are used on units with the same <Faction> keyword as the detachment that created them.
For example, an Imperium army is made up of a Cadian Brigade, a Catachan Patrol, an Ultramarines Battalion and Ultramarines Spearhead detachments. The 9 Command Points the Cadian Brigade generates can only be used on Stratagems that affect Cadian units. The two Ultramarines detachments may share their Command Points between eachother, as they are both Ultramarines. The Catachans have no access to Command Points, except the 3 from being Battleforged, which may be used to benefit anyone in the army.

I don't hate this, but I would argue that it should be at the Codex level, since that's the level that unlocks stratagems and sort've the traditional base level of an army.

So, like, Cadians and Catachans could use each other's command points, because they're both AM and have access to the same stratagems, but not Ultramarines, Coven of Strife and Kabal of the Black Heart can use each other's command points, because they're both DE and have access to the same stratagems, but not Biel-Tan, etc, etc.

If all it takes for iron hands to become unplayably useless (aka I can't win) is not being able to stack 2 or 3 6+ FNP saves, balance is tighter than you are making it out to be.

The suggested logistical nightmares rule. I like the idea but I see 2 problems.
1 keepin track of this might be a logistical nightmare in and of itself.
2 this means again cheap spammable units become better.
And They don't need buffing.

Also whilst this doesn't exist in matched there are scenarios/ open play cards in open and narrative that have bordering deployment zones.

I don't think we need rules limiting alpha strikes. I think firepower needs to become more expensive and toughness needs to go down in cost.

For logicstical nightmare, another problem:
3. LotD, Assasins, and Corsairs can never generate CP.

On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Ah this joke.

Most playtested =/= perfect balance

oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?

I've just created a rules proposal to slightly change the Beta rule for Deep Striking:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755076.page

Please tell me what you think.

-

 gwarsh41 wrote:
On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.

unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.

 blackmage wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.

unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.

GW pretty much admitted that they never intend for players to exploit the rules as they clearly do. That shows that GW is quite casual.
They made this game to have fun and write the rules with "fluffy, cool stuff" in mind.
The rules work perfectly fine as they were written, until players stop playing for fun and just want to win.

-

People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.

Breng77 wrote:
People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.

And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda

-

^Sort've speaks to my view that there are few things wrong with the game basic sportsmanship couldn't fix.

 Galef wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.

And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
-

Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.

 blackmage wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Ah this joke.

Most playtested =/= perfect balance

oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?

There are multiple layers to that equation. A unit properly costed can still be spammable and create extreme rock/paper/scissors moments.

If you took a time machine back to this forum with 8th came out the discussions were not revolving around deepstrike. So Dakka^2 in it's infinite wisdom wasn't keyed in on it either.

 Galef wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.

unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.

GW pretty much admitted that they never intend for players to exploit the rules as they clearly do. That shows that GW is quite casual.
They made this game to have fun and write the rules with "fluffy, cool stuff" in mind.
The rules work perfectly fine as they were written, until players stop playing for fun and just want to win.

-

agree Galef, but when you dare to put something called "matched play" you should be more careful about testing cause also a lobotomyzed monkey knows that competitive players if not properly limited exploit all the weak point, that was painfully learned already in 7th edition, in 8th they kept doing same kind of mistake, not limitations, and now we see the result with this massive faqs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Ah this joke.

Most playtested =/= perfect balance

oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?

There are multiple layers to that equation. A unit properly costed can still be spammable and create extreme rock/paper/scissors moments.

If you took a time machine back to this forum with 8th came out the discussions were not revolving around deepstrike. So Dakka^2 in it's infinite wisdom wasn't keyed in on it either.

honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.

Painfully learned in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th blackmage, GW has no excuse for not expecting this kind of powergaming and “the most playtested” version ever means nothing when these people clearly don’t know what they are doing, that needs to stop immediately, they need to play the most abusive lists possible and fix them as needs be, not drop an FAQ 45 days late because they have noticed something the entire (dakka) community already knows, I pay my money for a quality product, 8th is feeling less and less like a quality product and a series of badly thought out patches that COULD end up ruining the game.

 Formosa wrote:
not drop an FAQ 45 days late

See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
not drop an FAQ 45 days late

See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.

It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.

Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.

And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
-

Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.

This.

If you're doing testing, and you're not testing the extremes the system can take, then you're not testing.

 blackmage wrote:

honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.

Talking about clairvoyance:

And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....

one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.

You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:

i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables

You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.

Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
not drop an FAQ 45 days late

See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.

It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.

Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh

Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.

Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.

fe40k wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.

And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
-

Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.

This.

If you're doing testing, and you're not testing the extremes the system can take, then you're not testing.

But GW doesn't think in those extremes and that's the difference. They are testing the game within the limits of what they think are reasonable lists.
The game is designed to be played with reasonable lists, so why would you need to test the extremes? (I know the answer, obviously)

I get what you guys are saying, I do. But those ultra competitive lists are so far down the list of "important issues" for GW that I can completely understand why they do no initially consider them. They are dealing with them now, and you should give them credit for that engagement.
The game is made to have fun and play out scenarios. It's a game with plastic toys. GW treats it as such.

-

First of, scrap the battle brothers rule. It doesn't really do much besides punishing fluffy Inquisition armies and stuff like that. If it is felt that soups need to balancing, then do this: armies which have IMPERIUM, AELDARI or CHAOS as their only common keyword do not receive the normal 3 starting CPs. Now some may feel it is not enough, but it at least does something to the soup builds that people have issues with.

As for the deep strike limitation, I understand what they're trying to do here, but if the long-ranged shooting alpha is not dealt with, then this change causes more harm than help. I'm not sure how to address the dominance of gun lines, but I think that really needs to begin with overhauling the utterly pathetic terrain rules of this edition. The suggestion that armies count as moving on the firs turn is not bad either, and it is an easy fix. Again, probably not enough, but definitely better than nothing.

As for Tournament suggestions, the unit cap is stupid, scrap it. If there are units that people keep spamming then, address those units. They're probably too cheap for their effectiveness. Furthermore, I'm not so sure the detachment limit is really needed either. I think capping the CPs might be better balancing method. For example, in a 1500 point tournament you can never have more than twelve CPs (or whatever feels appropriate, I'm not sure about the exact number here) regardless of how many detachments you have, and you cannot exceed that limit even via CP generation gimmicks.

GW rules team sitting around the office coming up with ways to kill alpha strike reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns wants to get rid of the dental plan and Homer keeps hearing Marge tell him that Lisa needs braces... GW really missing the opportunity here to counter two problems #1. alpha strike making the game less fun and #2. creating better/ more nuanced terrain rules. I think #2 is a fairly universal bugbear. If there were better terrain rules (there are some good suggestions in the "proposed rules forum" that I didn't personally suggest) but something that would mitigate shooting and allow defenders to set up around terrain without having to be "entirely within" and also possibly have a way to protect non-infantry, then we could still allow for DS on T1 as a viable strategy. There really wouldn't need to be any artificial "turn 1 rules" which seem arbitrary and silly to me. Also, just as an aside: the "rule of three" itself will go a long way in mitigating alpha strike, But GW always has to come with the triple nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.

Talking about clairvoyance:

And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....

one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.

You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:

i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables

You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.

Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
not drop an FAQ 45 days late

See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.

It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.

Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh

Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.

Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.

Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.

You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.

Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.

You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.

 Formosa wrote:

Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.

You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.

Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.

You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.

March faq. March doesn't end on March 1st. Check your calendar.

All units set up on the table are considered to have moved even if they did not move on turn 1. Getting to the battle!

Most heavy weapons eat a -1 to hit. Leman Russ tanks and Fire Prisms do not get double their main cannons. It doesn't need to be a huge change, but that should be enough to shake things up.

"45 days late" is hyperbole and "good to terrible" is the most vauge, non-commital thing I've ever seen. It literally describes everything ever. The entirety of human history could be described as "good to terrible" yet somehow your tone implies that this is a bad thing.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.

Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.