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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Great idea I'll tell GW I need to be able to take a bigger squad of single model datasheets.

Good luck! You've probably got more chance than telling them you want to go back to spam city

It is not like there do not exists such models. Carnifex and Malanthrope comew in 3 on one sheet. With 3 different flavours of carnifexes you can bring 27 carnifexes withinthe rules.

If leman russes are good you can bring 9 of them. (Not you GSC!) And 3 Leman russ command tanks. Do forge world have any leman russes entries?

 mrhappyface wrote:
This thread isn't for discussing why you hated it or why it actually helped with balance, there are many other threads for that, just a simple did you like it/didn't you like it. While arguing about the new rules is for a different thread, feel free to state the biggest things in the FAQ that will effect your army, for example:

The deepstrike nerf will make my bloodletter bomb and terminators less tactically versatile.
The warptime nerf will mean my terminators will have a lower chance of making the charge when they come down.
The Battalion buff will give me +6CP but I will no longer be able to spend that so freely on Tide of Traitors, spending them on Daemon Deepstrike is not as good (see above) but I may be able to use the attack twice stratagem more often.

Bonus Question: will you play using the new rules or will you ignore them until the next FAQ?

What Warptime nerf? I can't find anything about it.
Edit: Found it. That "nerf" isn't really a nerf for me, I've never DS a unit then warp it. I usually just DS the sorcerer(with jump) near the unit I need to fling.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The max 3 datasheets is a heavy-handed, but fair modification to all armies.

Of course it is not fair. Some armies have way more units to choose from and/or options to squadron their best units and thus are hardly affected, while armies with small selection of units are severely affected.

MY deathwing , when I brought this up on another forum their solution was “don’t play deathwing then”

Yeah, poor Deathwing, such limited unit choice. Between Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Cataphractii Terminators, Deathwing Tartaros Terminators, Deathwing Knights, Deathwing Champion, Deathwing Apothecary, Deathwing Ancient, Deathwing Termie Master, Deathwing Master in Cataphractii Armour, Deathwing Librarian, Deathwing Chaplain, Deathwing Chaplain Dreadnought, Belial, Deathwing Dreadnought, Deathwing Venerable Dreadnought, Deathwing Contemptor Dreadnought, Deathwing Land Raider, you totally have zero choice that is totally not larger than what most armies in the game get, and that's without even considering Forge World units

Yeah, and with how expensive everything is, Ravenwing and Deathwing are still absolutely playable.

I have seen 0 Ravenwing lists with more than 3 copies of the same unit. Sammael+Talonmaster are already a ton of points. A blob of 10 Ravenwing Knights for stratagems and buffs consumes a ton of points, and who was using more than 3 squads of Ravenwing Bikers or Knights or Land Speeders?

The only unit Ravenwing armies used more than 3 copies of it where the flyer that they nerfed in this FAQ.

I will definitely try the Beta Deepstrike rules out I do use 3 units of Oblits in my Competitive Chaos lists, so it will be a change.

The only real issue is having to use power levels as a guide to Reserves manipulation.

Are we really gonna be double checking opponents lists and adding up their Power Levels?

This seems to encourage Battlescribe over Codex usage even further.

What I mean to say is: I often give my opponents benefit of the doubt as to what their lists have. I dont want to have to double check every single Daemons/Grey Knights/Scion/Webway lists to make sure they have half their Power Level on the field.

Now I get why it was done, but its much easier to count by units than power level. I gotta double check my own list that has 8 units in reserve, and 9 units on the field turn 1.

From a fluff perspective, I could see not letting Imperium armies be in the same detachment as they seem to be very proud of their chapters and want to stick with them (with the exception of maybe Deathwatch). Yes, you will see multiple chapters on the same battlefield, but at least in the books I've read, there has been a distinct separation.

When it comes to Chaos... it makes ZERO sense for CSM and Daemons not to be allowed in the same detachment if they are aligned to the same god. Makes absolutely no sense.

Same with the Aeldari... the entire story behind the Aeldari is the uniting of all of the Eldar factions into one. Completely goes against the fluff.

I understand that game balance needs to be there, but the way GW did it was just about the opposite of the best way.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
From a fluff perspective, I could see not letting Imperium armies be in the same detachment as they seem to be very proud of their chapters and want to stick with them (with the exception of maybe Deathwatch). Yes, you will see multiple chapters on the same battlefield, but at least in the books I've read, there has been a distinct separation.

When it comes to Chaos... it makes ZERO sense for CSM and Daemons not to be allowed in the same detachment if they are aligned to the same god. Makes absolutely no sense.

Same with the Aeldari... the entire story behind the Aeldari is the uniting of all of the Eldar factions into one. Completely goes against the fluff.

I understand that game balance needs to be there, but the way GW did it was just about the opposite of the best way.

SG

Well, with Chaos at least, there doesent seem to be any reason why you couldnt use Chaos, Khorne or Chaos, Nurgle as your Faction keywords.

The Chaos part isnt enough, but the (God) should be. I could be wrong in my interpretation though.

And most players are separating detachments anyway to gain a Locus/Legion trait anyhow.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Well, with Chaos at least, there doesent seem to be any reason why you couldnt use Chaos, Khorne or Chaos, Nurgle as your Faction keywords.

The Chaos part isnt enough, but the (God) should be. I could be wrong in my interpretation though.

And most players are separating detachments anyway to gain a Locus/Legion trait anyhow.

So, I love Craftworlds, Drukhari, and Harlequin models. Would probably have some Corsairs as well if they weren't essentially non-existant on FW's site anymore. Anyway, it was the models in the Dark Eldar army in 7th Edition that really drew me to Eldar. During Coming Storm when the Ynnari was formed, I went a little crazy buying Eldar models and a couple of Harlequin models to build out what was then an 1850 point Ynnari army. But, I only have one unit of Skyrunners and one Voidweaver from Harlequins. That isn't enough models to build any Battle Forged detachment in 8th (post FAQ), and Harlequin models aren't cheap. Seeing that I'm getting married soon, my priorities as well as where my money and time goes has changed dramatically. So, I won't be buying any new Harlequin models. Now, the ones I have are completely and totally useless in Matched play (which is all I intend to play).

SG

Hmmmm.... while I don't like the way a couple of dice rolls turn 1 can decide the battle (charge moves after a 9.1" T1 deepstrike), I also don't like the way GW is "fixing" things by adding more rules preventing players from doing stuff.

It will not be a good experience for new players to find, after reading the rules and their codex, that there are 10 pages of things that they are now banned from doing, or penalised for doing. It would have been more satisfying to be able to fix balance with buffs rather than nerfs...

Also a bit miffed that the Smite nerf is confirmed, but all squads of psyker troops get an exception from it EXCEPT horrors...which were weakest anyway and now their psychic ability actually makes things worse on average when used...

The stacking ignore wound saves was one of the best ways to use iron hands. Their chapter tactic isn't terrific in comparison to other chapters and the ignore wound save made venerable dreads really good as well as captains. Bummed about that especially because GW explicitly declared it was intentional during the marine codex rules leaks.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/

Other than the Warptime trick being squashed, going out of their way to invalidate one of my Dark Vengeance Chosen models (which I don't use much anyways) and me picking Unholy Fortitude (for the second roll) on my Warlord the FAQ hasn't really changed anything for me. I never even got to try the Warptime thing which after failing more than my fair share of deep strike assaulty chaos terminators charges felt it might finally allow me to gap the distance. Oh well, I already had an empty land raider that I guess I load up with those terminators now.

As for the micro faction allies thing (assassins, Sisters of Silence, Fallen, Cypher, etc.), I think GW will get around to informing us that these units are indeed exceptions to the detachment restrictions (which I think the restriction or something like it will go into full effect next rules patch). Strangely enough, when I plan on using Cypher and Fallen in my list, I was already going to make them into a Vanguard Detachment as I needed the 4th HQ slot and have 3 Fallen squads.

I chose bad.

The warlock nerf was unnessisary, ecpecilly considering they forgot to exempt Destructor from the smite change like they did for GKights, and TSuns.

IG now has a hard time fielding enough officers to order their whole army. Now max of 9 orders a turn. Heavy Weapon Squads are now limited to three.

Sisters. They have 3 HQ. Two are special characters. They have limited selections for everything but troops, which puts a hard cap on sisters armies. Granted it's still a high one, but the limited choices, combined with the fact that most of them are very low in competitive value makes it hard to keep a force going. Especially considering how much the models cost. People who found half their armies are now unusable are taking it in the teeth. It's not quite like the Deathwing situation where there's tons of support units to back up the limited size of the army's core (though I have all the sympathy for people who want to, and built a deathwing army that actually has more than 15 deathwing in it).

Inquisitors, assassins, and Cypher. Unless you like spending CP, you have to field whole detachments to get these in. Enjoy your three assassins when you only wanted on. Cypher is flat out fallen, auxiliary, or not at all. He only has Imperium, chaos, and Fallen for faction keywords. So yeah...

Inquisitors and assassins should have had a rule that let them slot into any imperial army without stripping traits, like auxiliaries for IG.

If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?

Like. Wasn't is original intention?

"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

 Mmmpi wrote:


IG now has a hard time fielding enough officers to order their whole army. Now max of 9 orders a turn. Heavy Weapon Squads are now limited to three.

You can get that up to 13 orders a turn but it means going cadian (creed+kell), generic army's can get more order's via laurels of command and cadian army's get superior tactical training to help spread those orders around a little more, there's also the inspired command strat that gives an extra order as well, giving a cadian army the ability to issue 56 orders a turn (2 orders each on 28 units) whereas a generic army gets 20 orders (2 orders each on 10 units). Honestly I don't think order coverage will be a massive issue for any but the largest of infantry lists, you kinda want less orders than you have units anyway due to the inevitably casualties you'll suffer.

 Niiai wrote:


If leman russes are good you can bring 9 of them. (Not you GSC!) And 3 Leman russ command tanks. Do forge world have any leman russes entries?

They have a bunch, someone over in the guard tactic thread mentioned you could get around 30 russes at least, at that point it's less armoured company and more armoured companies.

Edit: having had a look, there's 4 forge world variants(Annihalator, Conqueror, Stygies pattern vanquisher, and the death korps Mars alpha pattern LR. Assuming all of those are separate sheets and have the squadron rule that's 36 russes + the 13 you can get from the codex for a grand total of of 49 Leman russes. Forget company's, you're running a regiment at that point.

I really like the rule of 3 and first turn and power points deploy(although just points could have worked)

As an elder player I'm just stunned by the point hikes for some of our units.

No Beta about Cover/terrain is disappointing

I hope individual models in squadrons count as the rule of 3.

How does IG heavy weapon teams work now with the rule of 3?

Well it seems GW is pushing Strategems hard this edition. I am a fan of them, but if your not then they are going to disappoint you.

Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).

Ah yes. FAQ that makes game more unbalanced is right direction for more balanced game. Good logic there.

I like it, with the exception of the beta 1st turn DS rule. That feels rushed and imbalanced, as there is no recognition, through other rule/point changes, that this severely gimps a lot of units in the game. It also buffs gunline to silly levels. I struggle to see how I avoid stuffing my lists with artillery now, given how impossible it will be to shut down via its normal means, i.e CC.

I see some armies from LVO and Adepticon surviving this FAQ especially ones that will only need to reorganize their detachments.

Rule of 3 and battle brothers will kill a few lists

a lot of the point adjustments were very good for the game...looking at Fire Raptor and Dark Talon

Tactical reserves I think will only change existing list slightly, I don't think turn 2 DS assault will be that damaging once people test it out.


but I don't do grand tournaments any longer so its just my opinion.

tneva82 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think that the FAQs go in the right direction aiming for a more balanced game.
This kind of effort is highly welcome although the problem to establish a fully balanced game is a myth (NP hard).

Ah yes. FAQ that makes game more unbalanced is right direction for more balanced game. Good logic there.

I'm so glad you've played the games to back this statement up.

 Galas wrote:
If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?

Like. Wasn't is original intention?

"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

This option could work if auxiliary detachments did not count towards detachment limit, or if there was a separate limit for auxiliary detachments. Paying -1 CP for one unit is acceptable, but losing an entire detachment slot for it as well is a bit much, in my opinion.

It takes a lot to hammer this game into a balanced state. This was a step in the right direction. Needing to take full detatchments to bring soup together was inspired.

More detachments for batallions means more troops on the board, often the heart and soul of a codex. I welcome this.

Deep strikers being limited means if I lose initiative to a drop army, I'm not dead before I get to act. I welcome this as well.

5e IG Leafblower should make a comeback.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?

Like. Wasn't is original intention?

"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

This option could work if auxiliary detachments did not count towards detachment limit, or if there was a separate limit for auxiliary detachments. Paying -1 CP for one unit is acceptable, but losing an entire detachment slot for it as well is a bit much, in my opinion.

I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.

 Galas wrote:

I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.

Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.

 Galas wrote:
If you want to use a lone Assasins as an auxiliary for your army... shouldn't you use the... auxiliary detachment?

Like. Wasn't is original intention?

"But the cp...!"
Yeah, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

You do make a good point there!

SG

I have yet to see how this game is more unbalanced with the FAQ. Out of all my normal opponents, the only thing affected was now one of the T'au players can't bring his 4 Stealthsuit units. He has to put more in each one and worry about Leadership.

It hasn't affected me at all, because the only datasheets I would've spammed would be Troops anyway (But I'm a Necron player so what can you expect?). I look forward to playing with these rules.

I'm still railing against the PL for deepstrike reserves.

A unit of 4 deepstriking plasma interceptors cost 20 PL. For a unit that cost somewhere around 200 points that seems off as a storm raven is only 15 pl for around 300 points on the table.

Or I can build a crusader squad (5) +1 neophyite (+3) plus one additional marine (+4) for a 12 PL squad that only costs around 90 points or scout squads of 6 60ish points that give 10 PL.

It is weird and I really hope they change the beta to points instead of broken PLs

I'd say good, at a glance.

However, this is something that really shouldn't have been necessary for the most part. Codices should have simply had the classic limitations applied to units - listed directly on the datasheet. This post-codex blanket 'fix' is going to cause numerous problems (some of which have been listed in this thread already I'm sure).

While it goes against GW's "sell all the plastic!" mantra, all pertinent codices should have had these things instituted originally. It was a silly oversight initially. Does it impact me? No, I don't think I own more than three of anything, and the few things I have three of are all troops.

I'm not overly enthused by the points increase on Warlocks (they're gak units), but 'eh'. I don't think the Dark Reaper points increase will change the way Eldar armies are constructed.

I was quite surprised when I found out in my first game of 8th Ed that you could assault out of deep strike. I am not surprised that they have introduced the beta rules to reel that in. So-called "assault armies" should not expect to be able to avoid all shooting (less overwatch) by simply beaming in turn 1. I think its a good thing, even if some folks are upset right now that their trick-play has been nerfed.

The limits on numbers of non-troops datasheets is a good thing, as are the restrictions on so-called soup. Spam, soup and alpha-strike were three issues that the community was talking about in the months since 8th released, and this FAQ seems to be a real attempt to address those issues.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Galas wrote:

I agree with this.
Auxiliary detachments should be except from the 3 detachment limit from tournaments.

Yeah, making them exempt or even allowing an equal number of auxiliary detachments in addition to the regular detachment limit would go a long way towards allowing fluffy army combinations to still be playable without incurring an extremely detrimental cost.

Or an entirely new limit on them...say you can only have one aux per other detachment, Aux do not count towards max number of Detachments...Subtle difference...But in a tourny you could not have 3 aux and 1 battalion...the way you said it you could...