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.
2018/04/25 10:17:36
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
2018/04/25 10:36:57
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Sim-Life wrote: Peoples complaints about Guard lie in the soup rather than mono-Guard. Honestly I find Guilliman gunlines more irritating than Guard gunlines. I play both regularly and Guilliman gunlines just feel like their success is unearned and obnoxious.
I feel like a lot of people complain about pure guard but maybe you're right. Other than that it's a detachment issue. I personally would like to see soup reigned in by having one available detachment that does not align with your warlords. So basically you can have a detachment of guard if your army is Blood Angels but it's just that one detachment and it does not grant any CP.
The detachment itself can be pretty open in regards to slots, maybe 0-2 HQ, 1-3 Troop, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Elite, 0-3 Heavy Support. I like the idea of allies, I hate the idea of there being no downside to taking it. Units from another chapter than your warlords would also have to go in this detachment (for example, an ultramarine warlord wouldn't be able to take a salamander detachment outside of this specific detachment)
Isn't that the whole point of Auxillary Detachments?
And with the boost the CP values, you can take them without worrying.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her)
2018/04/25 10:40:55
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
2018/04/25 10:59:24
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Blndmage wrote: [quote=PiñaColada 755015 9946811 null Isn't that the whole point of Auxillary Detachments?
And with the boost the CP values, you can take them without worrying.
Yes, and no. I'm saying that this would be the only way of taking soup, even within the codex as opposed to what it is now where armies can be souped to whatever extent you want as long as th detachments themselves aren't mixed. The CP thing isn't big but it'd remove the guard CP battery and preferably stratagems specific to this soup detachment wouldn't be available to them either. Just remove the no-brainer aspect of taking soup from a competitive standpoint and the mechanic itself is actually quite fun.
2018/04/25 11:18:13
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
2018/04/25 11:24:45
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
To me it is just them trying to appeal to different people. I think the beta tag is meant to tell players that they are seeking lots of feedback on those rules. I would prefer them to say that people should use them though because some groups do in fact decide not to use them (my LGS is one such group.). As for separate organized play guidelines like the 0-3 limit I have no issue with that, I think GW should publish tournament standards, I would like to see more of them, if casual play adopts the tournament rules that is entirely on the players.
2018/04/25 14:32:24
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Crimson Devil wrote:My theory is the vast majority of 40k players have never read the rules or background. They simply absorb what they can through osmosis from other players and memes.
Considering how many people believe Grimgor actually headbutted Archaon in the junk, you're probably right.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
2018/04/25 14:41:43
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If you have played EDH you know that any "suggested limits" typically goes from a suggestion to law regardless of what the people who posted the rules are going to say. EDH has always been "use house rules and here is our general guidelines for people who can't use house rules for whatever reason." GW is way too optimistic thinking that people will use house rules as the standard and not their recommended limits. I have yet to see a pickup game that wasn't 3 detachment limit for 2k in all of 8th and I imagine the rule of 3 is going to be no different. "Can I run more than 3 Commanders? What if there are no more than 3 of each type?" The answer is still going to almost always be no. Even if you paint them red and put them in the Failsight Enclaves with the other traitors.
Then the issue is the players themselves and not GW. The rule of 3 is nothing more than a house rule, that happens to be suggested by the rules team for a very specific environment. You can ignore suggestions. In fact, if you read the actual suggestion it says that you can modify it however you like if you do happen to use it.
Honestly, this is a case of the players shooting themselves in the foot. Just consider the 3 detachment "rule". The dark eldar have a neat bonus for taking 6 patrols. That clearly violates the "rule" of 3 which means that this entirely cool and fluffy rule is "unusable" to many players because they refuse to be flexible.
If GW were to suddenly delete the detachment/datasheet suggestions, would you continue using them?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm. To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
So you are against using suggestions made for the sake of balance in games against opponents you don't know? I will admit tournament rules tend to have trickle down effect in pick up play often because those rules are designed to enhance the balance of the game. That said you really cannot blame GW for saying "hey tournaments you should do x", when x is better for balance. If you don't want to use the suggestion and your opponent does, don't play that game, which is no different than not playing someone because they bring 7 hive tyrants to the game, or play eldar etc. If your area doesn't abuse the rule and you do know each other then there is no reason to use the rule of 3 unless the other players like it. Let me put it this way. If tournament style games are the norm (for you) then tournament style restrictions should also be the norm, not super fluffy lists because those lists have no regard for balance in either direction. If super fluffy games are the norm for you, then tournament rules should not be the norm for you.
Oh I just wasn't clear then. I am only against GW taking the stance that "those rules are meant for tournaments only people can houserule around them" They need to be realistic about how people treat their suggestions as hard rules. Its a much safer assumption to balance things around everyone following the rules. Same problem with the whole RAW vs RAI debate on the beta rules. Stop trying to hide behind the excuse "its a beta rule lol you don't have to do it" when every major tournament has already adopted it. "Oh but thats on the TO to clarify it if they want to use the beta rules." Why can't you just fix it so it matches your intent? The way its being played won't change, you are just fixing it so it works through via official channels. GW is being lazy, stop making excuses for them to be lazy.
Giving you an option is not being lazy. It literally took more effort to write it than not write it. The main thing GW is guilty of, is thinking two people can play a game without being an donkey-cave to each other. I really understand now why they stopped talking to us back then. There is no value in it.
2018/04/25 15:04:59
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
I could care less what GW says it is suggested for. The truth is that it is played like it is suggested for the vast majority of pickup games and that is ultimately what matters. They can shove their head in the sand and go "lalala everyone else is open play and buys every new space marine release" but that doesn't make it true. Those suggested rules are the standard from which people turn to when you know nothing about your opponent going into things. The "well you can always ignore the rules" excuse is pretty terrible and you know it. It is like someone saying "wow the queue system is really broken right now in dota/league/whatever" and the response is "Custom games and private lobbies don't have to use the queue system." O ok? The vast majority of us still have to queue. Fix the queue and stop trying to pretend it isn't the norm.
Again, nothing about the detachment/datasheet rules are required at all, GW has made that very clear. YOU are the one choosing to use them. There is nothing wrong with either liking or using these rules, but getting on GWs case for ruining "regular players' " games is not honest. And let's be real here, GW never wanted this restriction in the first place at all. But they were forced to do something after watching tournaments butcher their vision of the game. They don't want this restriction as a hard and fast rule so they made it a suggestion for events. It's a tournament house rule if anything.
So like I said, it's on the players to self regulate. If you use the rule of 3 because you like it then all the power to you. But if you use them despite not liking them at all, then please stop using it. People really need to actually read the rules to know exactly what you can and can't do. Assuming that the rule of 3 is an actual rule is being ignorant of the rules. Do you use Cities of Death rules for all your games?
To answer your question no if GW got rid of the datasheet and detachment suggestions I would not use them because they are no longer required simple as that. I don't make 7th ed formations either for the same reason.
Then why are you using them now? They're not rules and they are not required at all. The same rule that gives you the guide tells you to change the maximum amount of datasheets to better suit your own needs. They are meant to be flexible. Just because players can't handle freedom doesn't mean GW is wrong to offer it.
2018/04/25 16:32:14
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/25 17:12:31
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
new from this FAQ
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/25 17:39:33
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
Previously it specifically only worked for Rip Tides.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/04/25 17:46:36
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
new from this FAQ
It's always been able to do it, it just wasn't obvious unless you had read the entry a lot. Though it is nice to have an faq to point to when people get salty.
2018/04/25 17:47:31
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Q: When an XV109 Y’vahra Battlesuit uses its Nova Reactor ability to do an Overcharged Burst, do I use the Nova Reactor profile on only one of its applicable weapons, or on both of them? A: You use the Nova Reactor profile on both applicable weapons.
Pretty sure this is new information or I just missed it in the past. In ether case - it's still really stupid. This was already one of the most overpowered units in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/25 17:49:15
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/25 17:48:12
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
Xenomancers wrote: The Y’vahra got buffed. Does anyone else find this hilarious?
Wait how? It has always been able to nova charge both weapons. Or is there new information?
Previously it specifically only worked for Rip Tides.
This isn't the stratageum that still only works for riptides.
This is just clarifying that the nova charge weapons for Y'varah works on both weapons in the same turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Q: When an XV109 Y’vahra Battlesuit uses its Nova Reactor ability to do an Overcharged Burst, do I use the Nova Reactor profile on only one of its applicable weapons, or on both of them? A: You use the Nova Reactor profile on both applicable weapons.
Pretty sure this is new information or I just missed it in the past. In ether case - it's still really stupid. This was already one of the most overpowered units in the game.
Why is it stupid its still outperformed by hive tyrents and a number of other units for its points it's a 400 point suicide unit.
It's a strong unit but not exactly over powered.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/25 17:53:09
2018/04/25 17:55:35
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
It is not out performed by 2 hive tyrants. That nova charged flamer is death incarnate.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/04/25 17:56:04
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
This thing could easily kill 2 hive tyrants in a turn. Then another in overwatch. It's hardly a suicide unit with the new drone rules ether.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: It is not out performed by 2 hive tyrants. That nova charged flamer is death incarnate.
both weapons are amazing. The few times I've used it I actually overcharge the anti tank weapon because it benefits a lot more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/25 17:59:42
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2018/04/25 21:22:49
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
If your killing 2 hive tyrents a turn, I would be asking how?
A Y'varha only avarages 9 wounds from a both nova profiles a turn against a Hive tyrent. It can take one with some above avarage roles but not 2.
2018/04/25 23:46:28
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
I agree with Xenomancers and I'm a Tau player. This FAQ made an already great unit more powerful. Even if you were one of the few players who didn't believe the y'vahra was undercosted, it's become rather hard to justify that position now.
2018/04/26 00:07:02
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.
I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.
2018/04/26 00:12:55
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
kombatwombat wrote: The Y’vahra flat out invalidates a close combat army. If you can’t kill it from range you simply can’t kill it. It used to be slightly less obnoxious when its Overwatch was capped at 8” so you could charge it from 8.1” away safely, but with the new Sept rule increasing the range to 14” there’s nowhere to hide. Very, very few things get through that thing’s Overwatch, and anything that does must kill it in one go or it simply flies out of combat and shoots it again. Coupled with its speed, durability and drones, a single 400pt model can shut down an entire 2000pt army.
I actually think it could very easily be fixed by what should have been a basic rule from the start of 8th Ed: any single unit can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Then maybe give T’au a Stratagem to do it a second time.
Yes it is blatantly undercosted.
But it's not like true assault armies were competitive in the meta, even before this FAQ.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 00:13:08
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/04/26 00:16:07
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?