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.

 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.

Anyone who wins more than you at a tournament is a WAAC player, anyone who loses more is a casual scrub.

 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.

Because to some people a tournament player is by definition a WAAC player because in their mind no one else plays in tournaments.

 Nevermind wrote:
Man, if you guys hate this so much, stop playing. You whine about every change. Play it out, see how it goes, write GW a concise reason why it should be changed or your opinion and move on. Raging on a board is doing nothing.

There is a place for complaints. It keeps us in check. It's the method of complaint that really leaves much to be desired.

It is not that he is wrong, but his perspective is just completely different than that of most casual or semi-casual players. Hardcore tournament players are perfectly fine with switching an army like they change socks, and are used to writing off huge swathes of units or even entire armies. They only care about what are the top builds of top armies, and I'm sure any change in that will be interesting to them. But they're completely unconcerned about these changes hurting things they had already written off like Reivers or Grey Knights.

Classic dakkadakka's airmchair hyperbolist TOP level players response.

"This guys disagree with me so it doesn't matter that he has put a reasonable argument and, at least, has some credence to his words even if that doesn't make him authomatically correct! He is just wrong! WE MUST IGNORE HIM!"

Don't change guys.

He is a WAAC player that brough reaperspam to LVO and poxspam to Adepticon. It constantly amazes me how foolish people are and easy to get over on when you blow pretty smoke.

Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Breng77 wrote:
Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.

It is because of people like him there is the BIG FAQ - don't be duped into deifying because he can blow some smoke.

Right it isn’t because the game allows these things to happen, blame the player. But sure keep believing it’s those dirty top end tournament players that are the problem and without them there would be no problem with the game.

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

 Irbis wrote:

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

I mean, yeah, definitely your imagination. CD were a top tier list because of Psyker insanity, but Orks and Tyranids were tier lists through the entirety of 7th, and CSM were mid-tier at best in general, with almost every majorly successful CSM list being Tzeench, not Khorne.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is

 Primark G wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.

I won many tournaments with Deamonkin you don't know what your'e talking about.

"I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ."

QFT

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is

Hahahahha!!!

Exalted. Then made a dummy account to exalt again.


Well done sir

Damn guys...

What have I done?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

Better than the super casual players trying to drag his character through the mud because they disagree with what he said.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.

Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Sure, there's no maybe about it, he is definitely a better player than me - that doesn't matter, though.

It's way too early to have a definitive statement about how the game will play. If he was gaming around the clock since the release, that's still not that many games in... I recall the Frontline beta testers talking about how strong Blood Angels would be when 8th launched.

I doubt his statement, and I think i have a few good reasons:

1. It's still business as usual after turn 1 ends. If deep-strike was really breaking the game and speeding it up artificially, all we've bought is one turn where there's movement and long range shooting.

2. Deep strike denial was already a thing... going second in some games you were basically DSing within movement distance of your own zone anyway.

3. Outside of a few problematic spam lists, most people have 50% on the board points wise.

For these reasons i don't feel the deep strike change is going to really produce longer games.

So for me it boils down to the impact of the rule of three. And there simply hasn't been enough playtesting to make a conclusion one way or the other. You can still comfortably field 30 dark reapers, for instance, and Guide is still just as good.

A gunline army is still 2000 points worth of full on shooting turn 1, and they don't need to worry as much about screening.

1.1) Some armies can't gunline; and even if they can - there's no more army building viability. A 2000 point Gunline versus a 1000/1000 split of Gunline/DeepStrike Melee - the 2000 points can bring all of its weapons to bear, round 1, while the other army needs to wait an entire turn. Previously, both armies could engage with all their forces on the first round; going 1st was always a problem (still was), but now it's even more pronounced, and entirely favors shooting armies. -- To make it fair, zero shooting should be performed on the first combat round; it should be used to jockey for position only.
1.2) Screens now have an additional round to get into position - which means deep strikers need to chew through that much more board space before they can assault something they actually care about. This will, on average, delay them an additional turn (5" move + 3" advance movement from the screening units); meaning... round1= can't do anything, round2=fighting the screen, round3= moving into position, round4=finally able to fight the things they care about. 1/2/3 additional rounds where they need to endure ranged weaponry, while they try to close the gap.

Meanwhile, shooting suffers zero penalties, both in round1, and in the rest of the game.

Let me quote from the link posted by the threads creator:

-You can’t move after deep striking- This is so unbelievably huge. Gone are the days of deep striking 30 tzangors and casting warp time on them to charge an army turn 1. Deep strike quicken spears are a soon to be distant memory. Competitive 40k as we know it is going to change fundamentally.

Prior to this FAQ most 40k games tend to be played within the first few turns (1-3), which led many games to being total blow outs and left one player feeling a bit left out.

Meanwhile, blowouts will STILL happen turn one; but they'll only be for the advantage of the shooting armies. Melee armies can no longer complete, and no longer have an opportunity to "blow out" their opponent.

Go ranged, or go home.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

Better than the super casual players trying to drag his character through the mud because they disagree with what he said.

Or because (gasp) he played a competitive list at LVO of all places.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.

Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.

Line of sight blocking terrain get some.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.

Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.

Ummm...it absolutely makes a difference how many you can take when considering how broken something is. Dealing with 3 flyrants (which went up in points), or 3 PBC is significantly easier than 7 or 9. Neither is particularly problematic in the 0-3 limit. Are they still likely best in spot choices sure, but that is an issue of internal balance, more than one of interfaction balance. Do you really think 3 Flyrants is OP and something most builds cannot fight against? I feel like you are confusing powerful units and OP units.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.

Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.

Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.

Ummm...it absolutely makes a difference how many you can take when considering how broken something is. Dealing with 3 flyrants (which went up in points), or 3 PBC is significantly easier than 7 or 9. Neither is particularly problematic in the 0-3 limit. Are they still likely best in spot choices sure, but that is an issue of internal balance, more than one of interfaction balance. Do you really think 3 Flyrants is OP and something most builds cannot fight against? I feel like you are confusing powerful units and OP units.

I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?

 Primark G wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.

It is because of people like him there is the BIG FAQ

Agreed, I'm not digging how a minority of players are driving the direction of an entire game system. Particularly when events like NOVA claim to be bro-hammer events.

However, this is the current state of 40k. Whack-a-mole solutions. Chase around a few players with a note pad.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is

Don't let the Master hear you say that, or he will get Torgo to slowly shamble toward you and sacrifice you.

A slow and painful sacrifice.

I do actually agree with his analysis. After all that guy has more games under his belt than all the posters in this thread combined, he knows his stuff.