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.

What is the worst misconception about the FAQ?

1: That it was good, or helped with balance

2: That GW knows what it is doing

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

SemperMortis wrote:
What is the worst misconception about the FAQ?

1: That it was good, or helped with balance

2: That GW knows what it is doing

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

I hear a lot of people saying quite the contrary to statement #1.

Like a lot of people who actually play games are saying it is a vast improvement.

Just because stuff you liked got nerfed doesn't mean that the game got worse... it just means that you may have been leaning too hard on a mechanic that created too much of an advantage.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What is the worst misconception about the FAQ?

1: That it was good, or helped with balance

2: That GW knows what it is doing

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

I hear a lot of people saying quite the contrary to statement #1.

Like a lot of people who actually play games are saying it is a vast improvement.

Just because stuff you liked got nerfed doesn't mean that the game got worse... it just means that you may have been leaning too hard on a mechanic that created too much of an advantage.

I play Orkz, I have nothing to lean on, I just liked having a different option besides SPAM BOYZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf, back to spamming boyz and stormboyz and running kamikaze like into a gun line army that will get an average of 2-3 rounds of shooting before I can even get into CC with them.

But please explain to me how this was good for orkz, to take away our one mechanic that allowed us to compete against gun line armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I am seriously considering just bringing 300 Boyz and a couple weirdboyz/warbosses to my next tournament. Should be a lot of fun.....

That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

 Lil Kefka wrote:
That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

I don't know a single person on here who thinks this was a "personal attack" on someones individual army. I think this is just one more wonderful example of GW not being able to find its rear end with either hand. It took this gaming community about 10 seconds to figure out the exploitable loopholes in this set of rules. Somehow GW's paid staff didn't figure it out in the weeks or months they took to write it.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Lil Kefka wrote:
That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

I don't know a single person on here who thinks this was a "personal attack" on someones individual army. I think this is just one more wonderful example of GW not being able to find its rear end with either hand. It took this gaming community about 10 seconds to figure out the exploitable loopholes in this set of rules. Somehow GW's paid staff didn't figure it out in the weeks or months they took to write it.

I've seen a lot of comments like that on various facebook groups, so w/e man.

I'm aware my army got flushed down the toilet along with the flyrant turds. BA didn't even an update.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
People think that the Facebook page has any weight for rulings. GW's words not mine "And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." You still can't use Gate of Infinity or Da Jump to get into the enemy deployment. The question that everyone screencaps doesn't even clarify anything about the enemy deployment zone.... Read how the FAQ uses "set up" and "deploy" interchangeably multiple times and how all of the spells use the phrase set up.
Edit: Clarified some pronouns so it was less confusing to read

Well, the rules seem reasonably clear that you can use deepstrike abilities if the unit was deployed on the table. Petitioning FB is just to get people pushing against it to change their view.

Deepstrike abilities still count as deepstrike in every other instance. The FAQ uses the term "set up" to replace the words deploy several times. Look in the parenthesis where it specifically says "even if its ability says it can be set up anywhere." Notice how even deepstrike abilities do not use the word deploy and they use setup. If units had to deploy in order to be limited this FAQ would do literally nothing based on their poor choice of language.

SemperMortis wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
What is the worst misconception about the FAQ?

1: That it was good, or helped with balance

2: That GW knows what it is doing

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

I hear a lot of people saying quite the contrary to statement #1.

Like a lot of people who actually play games are saying it is a vast improvement.

Just because stuff you liked got nerfed doesn't mean that the game got worse... it just means that you may have been leaning too hard on a mechanic that created too much of an advantage.

I play Orkz, I have nothing to lean on, I just liked having a different option besides SPAM BOYZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf, back to spamming boyz and stormboyz and running kamikaze like into a gun line army that will get an average of 2-3 rounds of shooting before I can even get into CC with them.

But please explain to me how this was good for orkz, to take away our one mechanic that allowed us to compete against gun line armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I am seriously considering just bringing 300 Boyz and a couple weirdboyz/warbosses to my next tournament. Should be a lot of fun.....

You're in an index adrift in a sea of codices. Is it appalling that it has taken nearly a year to get one of the flagship armies a codex? Very much so. But really... at least you have something to play with.

Craftworlds out of their Index was... erm... bad :( Still had some decent options, but overall... the crap was overpriced and worked some of the time.

Wait...

Craftworlds out of their Index was Ynnari, that's right. Didn't change much once the codex dropped, but now that reapers got a much-needed tap, maybe things will be a bit more diverse. Eldar was also one of the first codices, too.

Anyways, it isn't a problem with the rules as much of it being a problem with orks still being index for god knows why.

SemperMortis wrote:


I play Orkz, I have nothing to lean on, I just liked having a different option besides SPAM BOYZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf, back to spamming boyz and stormboyz and running kamikaze like into a gun line army that will get an average of 2-3 rounds of shooting before I can even get into CC with them.

But please explain to me how this was good for orkz, to take away our one mechanic that allowed us to compete against gun line armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I am seriously considering just bringing 300 Boyz and a couple weirdboyz/warbosses to my next tournament. Should be a lot of fun.....

If you expected Orks to get all their fixes this FAQ...

You need to chill out and wait for the codex instead of acting like GW was intentionally trying to nerf Orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Lil Kefka wrote:
That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

I don't know a single person on here who thinks this was a "personal attack" on someones individual army.

I don't know - this comment seems to indicate that:

Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


I play Orkz, I have nothing to lean on, I just liked having a different option besides SPAM BOYZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf, back to spamming boyz and stormboyz and running kamikaze like into a gun line army that will get an average of 2-3 rounds of shooting before I can even get into CC with them.

But please explain to me how this was good for orkz, to take away our one mechanic that allowed us to compete against gun line armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I am seriously considering just bringing 300 Boyz and a couple weirdboyz/warbosses to my next tournament. Should be a lot of fun.....

If you expected Orks to get all their fixes this FAQ...

You need to chill out and wait for the codex instead of acting like GW was intentionally trying to nerf Orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Lil Kefka wrote:
That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

I don't know a single person on here who thinks this was a "personal attack" on someones individual army.

I don't know - this comment seems to indicate that:

Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf

I know this is going to shock you, but you can hate the FAQ and use your army as an example without saying it was a personal attack. And Lil Kefka, I strongly urge you to reread Rule #1 and chill out with the comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus, as for getting fixes for orkz....yeah, its been over a year I figured they could have at least reduced the price of warbikers by a few points in the vain hope of us using them, or maybe giving us a bit of a boost in some way to help with the fact that the CA was a total bust for us. Any kind of real help would have been appreciated, instead we got a clarification that Warbosses on bikes let bikes advance and charge and they made Chinorkz open topped.....

That Grey Knights were nerfed.

Your smites always go off on a 5, not just the mini ones... and you can still jump around like House of Pain on T1.

SemperMortis wrote:

Daedalus, as for getting fixes for orkz....yeah, its been over a year I figured they could have at least reduced the price of warbikers by a few points in the vain hope of us using them, or maybe giving us a bit of a boost in some way to help with the fact that the CA was a total bust for us. Any kind of real help would have been appreciated, instead we got a clarification that Warbosses on bikes let bikes advance and charge and they made Chinorkz open topped.....

Calling it a total bust is a stretch though. There were lots of useful point changes there. There's also a big hole missing where traits and stratagems might sit. It doesn't make sense to drop points on units only to increase them when the codex makes them useful again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Daedalus, as for getting fixes for orkz....yeah, its been over a year I figured they could have at least reduced the price of warbikers by a few points in the vain hope of us using them, or maybe giving us a bit of a boost in some way to help with the fact that the CA was a total bust for us. Any kind of real help would have been appreciated, instead we got a clarification that Warbosses on bikes let bikes advance and charge and they made Chinorkz open topped.....

Calling it a total bust is a stretch though. There were lots of useful point changes there. There's also a big hole missing where traits and stratagems might sit. It doesn't make sense to drop points on units only to increase them when the codex makes them useful again.

I Disagree. The only meaningful points drops were KMK getting cheaper (wasn't their intention) and the minor drop in points for PKs and BCs. This isn't even remotely good enough, especially when you factor in the significant NERF those weapons took in 8th edition compared to 7th. A PK could auto hit vehicles and always against rear armor, so S8-10 Vs AV 10 most of the time, for a Warboss with a PK this was almost ALWAYS going to result in a Vehicle kill. This edition, a Warboss with a PK against a Predator will statistically take less then 3 damage off it every turn, or in other words it will take 4 CC rounds to kill the same Predator we were dropping in 1 turn last edition. So yeah, it adjusted points to roughly where it should have been from the start, still not enough btw (it needs to do more damage).

So the "useful point changes" didn't effect the game. Why? Well I took maybe 3-5 BCs a game, Now I have saved 6 to 10pts ( i think it was a 2pt reduction in cost) I never took PKs because they are massively over priced and don't do enough damage, i still don't take any because the same reason, or at most i'll take 1 on my Warboss, so a net increase in cost but a minor increase to damage output compared to a regular big choppa.


What we needed was a points overhaul for almost all our Fast attack choices, heavy support choices and elite choices. We have boyz, stormboyz, weirdboyz and KMKs, we used to have Kommandos until this FAQ. So yes I expected them to do a bit more from the hype that GW pushed.

A PK could auto hit vehicles and always against rear armor, so S8-10 Vs AV 10 most of the time, for a Warboss with a PK this was almost ALWAYS going to result in a Vehicle kill. This edition, a Warboss with a PK against a Predator will statistically take less then 3 damage off it every turn, or in other words it will take 4 CC rounds to kill the same Predator we were dropping in 1 turn last edition.

This is a new edition - everyone has the problem. I used to use chainfists to bust vehicles wide open in one round, but that isn't a thing any more.

Nobs are 3A. SM sargeants are 2A. You pay 13 for S10. They pay 12 for S8. That's as properly costed as you can get. On top you still easily get +1 to hit so of all the big melee weapons in the game the PK is second only to the TH, which costs more.

Of course none of that is going to swing games for you.

Now consider a Tankbusta and a Dark Reaper.

17 points vs 39 points.

Tankbusta does 0.74, which is 0.043 damage per point
Dark Reaper is 0.89 and 0.023 dpp.

Where exactly do you think the points for them are going to go that doesn't utterly break them? Yes they're easier to kill. They're also twice as efficient. Yes, they're shorter range but can move and shoot without penalty and they have an open topped transport available should you chose to reduce their overall efficiency to do so - or you can jump them - all 15 of them.

And i'm not even accounting for bomb squigs.

But let's say they drop the points anyway. Are you prepared for their points to go back up when the codex hits? Do you think that's the right thing for the player base?

SemperMortis wrote:
What is the worst misconception about the FAQ?

1: That it was good, or helped with balance

2: That GW knows what it is doing

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

Beat me to it man. Well said.

Worst misconception about the FAQ?

That people sharing their judgments on it have actually played more than 1 game under it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is a new edition - everyone has the problem. I used to use chainfists to bust vehicles wide open in one round, but that isn't a thing any more.

Nobs are 3A. SM sargeants are 2A. You pay 13 for S10. They pay 12 for S8. That's as properly costed as you can get. On top you still easily get +1 to hit so of all the big melee weapons in the game the PK is second only to the TH, which costs more.

Of course none of that is going to swing games for you.

Yup, and in that same frame, CC weapons are less useful and ranged weapons either gained or stayed about the same.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now consider a Tankbusta and a Dark Reaper.
17 points vs 39 points.
Tankbusta does 0.74, which is 0.043 damage per point
Dark Reaper is 0.89 and 0.023 dpp.
Where exactly do you think the points for them are going to go that doesn't utterly break them? Yes they're easier to kill. They're also twice as efficient. Yes, they're shorter range but can move and shoot without penalty and they have an open topped transport available should you chose to reduce their overall efficiency to do so - or you can jump them - all 15 of them.
And i'm not even accounting for bomb squigs.
But let's say they drop the points anyway. Are you prepared for their points to go back up when the codex hits? Do you think that's the right thing for the player base?

Yes they are easier to kill, with a 6+ compared to a 3+? so they are 4 times more survivable. They have 1/2 the range, and if you really think a 5inch movement compensates for that....., you guys also hit twice as often. And if you really want to factor in the trukk...which is garbage, then add 80+pts to their cost, and adds a bit to durability, T6 and 4+ save isn't exactly hard to kill this edition.

But to your point about the Points cost ...YES! its literally perfect, try fixing the points now so that when you print the codex you don't have to print a Fething correction or FAQ a week later. It doesn't make any sense not to try and correct the points costs now, or to implement changes that are needed for certain units, it would streamline the codex/FAQ release and help older armies (factions that haven't had a codex or an update in a while) keep up with the creep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:
Worst misconception about the FAQ?

That people sharing their judgments on it have actually played more than 1 game under it.

Some things you don't need to playtest to know its going to be bad. Getting rid of Alpha strike is going to drastically hurt some armies, not exactly rocket science to figure that one out.

SemperMortis wrote:

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

Hahahaha, no one thinks that. Like ever.

PS, he also said the Eldar Phoenix Lords were going to be amongst the best characters in the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

But to your point about the Points cost ...YES! its literally perfect, try fixing the points now so that when you print the codex you don't have to print a Fething correction or FAQ a week later. It doesn't make any sense not to try and correct the points costs now, or to implement changes that are needed for certain units, it would streamline the codex/FAQ release and help older armies (factions that haven't had a codex or an update in a while) keep up with the creep.

They likely haven't written or just started writing the Ork book. There was no chance they had the concepts down for them when CA rolled around.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
People think that the Facebook page has any weight for rulings. GW's words not mine "And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." You still can't use Gate of Infinity or Da Jump to get into the enemy deployment. The question that everyone screencaps doesn't even clarify anything about the enemy deployment zone.... Read how the FAQ uses "set up" and "deploy" interchangeably multiple times and how all of the spells use the phrase set up.
Edit: Clarified some pronouns so it was less confusing to read

Well, the rules seem reasonably clear that you can use deepstrike abilities if the unit was deployed on the table. Petitioning FB is just to get people pushing against it to change their view.

GW even posted a top 5 unit’s that benefit from the beta rules. Weirdboys at the top of the list saying “You can da jump into the enemy front lines.” So yeah fear mongering about da jump and gate of infinity while a concern has been proven to be false.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Lil Kefka wrote:
That the FAQ was a personal attack on someone's individual army and not a game wide change affecting everyone.

I don't know a single person on here who thinks this was a "personal attack" on someones individual army.

I don't know - this comment seems to indicate that:

Apparently my Kommandos are just OP as feth and needed that nerf

Comedy gold. Exalted.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

3: That Reece is a good play tester....Still waiting for him to apologize for the comment about the Stompa being amazing.

Hahahaha, no one thinks that. Like ever.

PS, he also said the Eldar Phoenix Lords were going to be amongst the best characters in the game.

Blindly trusting playtesters is like buying a deathstrike based upon this article:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/13/much-ado-about-deathstrikes-apr-12gw-homepage-post-3/

Any ability that you can't use in the first turn is useless.
Melee units have to be able to fight every turn to be equal to shooting units.

It's like no one's ever played any previous edition of the game.

Pink Horror wrote:

Melee units have to be able to fight every turn to be equal to shooting units.

It's like no one's ever played any previous edition of the game.

I doubt that.

Melee fight twice a round.
Ranged shoots once a round.

In previous editions DS scattered and charging was abusively difficult.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pink Horror wrote:

Melee units have to be able to fight every turn to be equal to shooting units.

It's like no one's ever played any previous edition of the game.

I doubt that.

Melee fight twice a round.
Ranged shoots once a round.

In previous editions DS scattered and charging was abusively difficult.

Correction.

Melee fights once per round, due to fall back unit

Ranged shoots twice per round, due to overwatch

You have it in reverse

tneva82 wrote:
So what's the misconceptions there? That smite rules etc weren't adopted right away? Saw much of gaming without those?

And I have yet to see anybody play for real without 3 detachment limit. I hear of them in internet but then that's internet rumour. Not real life experience...

But hey ho put head in sand and try to play without those. You'll be struggling to find much of opponents though.

And I've never seen anyone enforce the tournament restrictions or the Beta rules, guess it must just be internet rumours, cause there's no way that different groups of people can decide to play in different ways. It's just not possible.

the_scotsman wrote:
Lascannon team sitting on a crate 2" higher than the deff dread's base, 100% immune to attack)

All lascannon teams are 100% immune to deff dread attacks.

The dread will die half way across the battlefield if your opponent has a lascannon

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Lascannon team sitting on a crate 2" higher than the deff dread's base, 100% immune to attack)

All lascannon teams are 100% immune to deff dread attacks.

The dread will die half way across the battlefield if your opponent has a lascannon

You got halfway? Nice!

MalfunctBot wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So what's the misconceptions there? That smite rules etc weren't adopted right away? Saw much of gaming without those?

And I have yet to see anybody play for real without 3 detachment limit. I hear of them in internet but then that's internet rumour. Not real life experience...

But hey ho put head in sand and try to play without those. You'll be struggling to find much of opponents though.

And I've never seen anyone enforce the tournament restrictions or the Beta rules, guess it must just be internet rumours, cause there's no way that different groups of people can decide to play in different ways. It's just not possible.

I usually see people will enforce the detachment limit almost every time, but its kind of a toss up if people will use beta rules. It almost never matters either way though as long as it is decided before the game starts then most people are happy. Problems only really happen when "beta rules or nah" happens mid shooting phase for example.