Pretty good article over on BoLS about how the FAQ affected many armies

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.

**ServiceGames**

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/04/40k-how-your-army-was-effected-by-the-faq-part-1.html

SG

**Formosa**

can you post the article, not clicking that site for any reason.

**BaconCatBug**

Formosa wrote:
can you post the article, not clicking that site for any reason.

Use Archive.is if you're really antsy about them. https://archive.is/sxopI

**Tamwulf**

It's BoLS. They lost a lot of relevance when they monetized their site into click bait. Not as bad as Spikey Bits, but close.

They still haven't hired an editor to at least vet or even look over articles for such small things as spelling errors, grammar, and misleading titles. You know, all those things that are included in a word processor program? But they ain't got no time to make a good quality article! They gotta get that content out ASAP!1!1!!!111!

And don't you dare critique or present a contrary point of view to any of their articles or you will get banned from the forums.

The Big FAQ 1 has shaken up the meta and armies have risen and fallen. Let’s take a look at how it affected each army.

Yesterday Goatboy took at the “winners” and “loser” of the FAQ, noting that gun lines got better for instance. Due to all these changes, some armies got a lot better, while others suffered. Today lets take a quick look at how each army was affected by the FAQ.

I quit reading after this introductory paragraph. Hire a

editor for

sake if you expect to make money off your website and its content!

**Verviedi**

For those who want to read this but don't like ad cancer.

Also, lol at "Effected". My corrections in purple. because some mistakes are just inexcusable.

The Big FAQ 1 has shaken up the meta and armies have risen and fallen. Let’s take a look at how it affected each army.

Yesterday Goatboy took at the “winners” and “loser” of the FAQ, noting that gun lines got better for instance. Due to all these changes, some armies got a lot better, while others suffered. Today let's take a quick look at how each army was affected by the FAQ.

Imperial Guard

The old IG came off well in the FAQ. Not only did their Commissars get better but few of the significant changes affected them heavily. Indeed the curbing of first turn charges is great for the army, as is extra CPs. While the rule of 3 does annoyingly limit the number of Company Commanders you take, for instance, most of your vehicles can be taken in squadrons. Also, access to a lot of variants of units from Forgeworld helps mitigate the losses.

Verdict: Big Winner

Tyranids

Nids, or at least the most popular lists, took a bit of a beating in the FAQ. They are an army that will feel some crunch from the rule of 3, as it puts paid to 7 flayrant lists. Nerfs to smite spam also affect an army that does a lot of smiting. The curbing of first turn deep strikes also hurts them as it’s a big tactic for the army. Couple that with having to have half your PL on the table and a lot of the lists we were seeing got taken out in several ways. Nids are still a strong list with a lot of good options, but players are going to have to change up how they play them now.

Verdict: Big Loser in their current competitive form.

Tau

Changes to deep striking helped Tau some, in preventing them getting charged as early. It does hurt some builds that would want to put battle-suits deep into enemy lines early, however. The rule of 3 feels like a pretty big hurt to them as it will limit the number of Ion-heads, drones, and suits they can take. Couple that with the limits on commanders and Tau are seeing some real limits to being able to take their best things. I think Tau already were a weaker gun line than IG and this FAQ didn’t help them.

Verdict: Minor loser

Necrons

Overall Necrons are such a new army that they didn’t get hurt too bad by the FAQ. Again, limiting deep strike is pretty good for them, as they didn’t tend to run a ton of assault lists built around it. The rule of three does put paid to the idea of taking 5-6 C’tan Shards in an army, but you can still take 3 and the two named ones, so this is not the end of the tomb-world. I suppose it’s a bit of a bummer if you wanted to spam things like Annihilation Barges – now you can’t. Overall if that game moves more towards a mid-range shooting fest, it will only benefit Necrons.

Verdict: Minor Winner

Heretic Astartes

The good old Chaos Space Marines did take a few lumps here. The double whammy of deep strike restrictions and not being able to Warptime after coming in really hurt some builds. Limiting Tide of Traitors to once a game is also bad. Though, with how much it costs I wonder it was getting used more than once a game all that often. On the other hand, the extra CPs battalions get is big for CSM as they are one of the most CP demanding armies out there. Also, Alpha Legion units can still pay points, of which you will have more of now, to set up outside of 9 and get first turn charges off. The Rule of 3 doesn’t hurt a ton of builds. As Adam has pointed out, you can still get a ton of Demon Princes, but I guess things like Hellforge Contemptor Spam is dead (take that Goatboy). I think overall the army is a strong as it ever was.

Verdict: Neutral

The 1k Sons are in pretty much the same spot as regular CSM. First turn Tzaangor charges are out, but they also don’t have to worry about being charged as much. I think Warpflamers will be less popular in the future as you can’t drop in and warptime into range. Conversely getting some immunity to the smite nerf is also good for the list. I think their power level is pretty unchanged.

Verdict: Very Minor Winner

Death Guard

Out of the CSM factions, Death Guard are by far the losers. Most of what I said about the other factions, good and bad, is true of Death Guard as well. However, the change to Poxwalkers (have to pay points if they go over starting size) was a big blow to the army. Also, the rule of three limits how many both Plague Burst Crawlers and Foetid Bloat Drones you can take. As both of these were favorite units to spam, the limit stings a bit. I think with these changes you may see far less mono-Death Guard Builds.

Verdict: Big Loser

Imperial Knights

Overall the army is pretty unaffected by the changes. Knights are expensive enough and have so many variants that the rule of three has very little effect. As they aren’t an army that can deep strike, seeing people get less of it is good, but that’s about it.

Verdict: Minor Winner

Ad Mech

I think Ad Mech came out pretty well in the new meta. Most Ad Mech builds are shooting focused, and even assault lists weren’t heavily invested in deep striking. The rule of three is a little annoying of them as they only have two non-named HQ choices, but that still allows for up to 3 battalions. They are an army that tends to want to take a couple of big units rather than some small ones, so they are most OK. Not being able to take more than 3 Onagar Dunecrawlers might be a bit of a hassle but I think they do about as well as any other army there. As they are a pretty CP intensive list, the extra CPs are also great for them.

Verdict: Minor Winner

More to Come

Ok, guys, that’s it for part one, next time we will go over the remaining armies and see how they have fared with the FAQ. Overall even the armies that got nerfed are still good and will have to get creative to build top tier lists again. See ya’ll next time.

Don’t agree with my assessment? Let us know, down in the comments!

**the_scotsman**

SmAsH tHaT lIkE bUtToN!!!!!!?!?!?!

its so funny to see copy/pastes from image-heavy clickbait sites like BOLS, to see just how few words and how little of substance was said.

**Unit1126PLL**

Chaos Daemons where?

**nurgle86**

This thread is titled incorrectly. Perhaps it would be better as

-Article on BoLS about FAQ

**Bharring**

An article on 40k meta balance that doesn't at least mention CWE?

That hasn't been an option since the first half of 6E.

**Wolf_in_Human_Shape**

Oh my gods, I’m so happy there are other people as fervently disturbed by the lack of proofreading going on. There must be a dozen of us.

**lolman1c**

It's almost as bad a gw themselves! Maybe it's on purpose to mock them?

**Stux**

"not being able to Warptime after coming in"

What does this refer to? I can't find any changes to Warptime, and don't see how it would be affected by the new beta rules... Confused!

**meleti**

Stux wrote:
"not being able to Warptime after coming in"

What does this refer to? I can't find any changes to Warptime, and don't see how it would be affected by the new beta rules... Confused!

You can't warptime a unit that deployed using reserves or an ability that works like reserves. This isn't a beta rule, it's an actual rules change in the rulebook FAQ (I believe).

**deathwinguk**

BoLS is actually okay to read if you have Adblock Plus installed

**Stux**

meleti wrote:
Stux wrote:
"not being able to Warptime after coming in"

What does this refer to? I can't find any changes to Warptime, and don't see how it would be affected by the new beta rules... Confused!

You can't warptime a unit that deployed using reserves or an ability that works like reserves. This isn't a beta rule, it's an actual rules change in the rulebook FAQ (I believe).

Ah nice one, yeah it's in the rulebook FAQ, found it! Cheers

**Wulfmar**

There isn't much substance to that 'article'. It's simply some very generic statements with an arbitrary, qualitative yay or nay on perceived effectiveness.

Is there a more in-depth summary elsewhere, ideally with Orks and Dark Eldar included?

**Ordana**

deathwinguk wrote:
BoLS is actually okay to read if you have Adblock Plus installed

It was an ok way for me to see roundups of stuff and the occasional facepalm article.
Then their latest site revamp turned it into a forced mobile version with even more gak layout and a constantly broken comment section.

Also how on earth can you call CSM Neutral when they lose tide of traitor spam, Turn 1 Obliterator deepstrike and can't Warptime deepstrikers.

**Imateria**

Wulfmar wrote:
There isn't much substance to that 'article'. It's simply some very generic statements with an arbitrary, qualitative yay or nay on perceived effectiveness.

Is there a more in-depth summary elsewhere, ideally with Orks and Dark Eldar included?

You'd think people would realise that where it says "Part 1" at the top would heavily hint towards the existence of a "Part 2".

**Primark G**

What is BoLS?

**Crimson**

Primark G wrote:
What is BoLS?

One of the world's oldest distilled spirit brands. They've been operating since 1575.

**EnTyme**

Primark G wrote:
What is BoLS?

It's a tabletop gaming blog. Bell of Lost Souls.

**Crimson Devil**

It's a hive of clickbait and ads disguised as a tabletop gaming blog.

**Venerable Ironclad**

I will give this article one point of praise, it make me aware of the buff/fix to the the IG commissar. Its amazing the difference the word "can" can make. Still not what they were, but at least they can't actively hurt your army. I might actually consider using one again from time to time.

**MrMoustaffa**

Venerable Ironclad wrote:
I will give this article one point of praise, it make me aware of the buff/fix to the the IG commissar. Its amazing the difference the word "can" can make. Still not what they were, but at least they can't actively hurt your army. I might actually consider using one again from time to time.

They're actually pretty handy now, especially Lord's. There the cheapest LD buff we get now and it's consistent.

The downside is commissar LD does not stack with regiment abilities. For example, mordians do not get to add their +1 LD for ranking up to the Commissar's LD to get LD 10.

**Dandelion**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Venerable Ironclad wrote:
I will give this article one point of praise, it make me aware of the buff/fix to the the IG commissar. Its amazing the difference the word "can" can make. Still not what they were, but at least they can't actively hurt your army. I might actually consider using one again from time to time.

They're actually pretty handy now, especially Lord's. There the cheapest LD buff we get now and it's consistent.

The downside is commissar LD does not stack with regiment abilities. For example, mordians do not get to add their +1 LD for ranking up to the Commissar's LD to get LD 10.

The Lord Commissar also gives you an extra HQ if you go by the "rule of 3". So all in all, a solid choice now I suspect.

Though the article failed to mention the nerf to Scions at all, and they were the most abusive of the deepstrike units...

**Wulfmar**

Imateria wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
There isn't much substance to that 'article'. It's simply some very generic statements with an arbitrary, qualitative yay or nay on perceived effectiveness.

Is there a more in-depth summary elsewhere, ideally with Orks and Dark Eldar included?

You'd think people would realise that where it says "Part 1" at the top would heavily hint towards the existence of a "Part 2".

I read what was copied and pasted onto this thread. I don't visit BoLs because it forces my mobile browser onto spam sites. Feel free to continue acting the patronising jerk though.

You also didn't consider that if I was already stating that the information was crud, perhaps the bit on Orks and Dark Eldar is equally crud and therefor may want to furnish your response with a link to a better summary on the situation as I requested - assuming you have one?

**Zingraff**

I like their genever.

**zerosignal**

'Gunlines will be good!'

'Not Tau though'

derpfail.