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 players think they will change/re adress in the incoming september FAQ, not what you would like they do but what is expected they do, thx

I see only a Rule Of Three update as likely. The deep strike rule may be refined, but I doubt they will drop entirely. The rest are Chaper Approved topics IMHO.

Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

I had previously thought it was March FAQ, and Christmas Chapter Approved - but I've heard people mention a second FAQ prior to Chapter Approved, so it's a thing?

I think this Chapter Approved will be far more important and will set the stage for what the game will be in the future. If it's aggressive to fix/balance...good. If they just patch a few of the latest codices, it'll be a bad sign for the game.

A lot could pivot on this I think.

The rule of three being updated to be more like the Tau commander rule I can see.
The rest of your suggestions are all way off the reservation.

The biggest issue right now is CP farming and CP sharing.

Non of the stuff you claim as thing's needing fixed are problems they are design changes, you might not like them but they are here to stay.

Also its an FAQ not chapter approved why would they be addressing missions?

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.

BrianDavion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.

Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?

I'm betting something to nerf the standard guard battalion. When something is so no brainier that everyone brings one it is aiming for correcting.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.

Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?

-3 to hit flyers

Ice_can wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.

Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?

-3 to hit flyers

besides that 3++ knight requires both a relic, warlord trait AND stratigium. just ya know.... kill the other knights.

The Deep Strike Beta rules will be made legit, because GW don't care that it totally destroys already weak armies, they want to give the illusion of doing something.

The Beta Battle Brothers rule will be made legit, because GW don't care that it totally destroys already weak armies, they want to give the illusion of doing something.

Ynnari will get another nerf where Soulburst causes the players kidney to explode.

No points tweaks will happen, that's for Chapter Approved.

Battalions will be changed to give +12 CP because that means more Astra Copywritum sales.

Oh, and not a single issue in my signature will be addressed or fixed, despite some of them being known from Day 0 of 8th edition.

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

Presumabiy you mean knights as titans are some of the worst models in game thanks to resin point hike. Warhound 2000 pts and opponent doesn't even have to shoot at it to win. Or do even single wound


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Titans will have to get a nerf, a small one hopefully but a nerf none the less. I am aware my army is a Index army still but I have ZERO answers to even 1 knight let alone an army of them...well that isn't true, I can just ignore them and hope they can't table me by the end of the game.

if you have no answers to Knights man then your army is the problem more so then knights. as there are a lot of tougher things out there then a handfull of Imperial Knights.

Off the top of my head the only thing tougher than a 3++ knight is a 2++ GM Baby Carrier.
What else is harder to kill?

-3 to hit flyers

besides that 3++ knight requires both a relic, warlord trait AND stratigium. just ya know.... kill the other knights.

Not relic actually.

Though unless that's lone knight it's easy to bybass anyway

I'd hope something to do with the battery guard batallion. The fact that codexes that were clearly designed to be low on CP can just spam Strategems out the wazoo thanks to a tiny guard detachment is ridiculous and completely screwd up the balance of half the codexes in the game. If GW doesn't touch it in any way something is seriously screwed up.

The simplest solution is that cp is limited to the <keyword> that generates it. It not only kicks all the shenanigans other codexes are pulling in the head but can even help reign in things like IG armies souping regiments.

If not that, they'll directly Nerf our warlord trait and relic, but that doesn't really do much to curb it.

From there? Not sure. That's the major stickler here that I could see GW tweaking with the FAQ. Anything else would be tweaking the proposed beta rules or going to chapter approved.

Rule of 3 needs to die.

There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Those goals were:

1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.

2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.

3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.

It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.

ERJAK wrote:
Rule of 3 needs to die.

There were a couple of goals for the rule of 3 and it failed EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Those goals were:

1. Improve game balance: This failed outright. A lot of the most powerful lists in the game were totally unaffected, several newly broken lists appeared a result of the old broken lists being gone and the knight codex, and quite a few of the middle to low end factions were seriously nerfed. And for the 'but muh hive tyrants' people, that had very little to do with being able to spam them and everything to do with that unit being 60pts undercosted.

2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.

3. Don't do anything to make the game actively less interesting: Failed this on two counts. The rule of 3 makes list building incredibly bland. Three of this, three of that, three of this, guard battalion. The rule of 3 ALSO makes soup mandatory for even middling success so it does a lot to kill faction identity.

It's a bad rule and they should feel bad.

so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists

I expect the following:

Beta tactical reserves rule confirmed but mitigated, like it happened with the smite beta rules.
Rule of 3 confirmed and further enforced to address things like the demon princes. It worked wonderfully, no reason not to keep it.

Fix to the soup CP sharing.

Nerf of the most prominent units like in the previous FAQ. This means increased cost of dissie cannons and some points more for knights, probably nothing else.
No other point changes, in particular no changes to underperforming units, that's something that only Chapter Approved does. An underperforming unit doesn't break the game, an overperforming one does. The FAQs are there to fix issues and so will nerf stuff that cannot wait for CA, don't expect it to buff anything.

That said, even the CP fix would warp the meta so much that i would be really careful in changing anything else before seeing the results.

ERJAK wrote:
2. Increase unit variety: Unit variety actually got worse. Now lists are more cookie cutter than they've ever been. Every eldar army runs the same 6 units, every imperium army runs the same 6 units+ a guard battalion, every chaos army runs stupid amounts of cultists. The thing that should have been a slam dunk is the thing that failed the MOST.

BAO was won by a list with 10 terminators and zero cultists, so...

 blackmage wrote:

so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists

Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"

Buffs for ''weaker'' armies would be welcome.
For me, I would be interested to see a boost for GKs.

In this poll I was tempted to write all of the above.

Don't expect any large changes in an FAQ. They'll probably wait until chapter approved in December before they make any real changes.

I'll accept rule of 3 when Dark Eldar get more than one sodding HQ per subfaction (not counting special characters).

What's that? You'd like a Kabal detachment? Okay, would you like your HQ to be an Archon or another Archon?

...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly? If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked. It sounds more like your problem is with the chapter tactics system.

tneva82 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

so you prefer things like 6-7 flyrants and mucolid spores, 9 Pbc ,15 obliterators, 9 ravagers.... what a nice bunch of lists

Well would be nice for GW to actually fix the issue rather than bandaid. don't make spamming them such an no brainer choise. But alas that requires professional game designers rather than amateurs hired 'cause they are willing to work for free going "yes sir!"

what you would suggest to fix spam without the rule of 3? just curious

 Arachnofiend wrote:
...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly?

There's a reason why I'm specifically asking for more HQs, rather than an alteration to the rule of 3.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked.

But what if I don't want a Brigade? (Since they're terrible for DE.)

What if I instead want 2 Battalions?

 Arachnofiend wrote:
...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly? If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked. It sounds more like your problem is with the chapter tactics system.

True. Though would allow at least using 2 kaballite battallions without SC's...

 vipoid wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
...How would getting rid of the rule of 3 fix that problem, exactly?

There's a reason why I'm specifically asking for more HQs, rather than an alteration to the rule of 3.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If you want a Kabal brigade you're still running 3 archons, no questions asked.

But what if I don't want a Brigade? (Since they're terrible for DE.)

What if I instead want 2 Battalions?

Why do you need battalions in an army that has a special rule for running multiple patrols to generate its CP to begin with?

 BoomWolf wrote:
Why do you need battalions in an army that has a special rule for running multiple patrols to generate its CP to begin with?

3 patrol!=2 battallions in CP. And most of the time 3 detachments is maximum you can really count on having in 2k game.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Why do you need battalions in an army that has a special rule for running multiple patrols to generate its CP to begin with?

Because those 3 Patrols are worse even than a single Battalion in terms of CPs.

IMO there will be a rule of 3 style rule applying different limits to different unit types per detachment

HQ: 2
Troops: Unlimited
Elites: 3
Heavy: 3
Fast: 3
LOW: 2

They can't make HQ 1, or armies with access to only one HQ unit (All Drukhari) will be unable to field normal detachments.