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.

I expect the rule of 3 to stay.

The Beta deep strike rule restrictions will be lessened but still will remain.

A side of my wishes fixes for weak armirs but with chapter approved so close I expect they will save them for it

CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.

A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).

I'd also love to know if requiring a full battle-forged Black Heart Detachment for AoV is an AoV-specific thing or if it's intended you need battleforged sub-factions to unlock sub-faction-stratagems in general (e.g. do you need a battle-forged Saim Hann detachment to unlock their specific strat, or is a general mix/Ynnari Eldar Detachment good enough?).



By and large, I think this would go some way to address Imperial Knights too. Imperial Knights aren't that bad, if it's just ~8 CP and no farming. IKs (like the Raven Castellan) just become insane with the Guard battery (with optional BA-supercharger) doing everything every turn what (I think) was largely intended as a once-per-game trick like Rotate Ion Shields on a Valiant or the Character-Missile or the Raven-strat.

A "any stratagem just once per game" would also naturally make the current beta-deep-strike redundant (and give units with natural DS abilities and/or stuff like Drop Pods at least a place in theory).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.

A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).

I'd also love to know if requiring a full battle-forged Black Heart Detachment for AoV is an AoV-specific thing or if it's intended you need battleforged sub-factions to unlock sub-faction-stratagems in general (e.g. do you need a battle-forged Saim Hann detachment to unlock their specific strat, or is a general mix/Ynnari Eldar Detachment good enough?).

I can't see the only being able to use a strategum once per game that would be so bad for many factions that arr relying on strategums.

I believe rules as intended from the writers reaction is that sub faction strategums are only unlocked by detachments with the keyword.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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

It's difficult to tell what in your post was sarcasm, but I'm taking this one at face value. Are you sure? There were point changes in the last Big FAQ. Not many admittedly, but some.

I would like to see fixes to points, Giving terminators the relentless special rule to move and shoot heavy weapons (otherwise there is no freaking reason to take terminators)

While also decreasing costs around the board, and not rewarding command point spamming and limiting it so that only your faction will get those command points generated by its command points.

What if they made the deep strike rule also included "no man land"? So you'd be able to deep strike anywhere except opponents deployment on T1.

I am also pretty sure the movement rules might get a tweak similar to how they are worded in the Kill Team rules, with Advance explicitly an alternative movement action that replaces the "normal move".

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.

There really aren't that many other units that are "Tougher" then a Knight. But with that said, I agree my army is a problem. unfortunately GW hasn't given us a reliable anti-tank weapon .....ever. In fact, our best anti-vehicle...hell anti-everything weapon from 4th to 7th was a Nob or Warboss with a Power Klaw who just walks across the board and punches it to death. So I don't really expect GW to give me any better solutions since they seem to have failed to do so for the better part of a couple decades.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would like to see fixes to points, Giving terminators the relentless special rule to move and shoot heavy weapons (otherwise there is no freaking reason to take terminators)

While also decreasing costs around the board, and not rewarding command point spamming and limiting it so that only your faction will get those command points generated by its command points.

I don't think relentless helps Termies much to be honest. I would give them a rule that they can't be reduced below 1 wound if they have more than 1 wound. Basically it will always take a minimum of 2 failed saves to kill them, regardless of damage.

 chimeara wrote:
What if they made the deep strike rule also included "no man land"? So you'd be able to deep strike anywhere except opponents deployment on T1.

At the very least it would be nice if units could deep strike out to their movement from your deployment zone on the first turn, so at least they do not lose out on how far they could have gone if they started on the table instead of in deep strike.

I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

Seeing soup means profit you surprised ?-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
CP farms and some confusion on cross-faction stratagems should be addressed.

A (matched-play only) beta rules trying to tackle this in some way would be welcome (e.g. you only unlock stratagems for your warlord's faction or you can only use stratagems once per matched-play-battle for all stratagems period, or something like this).

That would be illogical rule. Marines don't forget how to use auspex just because warlord is ig(or different marine). Now detachment cp usable only by that det i couid get behind but alas gw likely thinks that's too complicated for players

I would expect nerfs to Knights and Drukhari and possibly Aeldari.

Drukhari:
Expecting a price increase for the Disintegrator Cannon.
Expecting Agents of Vect stratagem to go 'once per battle' instead of once per phase.

Knights:
Expecting a price increase for the Conflagration Cannon.
Expecting a price increase for the Avenger Gatling Cannon.

Craftworld Eldar/Ynnari:
Expecting a price increase for Dark Reapers.
Expecting a price increase for Shining Spears.

General:
Everything that is currently weak will not get any buffs.
If they nerf CP farms, then I would expect something like Allied Detachments that don't match the primary Detachment keywords provide fewer CP's while keeping the Battle Brothers limitations as well for Keywords.

You need to add a "none of these". I dont see ANY of that happening.

Conf cannon? You nerf weaker of big knights and leave better one untouched?

tneva82 wrote:


That would be illogical rule. Marines don't forget how to use auspex just because warlord is ig(or different marine). Now detachment cp usable only by that det i couid get behind but alas gw likely thinks that's too complicated for players

Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Conf cannon? You nerf weaker of big knights and leave better one untouched?

House Raven Strat should arguably be 3CP and probably once-per-game if the current CP farming stays mostly intact. I don't think it's the Knight itself that is so much an issue. The Raven Strat on Knight Porphyrion, etc.. is just as insane (just fewer people spend the cash, I suppose).

FW Knights with Rotate Ion Shields to 3++ in close combat could be another thing the FW side of FAQ might wanna look at.

Can we get multiple options on this poll OP, kinda misleading if you can't.


At a guess: beta rules refined and made part of main FAQ.

I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of points changes. We didn't see a lot in april and they said then they hadn't planned any but saw some were needed at adepticon.

 Earth127 wrote:


I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of points changes. We didn't see a lot in april and they said then they hadn't planned any but saw some were needed at adepticon.

That is true. And they said they'll watch NOVA for this FAQ, and we already know that half of the invitational is playing Castellan+Guard+BA Smash Captains. So the exposure will clearly be there.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).

But why for example CP from faction A detachments being only usable by faction A would be worse? That way CP farm would also go away. No more IG battallion supplying CP for knights/blood angels and all that cheap IG CP would go for less hot IG strategems.

Just because it's matched play doesn't have to mean you have to deliberately go for least logical rule. Okay that's GW style alright but we aren't GW designers so are free to think up more logical solutions.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Which is why I said matched-play, where they dropped such concerns for play balance anyhow (why can Terminators teleport to this side of the hill, but not the other, except a minute later they can? Why is it harder for one Farseer to smite if the Spiritseer over there did it a second ago, but other spells or enemies smiting are irrelevant? Etc..).

But why for example CP from faction A detachments being only usable by faction A would be worse? That way CP farm would also go away. No more IG battallion supplying CP for knights/blood angels and all that cheap IG CP would go for less hot IG strategems.

Just because it's matched play doesn't have to mean you have to deliberately go for least logical rule. Okay that's GW style alright but we aren't GW designers so are free to think up more logical solutions.

Sure. Many ways to spin this. And it probably should go through a Beta-phase either way, as have past changes like this, to refine.

Separate CP pools sounds tedious to me. Personally, if I'd go down this route, I'd probably advocate only unlocking stratagems for your warlord's faction only period (incl. extra Relic strat). But it's just brainstorming at this stage.

Or maybe it'll be smaller changes like no-double farming (e.g. no Grand Strategist AND BA relic) and possibly changing Grand Strategist to a 6+ per CP spend or to only one die per strat on 5+).

Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.

I don't think relentless helps Termies much to be honest. I would give them a rule that they can't be reduced below 1 wound if they have more than 1 wound. Basically it will always take a minimum of 2 failed saves to kill them, regardless of damage.

How about a flat -1 wound minimum 1. Your proposal means that they take two hits from titan killing weapons. This is too much imo. -1 means they take two hits from Autocannon and more importantly Plasma. They also sometimes live through 1d3 and 1d6 weapons.

As far as the FAQ goes I wouldn't expect much in the way of pts changes. This is a FAQ not an Errata. I'd like to be proven wrong with something that helps Space Marines other than specific models be competitive. I hope the Deep Strike rules get adjusted.

Orks should wait for their Codex to drop before deciding what is a problem for the Army. I believe they will get a much bigger Codex and model release than most other armies in 8th edition. It may still be an issue after, but it may not.

Biasn wrote:
Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.

Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.

Darsath wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.

Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.

Well it just proves my point.

I wonder if they will ever change the stats from stuff in FAQs.

Biasn wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.

Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.

Well it just proves my point.

I wonder if they will ever change the stats from stuff in FAQs.

I doubt they'll make changes like that. FAQs are not intended to make large changes. They're mostly to clarify rules and answer people's questions. There might be some balance changes in Chapter Approved in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any large changes. Probably just a couple points changes.

Darsath wrote:

Biasn wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Hopefully some weapon stat adjustments. Some weapons are straight up garbage like the Tesla Annihilator from Crons.

Tesla Cannon is still worse. I'd choose a Guass Cannon any day of the week, even against horde armies.

Well it just proves my point.

I wonder if they will ever change the stats from stuff in FAQs.

I doubt they'll make changes like that. FAQs are not intended to make large changes. They're mostly to clarify rules and answer people's questions. There might be some balance changes in Chapter Approved in December, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any large changes. Probably just a couple points changes.

I still believe in their "living ruleset" stuff. Maybe just maybe they will adress some major issues with a lot of factions.

I could see Rule or Three being a keyword thing once it's finalized. It'd keep things like Daemon Princes from getting spammed from multiple datasheets. They could even do a list of keywords that are restricted to the 0-3 limit.

That said, considering their backpedal on alpha strike nerfs (allowing stuff on the board to still alpha) I could see that change. I don't see the reserve limits changing though.

I feel like CP generation (or at least regeneration) will see an address in the beta, though they might wait to pull that trigger in the CA instead.

Only extremely glaring problems will be fixed in those FAQs.

The CP farming is on a level that may require it, but terminators or stuff like that are not.

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something to fix CP farming IMHO that's the biggest issue right now. It encourages soup lists and they seem to want to do nothing to change that.

I'd be happy to see this, even if it's something as simple as 'you only get one CP regeneration roll, even if you have multiple sources, like with feel no pain.'

 D6Damager wrote:
I would expect nerfs to Knights and Drukhari and possibly Aeldari.

Drukhari:
Expecting a price increase for the Disintegrator Cannon.
Expecting Agents of Vect stratagem to go 'once per battle' instead of once per phase.

Knights:
Expecting a price increase for the Conflagration Cannon.
Expecting a price increase for the Avenger Gatling Cannon.

Craftworld Eldar/Ynnari:
Expecting a price increase for Dark Reapers.
Expecting a price increase for Shining Spears.

General:
Everything that is currently weak will not get any buffs.
If they nerf CP farms, then I would expect something like Allied Detachments that don't match the primary Detachment keywords provide fewer CP's while keeping the Battle Brothers limitations as well for Keywords.

Why would they increase the avenger, it just went down. It's good, but not good enough for a nerf. I'd say it's about where it should be.