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.
2018/08/24 00:14:08
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
2018/08/24 00:31:04
Subject: Re:new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I love my Guard, I have something like 8 or 10k points of them. But I'd really like a reason not to think whenever I make a list 'okay first lets start with 201pts of Guard'. But those 4 extra command points, and the extra bubble wrap, are just too good a combination.
Perhaps GW needs to consider writing each Codex with its own system of generating CP. This would further allow different armies to work differently on top of customizing how many cp you get for a 200pt chunk of army.
2018/08/24 02:22:04
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
We have unbalanced junk that will keep unbalanced(GW doesn't even care about game being balanced) with more illogical rules that break suspension of disbelief all the time.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2018/08/24 03:18:06
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
We have unbalanced junk that will keep unbalanced(GW doesn't even care about game being balanced) with more illogical rules that break suspension of disbelief all the time.
That is some mighty fine projection. GW cares about the game, and has even taken to playtesting it with 3rd party playtesters to try and make the game better. But no, somehow continued attempts at balance and testing don't mean they care but somehow don't care?
I'm sorry, you're just posting nonsense here. Go back to whatever game you apparently like to play because it doesn't look like you like to play this one.
2018/08/24 05:51:51
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
ClockworkZion wrote: Some people need to remember that rules design should follow the K.I.S.S. method.
Yeah... that's what they did with 8th edition.
Look where we're at right now.
A massive step up from the previous edition that, while still flawed in a number of ways, has a structured process in place to ensure those flaws are remedied over time rather than something being overpowered at launch simply continuing to be overpowered for the rest of the edition?
Yeah, people seem to forget that if this wasn't a living ruleset edition, we would still have the following:
1) Horders of morale immune conscripts for 3 points
2) Hordes of 4++ horros for 3 points
3) 27 points dark reapers
4) Uber soulbursts
5( Flyrants everywhere
6) 10 points genestealers who could deepstrike turn 1 from a lictor
7) Full flyer armies with a big shot yelling at them
8) Smite spam from 30 point malefic lords
8th edition would be a cluster of broken things that somehow would keep the game together... think of 7th edition 40K, MtG (any format) or WMH MK2. That is not balance, that is deciding that balance has no place in your game.
8th right now a much better balance thanks to all these changes, and we can actually argue about internal balance of factions, which is something unheard of.
2018/08/24 05:57:50
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I don't think any of the things in that poll will happen.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2018/08/24 06:31:15
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2018/08/24 06:39:57
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
It's not rocket science.
Etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/24 06:40:10
2018/08/24 06:55:45
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
It's not rocket science.
Etc...
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2018/08/24 07:10:37
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
me too, heck not sure why people think IKs need to be "toned down" people should stop screaming "OMG NERF!" everytime a codex comes out that alters the meta.
It's not a nerf. If one (or some) Codex(es) are played more often than others, it's clear there's a need to adjust things. If you look at a tournament, and, say, Grey Knights, Imperial Knights and Dark Angels are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If one Codex appears more often than the others combined, things need to change.
If you look at Astra Militarum armies/detachments across tournaments and all available Warlord Traits are roughly equally represented, things are fine. If Grand Strategist is suspiciously over-represented, it needs to change.
It's not rocket science.
Etc...
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
totally Agree
The other issue is if you give people the nerfs they are screaming for, congratulations you've just turned the knights codex into the next blood angles codex where they become a poor monobuild codex and are only represented by 1 or 2 datasheets from the entire codex in Astra Millsoup lists.
Play against someone with mono knights before you screem OMG OP NERF NERF NERF like a frothing mob.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/24 08:04:22
2018/08/24 08:07:22
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/24 08:07:49
2018/08/24 08:47:50
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
We can't say that yet.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
2018/08/24 09:03:39
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I'm really hoping that the Inquisition will get some mention. They where completly left out of the last FAQ and items that are used by both them and the adeptus ministrorum where tweaked for the ministrorum but not for the inquisiton. I fear gw will just let the inquisition phase out of the game, but I sincerly hope that will not happen. The day the inquisition isn't supported anymore is the day I quit warhammer.
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary.
2018/08/24 09:13:54
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/24 09:14:12
2018/08/24 09:14:37
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
I doubt a points adjustment would impact that TBH, the Gallent and Catellian are specialists, specialists generally being preferntial to generalists is a pretty common element of well.. every 40k army. So you can eaither over price those two units, or massivly underprice the multirole platforms.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2018/08/24 09:15:28
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I doubt a points adjustment would impact that TBH, the Gallent and Catellian are specialists, specialists generally being preferntial to generalists is a pretty common element of well.. every 40k army. So you can eaither over price those two units, or massivly underprice the multirole platforms.
X being preferential to Y is the definition of "not balanced".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/24 09:15:38
2018/08/24 09:36:58
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
2018/08/24 09:44:54
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
And? They can still do some playtest against the weakest conceivable army lists like all-Kroot or White Scars all-Primaris or footslogging Slaanesh Daemons or whatever and adjust points until they are balanced.
IK aren't weak. BAO fight for second place was a pure Knight list without any Guard or anything. There're easily a Million mathematical unit combinations currently in the game that aren't getting anywhere close to that or even appear at a tournament.
Balance means they need to be balanced against every single one of those too.
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Especially in a game played with Dice.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2018/08/24 10:02:37
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Assessing the strength of something isn't hard. That's what you have the tournaments and other games for.
I agree, trying to finesse it down to individual placement is probably not a good idea, but you could easily do something along of:
- Take 10.000 or maybe even 50.000 tournament lists from different tournament formats from the last 6 months (all numbers just off the top of my hat examples for illustrating the concept).
- Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction
- Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same.
- Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10%
- Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20%
- Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/24 10:03:35
2018/08/24 10:09:34
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
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.
this post is so disconnected from reality that I was expecting you to end it with a complaint about GK being too OP
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
Catachan don't forget how to be strong, but when allied in as GSC allies they have to.
Armies don't forget how to create a unit after bringing the 3rd one, but on the tabletop this isn't an option.
Psykers casting their smite equivalent doesn't get harder just because other psykers have cast it a few minutes ago, but in a turn of 40k it does.
This isn't a sim. Some decisions are made around balance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/24 10:34:26
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2018/08/24 10:57:59
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
I never said that they are weak, i just said that assessing the real strenght of IK as a faction right now is hard.
That BAO list that you mention is indeed a first sign of things being not so bad for them, but a top place in x event means really little.
Assessing the strength of something isn't hard. That's what you have the tournaments and other games for.
I agree, trying to finesse it down to individual placement is probably not a good idea, but you could easily do something along of:
- Take 10.000 or maybe even 50.000 tournament lists from different tournament formats from the last 6 months (all numbers just off the top of my hat examples for illustrating the concept). - Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction - Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same. - Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10% - Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20% - Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
I did exactly that, many times actually. It takes some hour but you get some interesting results. The issue with that approach right now though, is in the way that lists are registered. Only the main faction is listed, and you don't even know how the "main faction" is decided.
You could be looking at 100 IK lists and no more than 5 of them were pure IK.
Also, the procedure you suggest doesn't work in practice. Not all models are meant to have an equal representation in game, some models are meant to be in every list, while other are very niche.
Even not considering troops (which many faction don't have enough of a choice so there will be always the same ones, and that's intended, Ork lists should have Boyz), take Tyranids for example.
Almost all nid lists do feature an Hyve tyrant, winged or not. That would be true even if the tyrant was slightly subpar, for fluff reasons and because at least one is needed due to it being a solid base for any list. It gives you a psy base, a good synaptic base and almost all traits and relics can only be given to a tyrant. Some units are just made to be the core of a faction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/24 11:03:37
2018/08/24 13:15:53
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
sure and I agree the Guard strart and relic need a change. my point is I'm not sure Imperial Knights are nesscarily something that needs changing drasticly, I know people harp about their survivability options. but 1: prior to the codex people claimed knights weren't very good due to survival issues. . 2: nerfing army strats is a bad idea until after they'd fixed the "guard command point battery" issue.
Even with the command battery being equal, you see significantly more Gallants and Castellans than you see Paladins or Wardens, say. So points need to be adjusted until all options are equally valid and roughly equally represented on the table. Eg. they are currently not balanced.
And given that Knights generally are good, (mostly) points increases on the popular options as opposed to points decreased on the less used options would appear to be the prudent approach in this particular case.
We can't say that yet.
Currently the strenght of IK as a faction is...unknown. No one plays them without CP support, but we know for sure they are much much weaker without it. IK could be on GK level as a codex and we wouldn't know it.
At my last big event, we had 10 IK armies with I believe 4 or 5 being pure IK. The others had IG battallion or BA detachment, one guy had Marauder Bombers supporting his knights. So from my experience about half the people that play IK run pure lists.
2018/08/24 14:36:54
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
2018/08/24 15:33:39
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
Basically this. I wouldn't be expecting any real balance changes with the FAQ. Even with Chapter Approved I wouldn't expect any new faction rules or anything, since every faction will receive changes. Some will just end up falling through the cracks, and many units I'm sure won't be touched as a result.
2018/08/24 15:37:03
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
Archebius wrote: I'm mostly hoping for updated balancing. Too many units out there right now that don't get any love at all, and aren't even fun to play.
Unless they're tweaking the datasheet that'll likely be limited to CA for points changes.
Basically this. I wouldn't be expecting any real balance changes with the FAQ. Even with Chapter Approved I wouldn't expect any new faction rules or anything, since every faction will receive changes. Some will just end up falling through the cracks, and many units I'm sure won't be touched as a result.
I could see some rule tweaks or some new beta stuff, but generally points seem to be a CA thing. Though I hope they use CA to start introducing new stuff to armies (as a possible example of what they could do: break the vanilla marines up into chunks by giving each chapter their own relics for example).
2018/08/24 19:26:53
Subject: new big FAQ... what you expect they will change?
- Units/equipment that didn't appear at all - 10% point reduction
- Units/equipment appearing in 1% - 10% of those lists stay the same.
- Units/equipment appearing in 11% - 20% of those lists, point increase by 10%
- Units/equipment appearing in 21% - 30% of those lists, point increase by 20%
- Units/equipment appearing in 31%+ of those lists, point increase by 30%
Rinse & repeat every 6 months ad infinitum alongside actual rule-changes/releases and adjustments through codexes, etc.. that help correct things points aren't necessarily able to fix.
Interesting. I do get the feeling though that an 1800pts eldar army would still destroy a 2200pts GK army. Am not saying that points drops or rises can't change the meta, they can of course, but some stuff is so good simple points changes just doesn't fix much. How many times were eldar being "fixed" ?
Who knows, maybe 380pts for 10 termintors would be good.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
