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.

@Spolletta,
Seems like a consise, reasonable expectation for the FAQ.

This is more wishlist than expectation, but I'd like to see this as a beta rule:
"6s to hit always hit".

I know Orkz are rumoured to get that specifically for them in the next 'dex, but I can still hope.

Karol wrote:

Forfiter wrote:
This becomes marines discussion, but how about staying in topic and screaming FAQ WHEN GW PLZ FIX GAME NAU

Seriously, 20sept and 0 info about SEPTEMBER FAQ? no leaks besides last one regarding castellan/spears/taloses (hope its true)?

But you could replace space marine with every other bad army and the fixs would be the same, get cheaper or, maybe even and, get more powerful rules. If one army has cheaper dudes, and most armies use the same kill units, then the army that is cheaper is going to fit in more of the kill units, and in an edition where something like unkillable units don't really exist outside of someone ploping 400 models, this makes marines with a higher cost weaker. Look at adeptus stuff, if you don't want to hear about marines, the fix to their units that never get used is the same. Either the electro priests stuff needs more rules or rules interaction with other stuff, or it has to be slash 50% points for a melee unit without transport that walks on foot.

I don't know enough about GW though , if they do care about their own rule set. From what they say online or write in aritcles the view is rather odd, as if they did not play their own games. I mean when the fix to my GK are getting shot to bits, is ask your opponent to not shot your stuff, then my raction is this =>

Bro, i am GK player too, i know exactly how bad balance is Especialy that i play Guard too, but without Castellan and BA caps. There are many many problems are, most of them due to GW not playing game (or playing some narrative stuff only) and/or have 0 knowledge in math, statistics etc. Look at examples:

1. GW presenting "the highest dmg model in game" - knight with harpoon. One shot, 10dmg. That can miss or bounce to invul. With rerol. That gives <1/10 chance to deal more than 0 dmg to enemy 3++ castellan. And castellan wtih Cawl plasma and volcano and rerolling all 1s? One shotting shadowswords. They introduced damage tables to nerf big models but then gives 1cp ignore that gem to most broken unit in game. niceeee
2. Leman russ vanquisher similar as 1, comparing to other leman russ is utter garbage. One shot with one-of-two d6 comparing to d6 shots with 2dmg. Multiple shots weapons are better anyway but why they also have higher average dmg into one model? that does not make any sense other that GW cant count.
3. How broken Ynnari is with shinning spears that are able to do anything on any point on map with easy. And reapers, that ignore all mechanics that protect other eldari on the best shooty unit in game that can move back to cover/best transport in game for 1cp, 48' range and to be sure they also have two shooting modes to always have optimal damage output.
4. How they increased CP from batalions/brigades saying it will help low-cp armies. Let's comment it with silence, we all know how it ended.
5. When commanders that suppose to buff your troops and sometimes give heroic actions became core spammed damage units. All leman russes are command tanks, tau commanders were thing before, shield cpt and smash capitans everywhere. When commander should be expensive aura buffer it's now just baseline better unit that replace regular one. How it make any sense...
6. Cover mechanics that makes most of terrain useless. Oh and many armies recieve "always in cover" anyway, so barricades and things like aegis defence makes 0 sense. THings that "ignore cover" are also ported from 7ed without any sense, like baneblade variant with that rule and worse ap and weapon. So you pay for a "ignore cover" that is basicali situational ap+1 while you have ap-1. Nice!
7. For some reason they invented other better cover for several armies like "-1 hit" that is stackable and broken and only several things can ignore it... like best shooting unit, dark reaper.
8. Being very restrictive about invul saves (termies only 5++, land rider and monolith without one) and next introducing units like castellan with 3++ or taloses with 4++ breaking game balance.
9. Adding huge price for useless things that GW thinks are strong. Like GK force weapons and their very weak psyker abilities.
10. Design of mortal wounds. They suppose to be cosmic-scale devastating wounds like c'tan powers or doom scythe synced weapons or tau anti-tank drones but they deal like d3 dmg to huge targets that they suppose (narrative-speaking) destroy. I think they had two ideas regarding mortal wounds - one from smite (warp powers that pierce any kind of invul saves) and one from necron/tau codex (devastating weapons). They just don't make any sense, like with c'tan - you bring huge comet striking that tank for a dmg equal to 2 dead guardsmans. And deathstirkes... yes, ICBM with narration that can destroy whole continents deal similar damage. Good work GW.
11. Flamers as anti-air weapon, hoovering aircrafts charging tanks to block them, shining spears sitting on your vechicles to make shooting to them impossible (i hate this game concept)... a lot of more narrative-bad rules
12. Leadership. Another edition proving that GW have no idea how to properly implement leadership. In 7ed at least guard had use of ld modifiers to recieve orders, now all armies just ignore leadership (valhallans with pistols). There are only several cases of using ld and its of course, aeldari thing with mind war. Oh, and meantime GW broken unit very core to setting - comissars, beacause they tought it will fix hordes if they will break this unit giving them unplayable rule. And don't even mention valhallan stratagem... clearly, they never ever tried to play matched game.
13. Rulebook is horrible written and designed, mixing together those "3 ways of play", trying ot be simple but creating mindblowing situyations like how ot measure 3d fly move or aiming to 2 knights and then saying what weapon for what etc. They had good idea adding keywords to units, but they forgot to add keywords to skills and weapons now making any big scale change impossible (if they would like for example fix something with "flamer type" weapon they have to name every one from every codex and they WILL forget some datasheets like they forget to give vendettas +1bs when they given it to valkyries.

uhh, i have no trust that any FAQ/CA will fix that i hope 9ed will come some time and GW hire at least one person playing on tournaments that can quickly find broken stuff. Currently Castellans, shining spears and BA capitains need quick fix and there is no reason GW is delaying that FAQ wanting to address multiple things instead of giving fixes to obviously broken stuff.

 Galef wrote:

Bremon wrote:
I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.

Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.

-

I’d totally agree that most of the fundamental issues with 8th (and I am, in general, a fan) are down to the fact that while the core mechanics of the game changed, a lot of stats (and point values) remained the same as they were in 7th, rather than altering them to take into account the various level of impact the mechanical changes would have on different models, and the way they’d interact. Personally, I feel it was an error to have ported stat lines across, rather than drastically overhauling some, but I can understand there were probably time limitations, combined with a reluctance to overcompensate.

So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.

 Eldarsif wrote:
So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.

^This

 buddha wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.

^This

^No


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I expect the first we’ll know about it, and therefore can confirm and specifics, will be when it appears. Same as the last one.

 Eldarsif wrote:
So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.

Reliable inside sources told me, it‘ll be September or October.

uhh, i have no trust that any FAQ/CA will fix that i hope 9ed will come some time and GW hire at least one person playing on tournaments that can quickly find broken stuff. Currently Castellans, shining spears and BA capitains need quick fix and there is no reason GW is delaying that FAQ wanting to address multiple things instead of giving fixes to obviously broken stuff.

I dont think they will fix much, maybe the CP farms, maybe hike up some points. It is the Fix to anything in GWs mind.

But to use your examples. I don't think we disagree. You mentioned reapers or s.spears. They are exactly what I was talking about, if both were eldar guardian costed with hvy weapons or jetbike and a points hike for the extra stats, no one would have played them. vide dire avengers. Eldar are just lucky to have those 3-4 extra rules on units delivered without a FAQ or detachment. I mean just imagine if space marine devastators had dark reaper special rules, or if guard or the good type of knights got soul burst. Or if a ravellan could still use some sort ad mecha stratagem or rule, because of an odd interaction between its codex and the ad mecha codex.

Eldar just get the premium fixs others want stock. And god help us if they ever get imperiums version of cheap swarms. I dread the day DE get some sort of 3-4pts beasty and eldar start running 80-120 of those.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.

Reliable inside sources told me, it‘ll be September or October.

Coolio.

Forfiter wrote:
Seriously, 20sept and 0 info about SEPTEMBER FAQ? no leaks besides last one regarding castellan/spears/taloses (hope its true)?

That would be because it is an Autumn FAQ, not a September FAQ, and Autumn is 3 months long...

 Nazrak wrote:
I’d totally agree that most of the fundamental issues with 8th (and I am, in general, a fan) are down to the fact that while the core mechanics of the game changed, a lot of stats (and point values) remained the same as they were in 7th, rather than altering them to take into account the various level of impact the mechanical changes would have on different models, and the way they’d interact. Personally, I feel it was an error to have ported stat lines across, rather than drastically overhauling some, but I can understand there were probably time limitations, combined with a reluctance to overcompensate.

Except that this is reversion from the stupid AP system of 3rd through 7th edition back to the more sensible ASM system from 1st and 2nd edition - and, in most cases, basic troop statlines didn't really change when they went from 2nd to 3rd, so why would they change when they go from 7th to 8th?

There may have been some argument for S & T to be looked at, given the apparent removal there of the cap of 10, but everything else? Nah.

 Dysartes wrote:

That would be because it is an Autumn FAQ, not a September FAQ, and Autumn is 3 months long...

Not sure where you got that impression. GW clearly stated it is a September FAQ, not Autumn. See: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

The last Big FAQ came out Monday, April 16.

If the next one sticks with a Monday, to give time for weekend tournaments to adapt, that would suggest it would come out Monday, September 24.

Roughly 93 hours away (assuming it isn't delayed to October).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Bremon wrote:
I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.

Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.

-

Yeah, they should have adjusted the armor across the board to go with the AP changes. Another half-arsed decision on their part.

I agree with these sentiments. Further adjusting of stat lines and armour saves would have gone a long way to making this new edition work smoother. Old stats ported into a system that decimates the old AP and wound charts is a glaring issue.

Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.

It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.

Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.

Spoletta wrote:
Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.

It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.

Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.

I actually agree with this.

I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.

 Marmatag wrote:


I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.

"They are firing lascannons!"

"Quick! Conga Line Formation!"

At this point I fully expect the FAQ to be delayed till mid October.

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.

It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.

Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.

I actually agree with this.

I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.

Apart from it's silly focused beam suddenly kills many you realize it would basically make anti-horde and anti-tank weapons same...There wouldn't be difference between d6 shots D1 and 1 shot Dd6 weapons. As it is suddenly lascannon would become primary infantry killer for marine/IG infantry. Heavy bolter? That's for wimps. Real marine kills infantry with lascannon.

Weapons are already fairly samey. No need to make it even worse.

Oh and marines would be in even worse position...

We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

Yes, there should be such a weapon. That weapon should not be a lascannon! I am really glad the AOS idiocy of wounds spilling over was avoided in 40K.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
At this point I fully expect the FAQ to be delayed till mid October.

I guessed first week of October. Probably the first Monday, but I guess we'll see. I'm kind of curious to see how much I got right and wrong. I'd love to see some big changes come through.

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.

I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.

Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.

I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.

Makes sense. I mean, if you see your buddy get absolutely obliterated by a lascannon blast that's sure to cause some PTSD.
Maybe something like "every extra point of damage that exceeds a slain model's toughness characteristic after reducing their wounds to 0 counts as 1 casualty for the purposes of morale checks."

 LunarSol wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.

I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.

Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.

I'm ok with anti-tank weapons being inefficient when used on swarms of infantry.

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

Yes, there should be such a weapon. That weapon should not be a lascannon! I am really glad the AOS idiocy of wounds spilling over was avoided in 40K.

I agree, but I do think weapons should scale more based on the number of models in the squad. Particularly Flamer weapons (All factions have access to these) I fhtink that is Flamer weapons got a D6 shots per 5 models in the target, cap at 3D6, it would be nasty and effective.

And maybe cut down on some of the horde forces and fix some of the horde durability issues we keep seeing the problems with.

Darsath wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.

I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.

Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.

I'm ok with anti-tank weapons being inefficient when used on swarms of infantry.

I'm definitely okay with it as is. I don't particularly enjoy the way damage rolls in AoS and makes target selection feel a little pointless. I suppose my real thought is just that morale is a good way to deal with the difficulty created by things that are so cheap that they break the lower bounds on viable attack volumes.

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.

It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.

Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.

I actually agree with this.

I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.

I like the idea of having anti-tank and anti-infantry guns. Some of the anti-infantry just need a rework. Unless all the guardsmen decided to stand in a straight line i dont see a lascannon killing more then 1 99% of the time

A Lascannon killing 6 Guardsmen would be ridiculous. I also like the separation between anti infantry and anti armour in 40K finally. One of the best touches of the new edition.

Reemule wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.

Yes, there should be such a weapon. That weapon should not be a lascannon! I am really glad the AOS idiocy of wounds spilling over was avoided in 40K.

I agree, but I do think weapons should scale more based on the number of models in the squad. Particularly Flamer weapons (All factions have access to these) I fhtink that is Flamer weapons got a D6 shots per 5 models in the target, cap at 3D6, it would be nasty and effective.

And maybe cut down on some of the horde forces and fix some of the horde durability issues we keep seeing the problems with.

Cap hits at number of models in the unit?

ikeulhu wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

That would be because it is an Autumn FAQ, not a September FAQ, and Autumn is 3 months long...

Not sure where you got that impression. GW clearly stated it is a September FAQ, not Autumn. See: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

Huh - my apologies, then. I thought they'd learned from the criticism they got for missing March for the March FAQ (which was renamed to the Spring FAQ at the time), and been smart enough to given themselves a larger window to work with.

Oh, well, cue the gnashing of teeth when it misses September...

I would be careful thinking of flamer weapons hitting with that kind of power. 3D6 auto hits for a less than 10 point weapon would be disgusting. And deep striking double-hand flamer marines would be just gross, i think BA can do this. One guy putting out 6d6 auto-hits? Nah, that's busted.

Or make Guardsmen S2, T2.