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.

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They specified september faq. This week left.

Not autumn faq. They specifically showed september when they introduced new system

Yes, then they changed it.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:And then they changed it after to Autumn when everyone complained that the first FAQ came out a few weeks late.

Gonna need to source that claim, boyz. Even the GW faq email response still says September.

To be fair, hands up, I can't find anything now! So maybe I just bought into a rumour that was going around. Sorry

You're not alone there. I'm sure I remember reading something about the "Fall FAQ" around April time, but I can't find it now.

GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.

 beir wrote:
GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.

Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong

did they say which September?

leopard wrote:
did they say which September?

1932.

 Stux wrote:

 beir wrote:
GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.

Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong

Or maybe not so pleasantly.

If Guilliman goes up in price again - I quit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 beir wrote:
GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.

Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong

Or maybe not so pleasantly.

If Guilliman goes up in price again - I quit.

So far he's gained points at every opportunity, I wouldn't rule it out though maybe it's been already written into CA anyway.

If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.

I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

I think they went from malice in 7th to incompetence with 8th. Of course, they were also incompetent when they were trying malice, so it failed half of the time.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.

You're just shooting corpses, Morty. *burp*

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.

Excellent! Now kill him in the fluff too!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.

I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.

I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.

He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.

Karol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.

I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.

He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.

If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.

I don't really see why you are putting in a 3k limit. RG becomes better the bigger the game and the more stuff you can get into his reroll everything footprint.

Really he isn't obviously a competitive choice any more, he is just a mill stone round the neck of Codex Marines. I'd expect him to be fundamentally changed when they get a new codex, probably mid way through next year.

Audustum wrote:

Karol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.

I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.

He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.

If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.

Magnus and Mortarion are significantly better than Rowboat? What? Since when?

Tyel wrote:
I don't really see why you are putting in a 3k limit. RG becomes better the bigger the game and the more stuff you can get into his reroll everything footprint.

Really he isn't obviously a competitive choice any more, he is just a mill stone round the neck of Codex Marines. I'd expect him to be fundamentally changed when they get a new codex, probably mid way through next year.

All games cap at 2k pts, so puting a 3000pts limit on him mean you will never see him at events, pick up games, you will maybe see him in those group games that seem to be popular in western stores, and the narrative players can use him, they are already crazy. At the same time you have the model in codex, people already bought and own it, you could put the change in to a book people would have to buy to know the rule exists in the first place, so new players could be buying those still and the store owners could still tell them that they can play them in game no problem, they just wouldn't have to add that it is just for narrative games. A win/win for GW.

If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit

you would not do that, chaos csm or chaos demons have fewer initial players so you need everyone that can to buy those models. If you put limits on chaos primarchs the new chaos players are going to be too few, comparing to new marine players, to generate sales you may expect.

They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.

 Crazyterran wrote:
They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.

Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.

Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?

Yeah, Tau commanders are one per detachment max, iirc.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.

Tell people to quit trying to break him in pure SM lists. Everytime someone finds a new way to overdrive his buff bubble, the higher his point cost will go. (I'm looking at you Reece )

They should just drop the to-wound portion from his aura.

 Crazyterran wrote:
They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.

You know that is like saying that the new dark reapers are just fine, because they are no where near as good as they were before GW nerfed them like 3 or 4 times. Yet people still seem to be using them.

If GW method of fixing is either to not fix something, or nerf it in to unplayability, and we want him to be fixed, then the only way to do it is to nerf him in such a way that he will not be used in matched play.

Primortus wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Karol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).

Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.

I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.

He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.

If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.

Magnus and Mortarion are significantly better than Rowboat? What? Since when?

Since, like, his first nerf-bat hit. Re-rolling to Hit and to Wound for Ultramarines (and just 1 to Hit for Imperium) is way less than Magnus's Psychic power and Mortarions Mortal Wounds aura. They're all about equals in combat now too (maybe not against each other, but against their designed target/targets). Magnus and Morty also both have the extremely coveted Fly keyword.

Let's put it this way, at NOVA, we had a Magnus + Mortarion list break the top 10. I think there was one at ETC too. There ain't nobody at that top end running Guilliman. There's a reason for this.

Darsath wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They specified september faq. This week left.

Not autumn faq. They specifically showed september when they introduced new system

Yes, then they changed it.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:And then they changed it after to Autumn when everyone complained that the first FAQ came out a few weeks late.

Gonna need to source that claim, boyz. Even the GW faq email response still says September.

To be fair, hands up, I can't find anything now! So maybe I just bought into a rumour that was going around. Sorry

You're not alone there. I'm sure I remember reading something about the "Fall FAQ" around April time, but I can't find it now.

On the FLG podcast, they said that the FAQ was coming out this month and that the socal open (October 27th) will be using the FAQ so if it's not out this month it will have to be early the first week of October.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.

Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?

Yeah, Tau commanders are one per detachment max, iirc.

Which did nothing to fix how powerful they actually are. Broken models are broken, regardless of how many you are allowed to take.

Not to mention they did nothing to fix regular Crisis Suits. I personally think they need to go to BS3+ but that's a different topic.

Yeah, FLG made it sound like they have seen the FAQ, which means either, they are given it in advance as part of play testing, or as I have suspected in the past, it is FLG who is writing the FAQ. Not sure if this FAQ has been completed for at least the last couple of weeks, why GW is holding off on releasing it. There didn’t appear to be any major issues at Nova, beyond CP farming (not something new) that would warrant a delay in the FAQ. Certainly it would not hurt GW to at least give a date the FAQ would be released. Their posted schedule is done through Friday for announcements on Warhammer TV with no mention of the FAQ, so it is either released tomorrow unannounced or it’s not going to make the September deadline, since they don’t appear to be dropping the FAQs on weekends.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Yeah, FLG made it sound like they have seen the FAQ, which means either, they are given it in advance as part of play testing, or as I have suspected in the past, it is FLG who is writing the FAQ. Not sure if this FAQ has been completed for at least the last couple of weeks, why GW is holding off on releasing it. There didn’t appear to be any major issues at Nova, beyond CP farming (not something new) that would warrant a delay in the FAQ. Certainly it would not hurt GW to at least give a date the FAQ would be released. Their posted schedule is done through Friday for announcements on Warhammer TV with no mention of the FAQ, so it is either released tomorrow unannounced or it’s not going to make the September deadline, since they don’t appear to be dropping the FAQs on weekends.

They have seen it as they are part of the play testing/ input but they do not have the final say. GW has “held off on releasing it” do to things happening at nova that the head rules judge didn’t anticipate. For example the judge who wrote 8th had a rules dispute with juice from the long war about the order of declaring what order you pick which guns to fire in sequence with “rotate ion shields”. Things like this have been been getting hot fixed in before it’s release. But it’s safe to say if FLG says it will be out with time for SoCal it will be

 beir wrote:
GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.

True. Gw is such a bunch of amateurs that expecting them to follow deadlines(that they theyselves set) is optimistic. Were they professionals it would be out but since they are bad amateurs.