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.

So while I doubt we will see any super huge changes this FAQ (or even CA), I feel like a good fix to the issue of "pick and choose factions" would be limiting choices of certain legions, craftworlds, etc. choices based on their fluff. Yes, I know, everyone wants to run whatever they want as whatever they want.

But many games put limitations on what you can play to help balance the game better, but also make the game easier to balance. For example, Warmachine/Hordes places limits on what units each warcaster (think your Warlord in warhammer) can choose based on their backstory and playstyle. The more you limit players, the more creative they get within their "bubble" for form functioning lists and armies. Why I say this is that right now there is no incentive to pick anything besides the most broken legion/craftworld/trait, the best relics, so-on and so forth.

As an example of what I'm thinking:

Lets say you want to play World Eaters. In order for your detachment to be considered a World Eaters detachment, they could place a limit:

** this army cannot contain any models without the Mark of Khorne, and may not contain any models with the "Psyker" keyword. All models in this detachment may reroll any failed charges, and gain +1 attack when it charges, is charged, or heroically intervenes. Khorne Berzerkers may be taken as a troop choice in this detachment.

Fluffwise, World Eaters is a Khorne legion, and they hate psykers. This places a limit on model choice (no plague marines or sorcerers, for example), but gives you a massive benefit for playing the army as intended.

Now lets take Alpha Legion. They're sneaky as hell, but the legion is generally Unmarked and has very few mutations/signs of chaos. In order to be considered Alpha Legion you could place this limitation:

**** All models in this detachment may not have a Mark of Chaos other than Undivided. Models with the Infantry or Walker keywords in this detachment are -1 to hit at distances greater than 12". As well, Alpha Legion detachments may choose units of Raptors and Warp Talons as Troops.

This gives you access to the legion strat, but removes the relatively "broken" combo with Berzerkers, but in a fluffy way. It doesn't remove things like Alpha Obliterators, but it does remove Alpha Slanesh Obliterators.


You could apply this thinking to each army really that isn't a specific legion/army like Death Guard or Blood Angels. It doesn't fix a lot of the other fundamental problems, but it indirectly adds a cost to picking certain traits and chapters. Relics can then be based off certain chapters (maybe 2-3 per), then have a small handful of "universal" relics.

I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.

A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.

Only problem is that this limitation would require a new codex or a specific supplement that you must buy. I don't really see GW give out pages and pages of fluff limitations that are this specific for free.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Only problem is that this limitation would require a new codex or a specific supplement that you must buy. I don't really see GW give out pages and pages of fluff limitations that are this specific for free.

I would think it would be more a Codex 8.5 or maybe even 9th edition.

This wouldn't really upset competitive players, they'll buy whatever works anyway, but brings the game back in line with fluff (makes the narrative people happier) and places more limitations to force people to think more when they form an army. I don't think you can ever address spam, its always been an issue, but I think its a step in the right direction

Reemule wrote:
I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.

A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.

It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?

I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.

A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.

It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?

I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.

I would argue there is definitely skill involved, but I do agree that the pool of players that attend multiple large events is relatively small. Unlike E-sports, or other competitive "geek games" (Magic), you can't really make good money playing it; so the incentive to be the best is pretty small, other than the notoriety.

jaxor1983 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.

A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.

It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?

I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.

I'm sure your right to some extent. The more chances you have to win the better your chances are to win. But is it going to help the argument that the game is all RNG, or is it going to help the argument that the game is skill based?

You could argue that the guy who goes to 5 events and wins 3, is the better player as they saw such a wider range of opponents, and still managed to maintain a winning record?

When I was competitive in another game, if was felt that if you could get to top 8 in a 64 man tourney, anyone of those guys could win, and it was down to luck for them at that point. Perhaps 40k is the same. Skill takes you to the top 16? The top 8? then its coin flips?

As skill gets closer to even, it's less of a deciding factor. So the game gets closer to a coin flip.

If I play whoever won the last GT, even in a mirror match, he's got way more than a 50% chance to win. Because he's that much more skilled than I.

If I were to play a clone of me in a mirror match, my win chance is obviously 50%.

If I were to clone myself, I played the last GT winner, then I played the clone, my chance of winning is probably about 51%.

I'd imagine two random individuals in the top 10 of most things would be much closer in skill than two random individuals from the population at large.

Bharring wrote:
Or just look at Chess.

First player is more likely to win.

Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.

But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.

If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.

Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.

Who's the better player?

The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.

 deviantduck wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just look at Chess.

First player is more likely to win.

Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.

But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.

If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.

Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.

Who's the better player?

The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.

So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.

The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.

This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.

Spoletta wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Or just look at Chess.

First player is more likely to win.

Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.

But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.

If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.

Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.

Who's the better player?

The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.

So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.

The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.

This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.

Part of the problem with the tourney scene is pre-event Ranking. I have noticed that the "Top Players" rarely, if ever, face each other on the first day/day and a half, that is the first 3 or so rounds. If you randomize the draws in the first few rounds, you may see some of these 'Top Players" dropping to the middle of the pack due to facing each other earlier.
This brings into question whether they are really that good or are they, like in the College Basketball Tourny, just facing the play-in #16 seed who has almost no chance of winning.

For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

Translation could take more then a few days tho, depending on if its in house or not.

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

If that's the case I'm expecting a Sunday announcement and hopefully a Tuesday release or Saturday release. I believe the last one was released on a tuesday

But they always do their announcements on Sundays it seems

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.

This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.

As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....

I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.

Asmodios wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.

FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.

It makes it sound like there is a lot of stuff in it, if they are having to spend a fair chunk of time on layout...

I am interested in seeing these changes, but, i'm also betting that someone will find a contradiction between this faq and one of the previous ones within 30 minutes or so - because of those people that ARE great at writing rules seem to often have brain meltdowns when it comes to rules intentions.

Spoletta wrote:
So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.

The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.

This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.

Everyone can bring the top lists, but not everyone will bring the top lists. Remember, 40k is a hobby, not a job or a professional sport. Relatively few people are willing to buy a whole new army, pay to have it painted (since you can't do it yourself quickly enough to keep up with the meta), and pay $$$$ in travel and hotel costs to make it to a major tournament. Most people are going to show up with less-optimized lists, and many players aren't going to be able to make the trip at all regardless of skill. Just by being one of the few people willing to commit to playing 40k to win you're going to show up at the top of events over and over again, simply because the group you're in is so small. And that makes 40k events less a test of skill and more a test of willingness to do what it takes to win.

Kdash wrote:
This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.

As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....

I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.

I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment

But linking it to power level would just mean more book keeping, not saying that the idea of scaled of CP cost of stratagems is a bad idea, people don't use Powerl levels and hate to use them.

Again am not saying I disagree, 10 infiltrating cultists for 1 CP and 20 zerkers for same cost is crazy.

Also there would be a problem for factions like BA where the codex working are build around CP use, at the same time factions where stratagem are just a nice bonus to stock rules they get for free would get a buff of sorts.


Maybe CP regen should be fixed on the army level. You could still make an army out soup detachments, but your army would be decided by the warlord with a big buff to mono armies. So a BA or custodes army would get a lot more CP each turn or pre game, then an army consisting of 3 different factions. You could even balance it for each army, so that the choice when to use CP would be there for all armies, but someone picking a more elite mono army wouldn't be gimped at the level of list building.
This would also keep soup as an option. For example a knight player would have to make a choice, between playing a ravellan fueled most turns of the game or not having it fueled efficient, but getting a screen of some IG dudes. This would also fix the whole eldar soup problem.

Kdash wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.

FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.

Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.

It makes it sound like there is a lot of stuff in it, if they are having to spend a fair chunk of time on layout...

I am interested in seeing these changes, but, i'm also betting that someone will find a contradiction between this faq and one of the previous ones within 30 minutes or so - because of those people that ARE great at writing rules seem to often have brain meltdowns when it comes to rules intentions.

They should probably just hire some of the people who are great at writing rules as independent contractors for a one-off CA or something like it. Would likely help the game a lot.

Asmodios wrote:

Kdash wrote:
This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.

As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....

I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.

I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment

But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.

 grouchoben wrote:
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:

"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "

So, who've they hired in to do this particular round of "FAQ"/errata, then? After all, that description seems to rule out the usual Studio...

Anyone running a book on how many actual FAQs get dealt with in this release, whenever it drops, as opposed to errata?

Does anyone think they will do anything at all for Renegades and Heretics with this season's updates?

 ph34r wrote:
Does anyone think they will do anything at all for Renegades and Heretics with this season's updates?

Considering they are FW I somehow doubt anything good will happen to them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:



But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.

Well unless you make money with playing they will do so most of the time, there is the case though of armies being play unfun to play with. It is one thing to have an unoptimised list and a different thing being forced to ask people to buy a separate army just to play against you.

Karol wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:



But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.

Well unless you make money with playing they will do so most of the time, there is the case though of armies being play unfun to play with. It is one thing to have an unoptimised list and a different thing being forced to ask people to buy a separate army just to play against you.

It's rather easy to just bring a soft list.... or just simply spot someone x- points to cover the difference. We used to do that constantly back when my group played fantasy. There 101 ways to play a fun game without having to toss out every model that gets hit with the nerf bat.

It is easy in parts of the world where people can afford to buy a normal list and a soft list. In places where people earn less money, no one is going to spend a month of salary just that someone else can have fun. Specially as you would have to buy multiple soft armies against different opponents. Soft vs an orc army, or some sort of tempestus with knights list, is much different then the soft you need to play vs GK. In some cases you can't even get a soft enough list, and that is ignoring models people may like or not like to play with.

As the points go, the first thing I learned when I was starting was that I can have as many less points as I won't in my army, but I can never have more points then agreed. And people actually check the lists of people here. And if you cheat you may soon find yourself without people to play.


As the tosing away thing goes, It is a joke right? I am rather bad at getting those. If not then I can't imagine someone doing it unless they are either mental, or too rich. In both cases the bad army problem either doesn't exist or the person in question has bigger problems then a not working army.

Karol wrote:
It is easy in parts of the world where people can afford to buy a normal list and a soft list. In places where people earn less money, no one is going to spend a month of salary just that someone else can have fun. Specially as you would have to buy multiple soft armies against different opponents. Soft vs an orc army, or some sort of tempestus with knights list, is much different then the soft you need to play vs GK. In some cases you can't even get a soft enough list, and that is ignoring models people may like or not like to play with.

As the points go, the first thing I learned when I was starting was that I can have as many less points as I won't in my army, but I can never have more points then agreed. And people actually check the lists of people here. And if you cheat you may soon find yourself without people to play.


As the tosing away thing goes, It is a joke right? I am rather bad at getting those. If not then I can't imagine someone doing it unless they are either mental, or too rich. In both cases the bad army problem either doesn't exist or the person in question has bigger problems then a not working army.

So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.