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.

 Galef wrote:
Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?

-

It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?

-

It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.

The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?

-

It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.

The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!

Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?

-

It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.

The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!

Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?

Haha unfortunately not. No one takes it now, and there is even less incentive to take it going forward.

The FAQ absolutely needed to fix the Webway Portal. Its unplayable. Here's to hoping they don't forget about it in Chapter Approved.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Nice to see the Webway Portal is even MORE useless since you can't even use it at all turn 1. Since it will be dead on turn 2, why bother?

-

It's not that easy to kill and it's only 120 points. Either you deal with it right away and spend a lot of energy killing it or you let it slide and potentially screw you. We're talking fully removing 14 T8 3+/5++ wounds.

The stratagems don't allow for the override of the Tactical Reserves rule. If you blow my Webway Portal up on turn 1, everything inside dies. Now there is incentive to blow it up!

Guess I can finally be excited over having a bonus against buildings then?

Haha unfortunately not. No one takes it now, and there is even less incentive to take it going forward.

I figured as much, hence the laughing face.

I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".

Still surprised they got it out in September.

My personal impression is what you would expect, nice that they changed some of the RaW issues (I even get to make my sig smaller!) but didn't fix as many as I would like.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".

Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?

 mokoshkana wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".

Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?

It's "intended" to put a 1 unit on the table per turn via WebWay. If it cannot do this on the first turn and then dies, all units in TR that were going to use it also die.
Since the only use for the WWG was to protect your overpriced WK on the first turn, I'd say they is literally no use for it now.

On the bright side, at least it can be deployed outside your DZ again since that part of the Beta rule is gone.

-

I think they did a pretty decent job at addressing some major issues without too many knee jerks. The one item I am not really happy about is the change to infiltrating. Its really clunky occurring at the time the unit is deployed.

But worse is how scout squads with concealed positions completely invalidate forward operatives and every other new version of infiltrate.

2+ Units of scouts is in every imperium list, so those strats only exist about half the time now meta dependent.

On the bright side when you can use em they enable assaults much better.

 Galef wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was under the impression that everyone but me didn't like following the rules, so why are you asking for them to change the Webway Portal rules? Just play it as "intended".

Not sure what you are insinuating here with respect to intended rules for it. How were other people attempting to play it?

It's "intended" to put a 1 unit on the table per turn via WebWay. If it cannot do this on the first turn and then dies, all units in TR that were going to use it also die.
Since the only use for the WWG was to protect your overpriced WK on the first turn, I'd say they is literally no use for it now.

On the bright side, at least it can be deployed outside your DZ again since that part of the Beta rule is gone.

-

Agreed. If I had played it pre FAQ, it would have been in my deployment zone or at the edge so I could emergency disembark via the stratagem legally. Now it is 100% garbage functionally. At least its pretty though...

Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

The design is to sell models, this does that. "You're Imperial army doesn't work now? Well, have you thought about adding some allies to fill in the holes?"

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Without CP regeneration you are not going to see anything close to the amounts of stratagems that were used until now.

20 CP may look like a lot, but if you have one slam captain and one castellan, you will be out of them in one turn.

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

This is what we said after they raised the amount of CP given by batt/brig too. They just made allies MORE mandatory.

Anybody hoping for a return to monofaction prevalence, please take this as a cue, I think.

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).

Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.

Because its still much better than a power armor battalion in pretty much every way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

Agreed, but there still is a disparity between armies than can soup and those that cannot.
Single Faction Xenos like Necrons and T'au dont' have cheap enough options (that are also effective) to take 3 Battalions
So while generating 30-40 CPs is gone, Factions that can Soup with cheap Guard Battalions will almost always have double the CPs as mono-faction lists

-

Spoletta wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).

Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.

Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.

Yes, its better. But I'm now trying to find ways to squeeze in an IG brigade. This simply isn't possible with power armor armies.

 Galef wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

Agreed, but there still is a disparity between armies than can soup and those that cannot.
Single Faction Xenos like Necrons and T'au dont' have cheap enough options (that are also effective) to take 3 Battalions
So while generating 30-40 CPs is gone, Factions that can Soup with cheap Guard Battalions will almost always have double the CPs as mono-faction lists

-

Oh I agree. I want a monofaction bonus as much as Tau and Necron players do. I'm just saying that they did good fixing the CP farm problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, its better. But I'm now trying to find ways to squeeze in an IG brigade. This simply isn't possible with power armor armies.

You're like a year late on that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.

What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.

"You're like a year late on that"

I owned zero IG this time last year. So that's why I'm moving slow. IG is more expensive to collect than marines.

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

I play solo Primaris of the angry lemon variety. I know far too much about the CP issue, I'm just saying that being given 5-10 extra CP (1-2 detachments of Guard) is nowhere as broken the 30-40 CP we were seeing and it means that those combos are either going to go out like a bottle rocket (with a zip and a bang) or need to be used in much tamer manners which brings those more broken combos in line.

What you just said doesn't do a thing to disprove anything that I've said. So I don't know why you're still repeating it. It doesn't detach these factions from their reliance of such detachments, and many things, such as the Ultramarines Warlord trait, have been hit by the collateral of these changes.

I don't think the Guard is the issue. The lack of a monofaction bonus is. You're aiming your ire the wrong way. That's my point at this point.

No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

Martel732 wrote:
No, IG is going to be a bigger issue than ever. But power armor is supposed to get some love in CA.

IG basically won't change much beyond replacing the BA or Castellan in most top level Imperial lists to give a second detachment of cheap CP generation to support the combo unit over trying to support two of said unit.

Darsath wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Thinking about it, most of the factions that used Soup in the past (IK, Blood Angels) are now even MORE likely to soup after this FAQ so that they can afford their stratagems. Honestly, this is going to have the opposite effect of that the Games Workshop design team had in mind.

Soup was fine, CP regeneration that gave armies access to over 30-40CP a game was not.

The current design pushes these factions to ally in Command Points more, and punishes those who play solo Knights or solo Blood Angels.

What you say doesn't make sense.
IG detachments were drastically nerfed, while all other detachments were almost untouched (veritas vitae and brilliant strategist rarely give you more than one CP per turn).

Please explain me why now you are more likely to ally into something that has just been nerfed, and by nerfed i mean that something that used to give on average 20 CPs now gives 7.

Guard Detachments grant the best Points to Command Points ratio of any ally choice, and the Command Point costs of the stratagems that these armies used have been increased. This increases their reliance on the easy Command Points granted by these allies, and punishes those who don't run them. Plus, Guard detachments did not have their CPs nerfed, it was the artefact that was nerfed.

Err no, they didn't.

They increased the cost of IK stratagems. Stop.

Then BA had one stratagem increased by one CP... wow...

They increased the reliance of IK on guard battalions, but reduced the reliance of all other factions on guard battalion. That is a net gain.