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.

It's out! What are our thoughts?

Reserves change is huge. No deep strike at all turn 1. Alpha Legion and Raven Guard strat totally gimped, and Cult Ambush does nothing useful turn 1 (though the FAQ says this will be addressed in the codex)

Max of 1 CP gained per battle round is also huge!

A few issues we've had for a while cleared up! One shot weapons are optional to fire when shooting. Drones taken with battlesuits do not count as a Drones unit for rule of 3 purposes.

Fly units only ignore terrain in the movement phase specifically, so charges etc do NOT ignore terrain.

Overall I'm fairly happy on first pass, though I think there'll be people upset that nothing was done to the Castellan directly, and no points changes.

I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.

Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.

Stratagem changes are good. I would have hoped they went farther and made it so that stratagems are CP's were faction specific, but what they did a more measured change that is still good for the game. Coupled with the changes to specific offending stratagems, these are good changes.

I don't like the change to fly. Measuring vertical is fine, but not using Fly during charges or consolidates is kind of a bummer - especially for Harlequins.

Quasistellar wrote:
I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.

Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.

Yeah I think you're right there.

While the Guard Battery doesn't really work any more, it's still 5cp for 120pts, which I think means we'll still see that Battalion quite a bit.

Annoyed that they've thrown RG in with the changes to pre-game deep-strikes, they were probably benefitting the least from it.

I think it works.

FAQ did a pretty good job at addressing lots of broken and/or unfun combinations. Not always the way I would've hoped, but good enough, hopefully, to bring some fun back.


FAQ clearly didn't address stuff that was rather weak (Grey Knights, Necrons, etc..). Hope they have that on the menu for Chapter Approved.

I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Not sure what I was expecting after 30 pages in the other thread but am left feeling "Is that it?".

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

As a GSC player my units are incredibly overcosted and die if you look at them, so ambush was the only thing making them even semi viable. But I guess gunline are how they want everyone to play.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Annoyed that they've thrown RG in with the changes to pre-game deep-strikes, they were probably benefitting the least from it.

I think it was a poorly designed strat from the get go. It massively benefits you if you go turn 1, and is a bit meh if you get turn 2. Which just exacerbates the situation of the turn 1 advantage.

Then giving it to the chapter in the codex that already had the best tactic was a bizarre choice.

No we didn't see much RG in tournaments, but I still think it's the right choice. The issues with RG are the same issues as every other marine chapter and need addressing separately, which I am disappointed we didn't get anything for.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I think it works.

FAQ did a pretty good job at addressing lots of broken and/or unfun combinations. Not always the way I would've hoped, but good enough, hopefully, to bring some fun back.


FAQ clearly didn't address stuff that was rather weak (Grey Knights, Necrons, etc..). Hope they have that on the menu for Chapter Approved.

I'm sure they will be addressing those in CA.

Remember, this is just a FAQ/Errata.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.

They said that, but the first big FAQ actually did have point adjustments. Nearly 20 units got their points changed last time. It wasn't unreasonable to think they might do the same again.

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

It's hard to tell as it stand atm. Currently, it doesn't appear to be much of a change, but that;s because it's hard to gauge the impact that the few changes included will have. If we continue to see the same ol' Imperium/ Aelderi/ Chaos soup lists stacking at the top of the pile, though, then yeah, I'd consider the FAQ to be inadequate. But we don't know for sure yet, only guesses atm.

BA were already weak before, now they are even weaker with the FLY movement nerf. Tsons can still smite spam without +1 penalty, ridiculous.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?

 Stux wrote:


Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

I don't think melee needs a boost. It's pretty potent, which is why having no chance to defend against it is so bad. Not having fly in pile-ins and consolidate should also help being able to defend against being locked in CC.

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.

OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.
The CP regen is neutered but still good (Its free CP, even if it is just one a round, not like youre taking those other relics anyway).
Tactical reserves remains almost unchanged really, how many people wanted to DS units in their deployment zone?
Changes to trike from the shadows is HUGE for anyone actually using it. It means you cant get 9" away when playing long board.
The cover strat is interesting, 2CP is a lot, but potentially could have huge payoffs going second. All your vehicles with 2+ saves, no longer needing to keep your assault squads in cover and deploying them right on the line.
The change to On Wings of Fire is probably needed too.

Well I guess grey knights are just the way GW wants them to be.

Seems like stratagems have CP cost risen, and CP generation lowered.

Meatgrinder wrote:

Sikplex wrote:
I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...

Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)

Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.

OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.

As I said above, we got a fair few points changes in the last Big FAQ, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect a few here too.

Danny slag wrote:

And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.

I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.

Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.


Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.

I am sad that Pheremone Trail didn't get touched. Remains one of the most pointless strats in the game :(

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.

They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.

They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.

Doenst do squat for armies with middling saves

Meatgrinder wrote:

Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.

OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.
The CP regen is neutered but still good (Its free CP, even if it is just one a round, not like youre taking those other relics anyway).
Tactical reserves remains almost unchanged really, how many people wanted to DS units in their deployment zone?
Changes to trike from the shadows is HUGE for anyone actually using it. It means you cant get 9" away when playing long board.
The cover strat is interesting, 2CP is a lot, but potentially could have huge payoffs going second. All your vehicles with 2+ saves, no longer needing to keep your assault squads in cover and deploying them right on the line.
The change to On Wings of Fire is probably needed too.

If they can't or won't change points costs, yet somehow are willing to change to points costs of stratagems, so there is that, then why not errata rules? Why not let GK deep strike turn 1 as the only army in game. Or add some rule to their brotherhood of psyker rule. For example keep the baby smite, but make it auto cast.
neither of those things wouls suddenly blow up the meta with 90% of people playing GK, but for GK players it would at least give a reason to take out the army out of its box.

They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.

I guess it is good for marines, that have more starting CP. If you take GK and lose two CP, on top of any relics or re-rolls, your more or less stay with 1-2 CP for the rest of the game, and unlike other armies we don't get the 1CP per turn regeneration on any of our characters or detachments.

vindicare0412 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.

That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.

The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.

Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.

Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against

And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.

They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.

Doenst do squat for armies with middling saves

Most vehicles have decent saves which makes transports more important (2+ save on a Rhino, 1+ save on a Land Raider for a couple of examples) and if you're not sticking them in a transport you should have deployed them out of line of sight anyways. You know, stuff that we've been doing for several editions now to force gunlines to either forgo shooting due to lacking valid targets, or forcing them to move in order to see things to shoot.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.

I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?

SG