FAQ is here! What do we think?

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.

**Tyel**

I'm up for completely eliminating allies.

**Cinderspirit**

Maybe it would be better to stop Detachments from granting fixed amounts of CP, and calculate the CP they grant according to the size? For example a Battalion/Brigade could grant 1 CP every 100 points, the smaller Detachments 1 CP every 200 points and Supreme Command/Auxillery dunno. Nerfs 200 point Batts and still rewards you for playing standard units. People would have about 10-20 CPs, depending on their build, which sounds better as it is now.

**Xenomancers**

Spoletta wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
The increase in CP for battalions and brigades was surely an help for elite armies, it just wasn't enough.

Monoguard didn't take much from it, they went from 21 to 27 CPs (with the old Kurov and strategist).

Custodes went from 6 to 8 CPs.

Increasing the CP given by battalions and brigades is surely good for elite armies. After all if battalions were 100 CP no one would soup in CP batteries.

It was a silly way to go about it. They should have just increased the standard battleforged CP instead. That would have achieved their stated goal without making the cheap allied IG battalions and brigades even more attractive.

Yep

I disagree, every time you increase the CP for battleforged, you decrease the value of taking battalions and brigades. The CP system exists exactly to encourage the use of those 2 detachments, CPs are not free resources that anyone should get access to, they are rewards for bringing an organic army. The good solution here is to make battalions and brigades reward CP based on the amounts of points you pour in them.

NurglesR0T wrote:It's been said somewhere here before but I believe if you want to achieve proper balance, they should bring back the old pre 5th FOC.

Restrict to single codex, eliminate soup entirely (can still have allies in narrative based games)

That is really bad IMHO. Eliminating allies is something that no one wants, and getting rid of the FOC was the best achievement of 7th. The FOC was a terrible system, may it rest forever.

"I disagree, every time you increase the CP for battleforged, you decrease the value of taking battalions and brigades."
A very simple problem to address. You just incentive's the battalion and brigade differently...like say - making non brigade and battalions cost CP.

**Kdash**

Kdash wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
I don't think BFS is a good meta-litmus test.

Knights were still half the lists at the event and with the FAQ out just 6 days or so before the event, most people simply took the lists they planned for anyhow. Sean Nayden's been playing is Avatar/Wyches list for ever.

Most (non-Knight) lists in the top were very much anti-Knight lists designed to beat Knights as much as possible in the pre-FAQ Knight-meta, (lots of Haywire, no juicy targets for Volcano Lances, shooting denial, lots of cc to clear Catachan Brigades, etc..) and just happened to potentially get a slightly easier ride because Knights got a dampener.

We'll have to wait and see how this shakes out when there's both less Knights around and thus perhaps less turkey-shooting for dedicated anti-Knight-meta-lists.

I 100% agree, the BFS event should not be used as an indication of any FAQ meta changes. This is simply because list submission had a deadline of the 29th, just 1 day after the FAQ was released.

In addition to this, after looking over their event pack, their format is… Different. After 3 games they split everyone into groups of 8, with only the top 8 armies in a position to win the event. They ran a 90-man event, which means that there was a potential of 11 people with 3 max point wins or a real close set of scores between those 11 players. 3 of those players never even got a chance to then compete and it means that it is impossible to tell, with their top 16 rankings who got their positions due to bracket splitting. (we also don’t know if the top 16 is just everyone in the top 2 brackets after day 1, or, everyone placed according to their total score over the 6 games).
Usually you’d see a lot more movement in who places where, as someone who went L-W-W-W will be on roughly the same points as those 4-7 players that go W-W-W-L, but, those in the first group essentially have a lower SoS and are more likely to win their day 2 games than those in the top bracket.
This is also further proven, that the person that technically won the event overall (highest competitive and appearance score combined) didn’t even make the top 16 in terms of competitive scores. (that or it just indicates that a lot more weight was put in the appearance score than the actual gaming score).

I’ll be more interested in the results coming from standard large-scale events happening in the last 2 weeks of October and beyond. It is from them, that we can begin to monitor new trends.

Quick follow up.

Had a brief discussion with someone who went to the event and finished 9th, over on the 40k competitive reddit. Apparently, if you finished day 1 in the top 16, you finished the event... in the top 16 regardless of your scores. This essentially means that 1 player in the event (if running swiss) will end either on a 2-4 record or 2 will finish on 3-3, but, because they were in the top 16 after day 1, they "beat" the 43 other players that have better win records than them.

Apparently auto bracketing day 2 (like they do for day 3 of the LVO to determine and overall winner) is "pretty standard". I've personally never ever been in an event that did this, and i've played at this years LGT and other events with 80-120 players in them, so the concept seems... Off to me. Is this kinda thing standard in the US?

Due to these reasons i 100% definitely can't agree with using this result as an indicator of the post faq meta.

**Nurglitch**

Tyel wrote:
I'm up for completely eliminating allies.

I think taking the route that WoTC took with Magic: The Gathering and having separate formats is the way to go, so you can go all the way from traditional 'open, limited only by points and FOC' play to fixed lists, and stuff in between like "all models from a single army book" or "only one detachment allowed" or "highlander" whatever little restrictions TOs think might make things different and interesting.

**Ordana**

Its a US thing, they feel the need for an actual finals where the winner of the event is guaranteed to happen.

**Crimson**

Spoletta wrote:

I disagree, every time you increase the CP for battleforged, you decrease the value of taking battalions and brigades. The CP system exists exactly to encourage the use of those 2 detachments, CPs are not free resources that anyone should get access to, they are rewards for bringing an organic army.

They already provided more CP than other detachments, no need to make them effectively mandatory. All the old rules that changed certain units' role to troops were removed in 8th. The justification was that you could still use vanguard outrider detachments to run such armies. But in practice you can't. The CP advantage in favour of battalion or brigade based armies is just too great.

Eliminating allies is something that no one wants,

Unfortunately a lot of people want exactly that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I'm up for completely eliminating allies.

I'm up for completely eliminating whatever army you happen to play.

**Xenomancers**

Ordana wrote:
Its a US thing, they feel the need for an actual finals where the winner of the event is guaranteed to happen.

Sounds like a poor attempt at a playoff to me.

The real way to do it is win or go home starting at round 1 IMO. Also known as - single elimination.

Then for those who lose - you have a random team tournament for SNG's so everyone gets to have fun. You can even have a prise pool for that if you want.

Why would this be better? Well as rounds go on competition gets harder...this is the main reason. Plus the finals games are going to be nothing but the best players and armies...you don't end up with a gak show like this above.

**Kdash**

Xenomancers wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Its a US thing, they feel the need for an actual finals where the winner of the event is guaranteed to happen.

Sounds like a poor attempt at a playoff to me.

The real way to do it is win or go home starting at round 1 IMO. Also known as - single elimination.

Then for those who lose - you have a random team tournament for SNG's so everyone gets to have fun. You can even have a prise pool for that if you want.

Why would this be better? Well as rounds go on competition gets harder...this is the main reason. Plus the finals games are going to be nothing but the best players and armies...you don't end up with a gak show like this above.

Also, looking at this event with a top 16 over 3 games... If there are no draws you'll pretty much always end up with 2 people on 6-0 records lol. So not sure how it all works.

**Ordana**

Swiss pairing means rounds get harder anyway.
Single elimination isnt used because people are not going to pay for entry and travel for it

**Kdash**

Ordana wrote:
Swiss pairing means rounds get harder anyway.
Single elimination isnt used because people are not going to pay for entry and travel for it

I agree, and with the winners playing the winners each round anyway, you automatically work towards a winner anyway. Plus, after 5 or 6 games secondary points add up and matter more as well giving us an overall ranking. Otherwise, there is literally no point in noting down seconday points and you might as well just class a win as a win.

**Tyel**

Nurglitch wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I'm up for completely eliminating allies.

I think taking the route that WoTC took with Magic: The Gathering and having separate formats is the way to go, so you can go all the way from traditional 'open, limited only by points and FOC' play to fixed lists, and stuff in between like "all models from a single army book" or "only one detachment allowed" or "highlander" whatever little restrictions TOs think might make things different and interesting.

Its an option - but unlikely. GW will want "Matched play" to be what they balance for - and they will amend points and rules with that in mind. There will always be a "if you want to play different to matched play, knock yourself out, they are your models".

I suspect TOs will lead and GW may or may not follow depending on public outcry. In the UK there does seem to be growing moves to restrict allies - I don't know about elsewhere.

**Arachnofiend**

Spoletta wrote:
That is really bad IMHO. Eliminating allies is something that no Imperium player wants

Fixed that for you.

**Primortus**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That is really bad IMHO. Eliminating allies is something that no Imperium player wants

Fixed that for you.

And chaos and eldar players and tyranid players after the GSC codex. So 90-95% of the player base. No big deal.

**Marmatag**

Allies should not be eliminated. This is ridiculous.

There is a middle ground between "MONO ONLY LULZ" and "SOUP 4 LYF LULZ"

**Primortus**

Remove access to the universal stratagems for soup armies. That way if you choose to ally in another army you are losing out on a set of stratagems to gain another set. That's a buff to mono armies and a nerf to soup armies. There, problem solved, everyone can go home.

**An Actual Englishman**

Primortus wrote:
Remove access to the universal stratagems for soup armies. That way if you choose to ally in another army you are losing out on a set of stratagems to gain another set. That's a buff to mono armies and a nerf to soup armies. There, problem solved, everyone can go home.

This isn't enough I don't think. The universal stratagems are hardly as powerful as codex specific stratagems.

Lock stratagems to the warlord's faction only apart from the generic ones. Perhaps there is a stratagem for 1 or 2 extra CP that allows you to use a stratagem of an allied unit not part of your warlord's faction. Once per game.

**Marmatag**

That's a horrible change. The problem isn't access to stratagems, it's access to free stratagems because of undercosted infantry & HQs.

**An Actual Englishman**

I disagree, there is no 'cost' to accessing stratagems in soup lists. Which is one of the reasons soup is flat better than non-soup. You get more than just the most efficient units for a spread of armies, you also get access to all their funky stratagems that can make or break a game.

**Marmatag**

The cost of command points is in the cost of the units producing them.

Soup is not the boogie man you're making it out to be, it's just the Loyal32 and Ynnari that are problematic.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That is really bad IMHO. Eliminating allies is something that no Imperium player wants

Fixed that for you.

You forgot Chaos players too.

**Karol**

Marmatag wrote:
The cost of command points is in the cost of the units producing them.

Soup is not the boogie man you're making it out to be, it's just the Loyal32 and Ynnari that are problematic.

But GW does not nerf eldar to be bad, and it doesn't look as if they could make the IG generate less CP, without either changing the CP mechanic from ground up or making the whole IG army unplayable.

So boogy man or not, the problem is there.

**An Actual Englishman**

Marmatag wrote:
The cost of command points is in the cost of the units producing them.

Soup is not the boogie man you're making it out to be, it's just the Loyal32 and Ynnari that are problematic.

Two identical lists, one with access to more stratagems is by definition better than one without.

Not to mention soup lists are made of the best units in the best books

**Crimson**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
I disagree, there is no 'cost' to accessing stratagems in soup lists. Which is one of the reasons soup is flat better than non-soup. You get more than just the most efficient units for a spread of armies, you also get access to all their funky stratagems that can make or break a game.

There is cost, the points used for the allied detachment.

This free strategy thing is basically misconception. Many stratagems are really tied to the units in addition of factions. There are ten stratagems (not counting chapter specific ones) in the marine codex which my current marine army cannot use, as the associated units do not exist in my army. And sure enough, I could use points to take those units (had I models for them) and gain access to these stratagems. Or I could use those points for allied Ad Mech units and get access to some Ad Mech stratagems. Seems pretty fair to me. The system is designed so, that whichever units you bring, you get some stratagems to use on them.

**Karol**

Well maybe for marines it is fair, but Inari can double dip on their stratagems. And other armies just take ally for the CP to fuel stuff.. If someone needs 4CP, for a dead knight to stand up and they will pick the option that gives the CP cheapest, and if it happens to be outside of their codex, which it is most often the case, they will have to take the ally option.

**Crimson**

Karol wrote:
Well maybe for marines it is fair, but Inari can double dip on their stratagems. And other armies just take ally for the CP to fuel stuff.. If someone needs 4CP, for a dead knight to stand up and they will pick the option that gives the CP cheapest, and if it happens to be outside of their codex, which it is most often the case, they will have to take the ally option.

This is only a problem because the troop unit that happens to be best at generating CP is also a really superb unit otherwise. This should not be the case. Troops that are bad at generating CP should be better otherwise, so you you'd have to choose whether you rather have better troops or more CP. (Or of course the middle option, a mix of good and not so good troops and moderate amount of CP.)

**Marmatag**

Karol wrote:
Well maybe for marines it is fair, but Inari can double dip on their stratagems. And other armies just take ally for the CP to fuel stuff.. If someone needs 4CP, for a dead knight to stand up and they will pick the option that gives the CP cheapest, and if it happens to be outside of their codex, which it is most often the case, they will have to take the ally option.

Ynnari don't really have stratagems, so not sure what you mean by "double dipping," and it's not like they earn CP twice.

But back to the point - Xenos factions (Orks, Eldar, Tau, Tyranids) have troops cheaper than 21 points per model. Grey Knights, for example, must pay 21 points per model for troops. That isn't balanced. Soup remedies that.

Anyway, "I play Orks and therefore soup is bad" is kind of a lame stance anyway. Soup is better for the game in a lot of ways. Without it, you'd see essentially Xenos and Guard running around, and that's it.

**Karol**

Marmatag wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well maybe for marines it is fair, but Inari can double dip on their stratagems. And other armies just take ally for the CP to fuel stuff.. If someone needs 4CP, for a dead knight to stand up and they will pick the option that gives the CP cheapest, and if it happens to be outside of their codex, which it is most often the case, they will have to take the ally option.

Ynnari don't really have stratagems, so not sure what you mean by "double dipping," and it's not like they earn CP twice.

But back to the point - Xenos factions (Orks, Eldar, Tau, Tyranids) have troops cheaper than 21 points per model. Grey Knights, for example, must pay 21 points per model for troops. That isn't balanced. Soup remedies that.

Anyway, "I play Orks and therefore soup is bad" is kind of a lame stance anyway. Soup is better for the game in a lot of ways. Without it, you'd see essentially Xenos and Guard running around, and that's it.

they can soul burst, use stratagems on inari units from other codex. That is what I call double dipping. It would be like my GK by taking a BA detachment suddenly could use BA stratagems on my NDKGM.

soup for GK doesn't balance anything. The only thing it does is make the GK player want to take as few or no GK units. That is something I do not consider fixing. stuff. Now inari using a craft world eldar stratagem on their s spears, is a buff. For GK, what am I suppose to with ally. They are either so superior to anything GK get that it is stupid to take GK stuff, or they stuff like protect stuff as chaff, only GK don't have stuff worth protecting, in fact the chaff is more resilient on a model to point basis then the GK themselfs. More CP from IG, even pre FAQ? great, what do I spend those on, GK have maybe one good stratagem and it procs on characters that just died. etc

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well maybe for marines it is fair, but Inari can double dip on their stratagems. And other armies just take ally for the CP to fuel stuff.. If someone needs 4CP, for a dead knight to stand up and they will pick the option that gives the CP cheapest, and if it happens to be outside of their codex, which it is most often the case, they will have to take the ally option.

This is only a problem because the troop unit that happens to be best at generating CP is also a really superb unit otherwise. This should not be the case. Troops that are bad at generating CP should be better otherwise, so you you'd have to choose whether you rather have better troops or more CP. (Or of course the middle option, a mix of good and not so good troops and moderate amount of CP.)

Well I don't think the problem, or real problem is that something is too good or bad, but how GW fixs stuff. They don't seem to buff up stuff to make bad stuff worth taking, they nerf stuff and kill it. Or it is eldar and they pretend to change something, and eldar players have a good laugh.

I don't have a long history playing GW games, but imo 2 FAQs and one CA is enough to see a trend, specialy when codex updates are added to it. I don't know what it takes for GW to make a bad army good, other then some die hard fan getting his hands on the design proces or the bad stuff having the option to ally in to eldar. I bet the corsairs from FW can be made good, if GW decide they want it so.

**ClockworkZion**

Karol wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Something I've seen crop up in one of the podcasts I listen to while painting or doing other hobby stuff proposed an interesting idea: some of the reason this is the "soft touch" FAQ compared to the Spring FAQ is because CA has a lot of the rest of the changes that were already planned. This FAQ is basically everything CA didn't already include (points bumps, possible rule changes to army tactics that give a -1 to hit being a cover save instead, ect).

And considering what GW has shown us so far this edition, I'm inclined to buy in on this claim. I mean CA would have gone to print before the FAQ was even started in Sep to be ready to go by December and considering how much railing on about some of this stuff we've been doing and how ear-to -the-ground GW is trying to be, it's possible that we may be seeing more changes coming in CA as well.

back before the first CA came out, GK player were told the same, that their FAQ is the way it is, because the real changes to costs and rules are going to happen in CA. That did not happen. But who knows maybe the new CA is going to be a 400pages book.

Hey, I never claim to know anything. I was just sharing what little I've heard as it is a reasonable explination for some of the things we've seen.

And the biggest thing GK need is a points drop (which is definitely CA territory), followed by all Astartes keyword models getting a toughness buff of some kind to justify being so dang expensive.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arachnofiend wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That is really bad IMHO. Eliminating allies is something that no Imperium player wants

Fixed that for you.

Funny how my Imperial Fists are ally free but I'm waffling on putting Guard into my GSC (mainly for the ranged knight cracking options). Man those darn Imperial faction armies and their desire for allies, am I right?

**Reanimation_Protocol**

We need to get over it already, GW ... Will .. Never ... kill .. allies!

and rightly so.

I say this as a Necrons player with about as many options as a quantum one sided coin.

But this said, the imbalance should be addressed.

whether by giving the pure factions (Orks, Necrons, T'au) or anyone that chooses to play a mono faction or minimal allies (one extra detachment) a benefit of some kind.

My option would be 3CP battleforged for Every detachment that matches the warlords codex faction.

-3CP for every allied detachment (on top of the usual benefit it adds ... so a Brigade would add 12 -3 = 9 CP)

so you could take 3 detaches, and it would zero sum out .. or pay a fortune to take your IK/BA/IG or DE/HQ/CWE combos.