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, with the next FAQ closing in, what do you see around the corner? Here are my limited ideas:

1. Deathwatch will get a ruling on the Beacon shenanigans.
2. Deathwatch may get some sort of rule regarding limiting weapons in squads, because right now the cheese is on with SS/SB squads. FAQs won't do point increases, but I do think those are coming for weapons as well.

Anyone else?

Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?

I would expect the Knights to go up in cost and further restrictions on soup for everyone.

Quite how this will happen i dont know really.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:

1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?

Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:

1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?

Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.

1) the designers commets in the GSC FAQ makes be doubt they'll change vect
2) Given the complaining I suspect your right and knights go from almost balanced as a primary list to bad, but the castellen plus Catachan battalion will still trundle on.
3) i suspect so too though they really should tone it down on DW.
4) I seriously doubt they will do anything regardless of what the players think as some like it and it's boosting their bottom line.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

I expect recosting of some stratagems. Order of Companions to go to 4 CP mostly. Hopefully that is only for Dominus Class though.

I hope for:
Changing CP to game size and some mechanics to change how armies are built favoring Mono faction and prioritizing filling detachments. One I put out some time ago would be.

Set CP for game size, say 15 CP(includes battleforged). Lose 1 CP for each detachment past the first. Lose a second CP if the faction of the second detachment doesn't match the first.

So a Yanarri/craftworld/drukkari force would have 11 CP to play with. A brigade of Ultramarine Primaris with Gulliman as a super aux would have 14.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?

Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.

The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL. DW vet squads are already bloated in points cost, the only change I can see is restricting the unit to a set number of SS/SB combos. Only 2 per squad? Or making the combination cost appropriate.

Make it a dedicated combo for the model, like Termies. YOu can take a SS/SB on this model, but it's cost is 15-20 points.

Wayniac wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?

That depends on your definition of well balanced, as most ITC people are defining it at the moment is between a 40% and 60% win ratio with the idea of achieving 45-55%. The current out performing lists are Ynarri obvious why and the Catachan brigade, Emperors wrath and Raven Castellen.

Guard plus anything else including knights avaraged 55% win ratio, and about 50% mono.

Knights plus avaraged a similar but did worse mono at 47%.

At the other end GK are super bad, and adaptes astartes did badly, orks were low but not as low as it first appeared, I suspect the upset is because people where hyping orks as the meta breaking codex and they arn't. However GSC codex wasn't valid for LVO so lets see what the first big even with them involved does to the meta before people jump off the nerf everything deep end.

They game doesn't need another Blood angles codex.

I really think you are in for disappointment on DW getting any Errata/FAQ that does anything to limit their access to weapons. It's been their thing for forever.
And SBs are already twice the cost for them than other Marine armies.

I'm also not sure you actually know the rules for them, at least not completely. That could certainly contribute to your outrage. For example, in a YMDC thread, you mentioned using 3 Beacons being OP, which it would be, but as a Relic you can only have 1.
You also just mentioned StormBolters as S5 AP-1, but they are only s4 AP-0. And you cannot have BOTH AP-1 AND wound on 2+. You have to pick one or the other SIA.
And a SB/SS Vet is already 20ppm and die just as fast as a 13ppm Marine to small arms fire.

If GW addresses the "issue" at all it will only be if StormVets start dominating tourney results, which thus far they have not made a significant enough impact.
And if that starts to happen and GW does take action, it will be to outright remove the StormBolter from the DW equipment list. I truly believe this would be GW's answer to the "problem" because the DW kit doesn't actually come with any Stormbolters at all and historically, GW has paired down options when the kit doesn't come with them.

But, again, this will only happen if StormVets start having significant showings AND results at organized events. And right now, they are not. At best, 1 or so list has been making it to the top 10, but that's it.

-

My guess would be that they would change something a sentence or two could cover. Like they did with the change to Deep strike... How about: "All in game stratagems can only be used once per game with the exception of BRB stratagems."

This would effectively destroy the need for CP farms, and would force the players to think strategically. Especially for those big units like the Castellan.

Covers a couple of marketing points as well. Encourages players to use the card decks that they sell to keep track of what has and hasn't been used.

SaganGree wrote:
My guess would be that they would change something a sentence or two could cover. Like they did with the change to Deep strike... How about: "All in game stratagems can only be used once per game with the exception of BRB stratagems."

This would effectively destroy the need for CP farms, and would force the players to think strategically. Especially for those big units like the Castellan.

Covers a couple of marketing points as well. Encourages players to use the card decks that they sell to keep track of what has and hasn't been used.

This would have a massive effect on the game, actually. And maybe one that I like, maybe. GW could have this apply to Matched Play only
If only BRB strats can be multi-use, it really tones down spamming things like Rotate-Ion shields every turn and making it more of a once per game gambit.
This would actually be a pretty big blow to Knights and Aeldari

The downside, I feel, is that it would probably encourage MORE soup, but instead of doing so to farm CPs, you would do this to gain access to more Strats.

-

The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.

 Galef wrote:
I really think you are in for disappointment on DW getting any Errata/FAQ that does anything to limit their access to weapons. It's been their thing for forever.
And SBs are already twice the cost for them than other Marine armies.

I'm also not sure you actually know the rules for them, at least not completely. That could certainly contribute to your outrage. For example, in a YMDC thread, you mentioned using 3 Beacons being OP, which it would be, but as a Relic you can only have 1.
You also just mentioned StormBolters as S5 AP-1, but they are only s4 AP-0. And you cannot have BOTH AP-1 AND wound on 2+. You have to pick one or the other SIA.
And a SB/SS Vet is already 20ppm and die just as fast as a 13ppm Marine to small arms fire.

If GW addresses the "issue" at all it will only be if StormVets start dominating tourney results, which thus far they have not made a significant enough impact.
And if that starts to happen and GW does take action, it will be to outright remove the StormBolter from the DW equipment list. I truly believe this would be GW's answer to the "problem" because the DW kit doesn't actually come with any Stormbolters at all and historically, GW has paired down options when the kit doesn't come with them.

But, again, this will only happen if StormVets start having significant showings AND results at organized events. And right now, they are not. At best, 1 or so list has been making it to the top 10, but that's it.

-

I will freely admit that I am extremely new to them, (Less than 2 weeks) and to the hobby (less than 2 years). That being said, my comment was in complete error. Thank you for the correction.

 buddha wrote:
The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.

This would work but there's more than just Knights abusing CP farms and stratagems.

I really think they just need to do something to fix being able to use multiple stratagems from multiple detachments. The 1/game is a fix, but I think a bit too extreme. The real problem isn't mono faction using their stratagems multiple times, it's things like taking two detachments, each a different faction, and getting the stratagems of both. I think that rule needs to be reverted (maybe just for Matched Play) so that you no longer unlock stratagems for a faction by including a detachment of that faction.

That would remove things like taking an Alpha Legion detachment with Death Guard to get Tide of Traitors for Cultists (is that even used anymore with the cultist nerfs?) or using a Caftworld <Aeldari> stratagem on a Drukhari detachment.

I think that might be enough to fix it; you're essentially limited to only the stratagems of your "primary" detachment. Yes this means something like you could take multiple CSM detachments with different Legions and still use the stratagems on each but that's arguably still "mono faction" (although I think that's an issue too but not as bad as getting multiple stratagems for different factions unlocked).

I think the best solution would be something like:

1) Brood Brothers rule for any detachment that doesn't contain your Warlord (or some other way to identify a primary detachment) and has a different keyword to your main faction (maybe going so far as to require 2 keywords, so for example <Heretic Astartes> isn't enough to get traits, you'd need <Heretic Astartes> and <LEGION> ). So that means the allied detachments don't get traits or relics, give half CP (to a minimum of 1), etc. Maybe even keep the 1 per rule (so you'd have at most 1 in games that use the 3 detachment limit). Losing traits and relics for allied detachments kill things like taking a guard battery with a Blood Angels Supreme Command or taking 3 detachments with different legion/chapter/etc. traits to min/max what is contained in them.

2) Revert the rule unlocking stratagems for an entire faction simply by having a detachment with that keyword. This prevents taking two different factions in two different detachments and getting the stratagems of both.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

GK sit at 30% win rate, so I expect 20% point drops on most units then.

I hope for some fix to GK psychic powers, maybe new nemezis weapon rules as in don't make falchions always better, when models come with halabards and swords on them. Some fix to the normal NDK, so it doesn't suck comparing to the GM. Maybe just merge strikes and interceptors in to one unit, or substentialy lower the cost of strikes.

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:

1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?

Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.

Pretty much agree with you here.

I don't think Vect will change, the comment in the FAQ made it seem like the difference is very much intentional. Different armies get slightly different toys.

Limiting the Castellan to 4++ is a really good solution. I don't think big impactful models should get 3++ anyway, it's just too powerful. But it doesn't gut Imperium lists by any means.

Really like the idea of making Brood Brothers the standard for all allies. Makes allies viable, powerful even, but makes them a genuine cost/benefit choice rather than just being able to shove in all the best units from different books. I don't think it's likely mind, I think they'll consider it too big a change to the BRB, but I would be very happy with it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I will freely admit that I am extremely new to them, (Less than 2 weeks) and to the hobby (less than 2 years). That being said, my comment was in complete error. Thank you for the correction.

I certainly agree with you that they are powerful. Arguably the best Marine Troops in the game. But they do have weaknesses preventing them from dominating tourneys.
But I am prepared to swap to just bolters if GW ever removes the option for Stormbolters, which is think is the most likely change, even if I don't think a change is likely at all.

-

 Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:

1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
FAQ's can and have changed points so why you are ruling them out so easily?

Because people are buying GW's line of points are in Chapter Approved, adjustments are in FAQs despite them doing both whenever they feel it's needed.

Pretty much agree with you here.

I don't think Vect will change, the comment in the FAQ made it seem like the difference is very much intentional. Different armies get slightly different toys.

Limiting the Castellan to 4++ is a really good solution. I don't think big impactful models should get 3++ anyway, it's just too powerful. But it doesn't gut Imperium lists by any means.

Really like the idea of making Brood Brothers the standard for all allies. Makes allies viable, powerful even, but makes them a genuine cost/benefit choice rather than just being able to shove in all the best units from different books. I don't think it's likely mind, I think they'll consider it too big a change to the BRB, but I would be very happy with it.

It doesn't have to be exactly brood brothers. I outlined an idea above but I'll retype (maybe reword) it here:

For Matched Play
1) If your army contains more than one detachment you need to declare a "primary" detachment
2) For detachments that are not primary, they follow the "Allied" rule unless they share two of the same keywords (excluding Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranid) as your primary detachment

Allied Rule
1) Allied detachments do not benefit from their army-specific trait (e.g. Chapter traits) or have access to relics for their army
2) Allied detachments do not unlock stratagems for their faction if different from your primary (e.g. no taking a Dark Eldar patrol and getting access to Agents of Vect or a Castellan in a Superheavy Aux and getting access to the Knight stratagems). Note they can still BENEFIT from stratagems if it would affect them, they just don't also give you their faction's stratagems.
3) Allied detachments give half their normal CP value (to a minimum of 1)

So basically you can't take Craftworld + Drukhari and get the stratagems of both; you can't take two different subfactions in the same force and have both of them benefit from their traits (e.g. no more Guard battalion with BA Supreme Command Smash Captains; one of them isn't geting access to traits/relics/stratgems), and non-primary detachments give half CP to limit batteries. Mono armies aren't affected e..g you could take two <MARS> detachments and have no problem, but not <MARS> and <STYGIES VIII> without having a penalty for mixing multiple subfactions (i.e. one would not get traits/relics/give half CP but you would still get and be able to use stratagems since they are both the same parent faction)

I don't think a rule like that would be too difficult to implement as a matched play rule.

I expect -

Infantry Squad to 5ppm

Bolter rule to be official (good.)

Castellant to be capped at 4++, if my Chaos Daemon stratagem was capped at 4++, I see no damn reason why a infinitely more durable platform than my units should get a better version.

Wishful thinking - GK players get a triple blessed bone thrown at them, hell make all grey knights primaris for all I care That may begin to justify their cost if the basick PAGK was W2

Wayniac wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

"Well-balanced" when it was all Imp soup and Ynnari in the top 8? And what, 6 of those Imperial lists had the Castellan? That's well balanced?

You should take some time and actually listen to the chapter tactics where they analyzed the win percentages for all the armies
> Yes there were a couple high and low armies castalin lists and yanarri are the primary offenders
> There were some low armies mainly GK
> The vast majority of armies fell in the 47-53% win ratio which is very close to ideal balance the designers are looking to make
heck even IG the boogie man of Dakka had an exact 50% win rate when not paired with a castalin. The balance changes are clearly moving the field closer to balance with each update. For example, while yannari and the castalin were still dominant both of their win rates have been declining with each change. Look at really positive changes from the last faq where armies like necrons and ad mech shot up from "pure trash" to respectable win rates

Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"

Wayniac wrote:
Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"

They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.

We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.

You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.

GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.

Asmodios wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"

They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.

If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?

The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.

You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.

GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.

You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"

They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.

If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?

The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.

Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.

If GW is committing to a full re-write of GK, I wonder if that means in 9th, or if 8th is going to keep going and we'll just see revised codecies as part of an expanded DLC based system.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Nothing that will help make the game more balanced.

Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%

You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.

I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?