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.

Drager wrote:


So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

Bravo.

So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

That's a good point, but I don't track the tournament results with any particular interest beyond the broad strokes. Did anything happen at Adepticon this year that was at-odds with our previous/current understanding of problem units/armies?

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

it came out the 16th but Adepticon was 22-25 March.
So 3 weeks later.

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

I was going to say it seems to be around the end of the month, so as long as it comes out before the end of April it's on time.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

it came out the 16th but Adepticon was 22-25 March.
So 3 weeks later.

Weird. I could have sworn it was the last weekend, but I guess that wouldn't make sense. Well, with any luck there are fewer changes for them to process this time.

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

Given the 22nd is Easter Monday, and a bank holiday in the UK, do you think they'd post it then?

Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD* and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

*just to be clear this is speculative.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
In closing, they already said these won't be sweeping changes, so thinking it's going to be the magic hammer that fixes a bottom of the bin army is just delusional at this point. The problems that cast disparity on the balance of armies are in the system itself not just on any one unit. Imbalance is like Hydra, cut off one head, and 10 more take its place, hail hydra.

This line of argument doesn't make much sense in the context of:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been.

which has been achieved through points changes, including more than a few "magic hammers". Chapter Approved seems very successful at keeping the hydra in check. We just want to to be even better.

You can argue certain factions are going to be more "fun" - or interactive - than others based on their rules and that can't very easily be fixed without a full re-write. I'd agree. At the danger of exaggeration - there is more synergy in most GSC unit entries than the entire GK book. In that respect its a badly designed codex. I personally think GK are up there as the most boring army in the game, because I have never liked their magic marine incarnation and find the difference between strike marines, purifiers, interceptors etc fairly limited. But I guess someone could say the same for BA and death company, sanguinary guard etc.

But "being boring" isn't GK's fundamental problem. The problem is that so much of the the GK book is overcosted. Lets start with the fact there is no way on earth a Strike Marine is worth 21 points. We can with scarcely any changes beyond making say Strike Marines 17-18 points, and GK would become "more" viable. Repeat for the other 1 wound MEQ choices. (Tbh this applies to most 1 wound MEQ choices across all armies). After all this is what happened with Necrons. Did it make the whole book competitive? No - but there are a small confluence of units you can build around that are up to the standard.

I'd expect the FAQ around Friday next week at the earliest. With the holiday weekend next week it seems like something that'd be later rather than sooner.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.

"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.

You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.

Horribly difficult. Let me give it a shot though.....

TOURNAMENT WEBSITE: We will be following the most up to date FAQ for this tournament. Plan accordingly.
DIFFERENT TOURNAMENT'S WEBSITE: We will be following the FAQ as of MONTH/DAY/YEAR Plan accordingly.

Yeah i understand how hard it would be to update a digital FAQ once a month or once every 2-3 months as opposed to twice a year.
I mean, can you imagine having to have Steve the intern update a website's FAQ page once every 4-12 weeks? How would he manage that much work in such a short time frame. The last FAQ in November released so much content I can't even keep track of it all. 3 Beta rules being made into true rules, 1 explanation of a beta rule and then 2 new beta rules as well as a quick run down of CP adjustments made to things considered "OP". 6 pages total, and if they actually used those massive blank spots on the pages they could probably bring it to 3 or 4 pages. I just don't think Steve the intern can handle 4 pages of typing and/or copy pasting a bunch of images onto a page, that would easily take 2 or maybe even 3 Steve's 5 to 6 months.

As for answering actual FAQ questions...the design team is just way to busy......doing stuff, yeah...stuff. Having Steve the Interns cousin, Stephen, go through FAQ e-mails and pick the 5-6 most commonly asked questions once a month and then having a hour long designer meeting to answer those questions would just be over the top as far as manpower requirements....Who would make the coffee? Who would bring the donuts?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd expect the FAQ around Friday next week at the earliest. With the holiday weekend next week it seems like something that'd be later rather than sooner.

Yeah it most likely won't drop Friday coming. Bank holiday. Could be tomorrow if we're lucky, but could end up bumped to a week on Tuesday.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.

Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)

Have some patience ffs.

Given the 22nd is Easter Monday, and a bank holiday in the UK, do you think they'd post it then?

Do it tuesday. They can do it Monday while no one is in the office, automatic timed publications are a thing on the internet.

Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.

True but at the same time professional game devs should be able to spot the offensively broken combos or imbalances when top and longterm players can do it just by reading codex's.

Ice_can wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.

True but at the same time professional game devs should be able to spot the offensively broken combos or imbalances when top and longterm players can do it just by reading codex's.

Except gw did not hire game Devs?

Ice_can wrote:
Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

Who cares?


You know how many possible combinations of armies you can make from all Codex entries that exist.

Out of that pool, every single army list that was simply submitted to adepticon was probably in the 0.000000000001% of the most powerful OP stuff, including all lists that went 0-6 and whatnot, and, mathematically, are all likely deserving a heavy nerf simply because a tournament player picked it over the literally billions of other inferior combinations and lists those lists by definition aren't balanced against.

Ice_can wrote:
Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

I have not received my WD. Everyone seems to be delayed. Are you speaking from facts or just being silly?

No, this WD has a teaser for Ynnari for the next WD, and many are joking Ynnari will be buffed. No one has leaked whats in the next WD yet, none that i have seen at least. Give it 2 weeks and leaks should be out.

SemperMortis wrote:


Horribly difficult. Let me give it a shot though.....

TOURNAMENT WEBSITE: We will be following the most up to date FAQ for this tournament. Plan accordingly.
DIFFERENT TOURNAMENT'S WEBSITE: We will be following the FAQ as of MONTH/DAY/YEAR Plan accordingly.

Yeah i understand how hard it would be to update a digital FAQ once a month or once every 2-3 months as opposed to twice a year.
I mean, can you imagine having to have Steve the intern update a website's FAQ page once every 4-12 weeks? How would he manage that much work in such a short time frame. The last FAQ in November released so much content I can't even keep track of it all. 3 Beta rules being made into true rules, 1 explanation of a beta rule and then 2 new beta rules as well as a quick run down of CP adjustments made to things considered "OP". 6 pages total, and if they actually used those massive blank spots on the pages they could probably bring it to 3 or 4 pages. I just don't think Steve the intern can handle 4 pages of typing and/or copy pasting a bunch of images onto a page, that would easily take 2 or maybe even 3 Steve's 5 to 6 months.

As for answering actual FAQ questions...the design team is just way to busy......doing stuff, yeah...stuff. Having Steve the Interns cousin, Stephen, go through FAQ e-mails and pick the 5-6 most commonly asked questions once a month and then having a hour long designer meeting to answer those questions would just be over the top as far as manpower requirements....Who would make the coffee? Who would bring the donuts?

Still doesn't alleviate my concern listed in my subsequent post and disregards time for internal play testers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
No, this WD has a teaser for Ynnari for the next WD, and many are joking Ynnari will be buffed. No one has leaked whats in the next WD yet, none that i have seen at least. Give it 2 weeks and leaks should be out.

Thanks.

@Ice_Can - you should probably edit your comment to sound less like it's coming from an informed position.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.

Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.

Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.

I have not received my WD. Everyone seems to be delayed. Are you speaking from facts or just being silly?

I had assumed that stating possibly made it clear it's not based on a 100% known fact.

What I want to see:

1.Armies that didn't make it to chapter approved, get a bit of balance (op stuff get a nerf, overcosted stuff get a buff)

2. 2pts shields for thunderwolves, so they can be playable a bit

Drager wrote:

So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

As promised here it is:

With a reroll:

0 Damage = 22.8%
1 Damage = 03.9%
2 Damage = 09.4%
3 Damage = 16.5%
4 Damage = 18.1%
Kill = 29.3%

 Dysartes wrote:

Karol wrote:

It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.

but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.

If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.

Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IG CP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.

The few people I've seen discuss this in any serious manner figure that over taking a Castellan, you can take a Questoris, give it Double Battlecannon, and Icarus top mount. That is averaging out to 14 Battlecannon, 9 Stubber, and 4Autocannon shots, over 6 Autocannon, 7 Plasma, 3.5 Volcano, 4 Melta, and a Missile. With the reroll strat, your going to get more from the 27 shots from the Questoris, over the 21.5 from the Castellan. This holds true if you minimum on shots (Knight has 17 to the Castellans 12, and if you Max fire, 37 to 33. It is not as high quality of firepower, but its also almost 100 points less.

Drager wrote:


As promised here it is:

With a reroll:

0 Damage = 22.8%
1 Damage = 03.9%
2 Damage = 09.4%
3 Damage = 16.5%
4 Damage = 18.1%
Kill = 29.3%

Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:


As promised here it is:

With a reroll:

0 Damage = 22.8%
1 Damage = 03.9%
2 Damage = 09.4%
3 Damage = 16.5%
4 Damage = 18.1%
Kill = 29.3%

Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.

It's ~53%, to kill, but that is a big increase compared to these characters that have saves and 5 wounds!

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.

Terrain needs better rules.

Ynnari needs a little nerf.

Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.

GK and BA and a few others need a buff

This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.

If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.

A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.

Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.

So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.

A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.

I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:


So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

Bravo.

So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.

Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nordsturmking wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.

Terrain needs better rules.

Ynnari needs a little nerf.

Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.

GK and BA and a few others need a buff

This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.

If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.

A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.

Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.

So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.

A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.

I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.

Imagine you have a resource like command points and every army has equal access to them. Then you can actually balance the GD stratagems based on what they affect. 600 point models benefit a lot more from stratagems than 200-300 point units so the stratagems should cost more in a knight army...AND THEY DO for the most part. The thing is they can generate CP like IG...that is the flaw in the system with out a doubt and everyone already sees that. It's been beat to death in fact with multiple superior options compared to the current game being suggested. Basically the most boring topic in the game right now because the current system shouldn't have survived the first couple of months of 8th rather than be going on for almost 2 years.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:


So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):

0 Damage = 42.1%
1 Damage = 05.6%
2 Damage = 11.6%
3 Damage = 15.4%
4 Damage = 11.9%
Kill = 13.2%

I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.

Bravo.

So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.

Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.

Thanks for the corrections on the wound (I'm not a marine player), your maths is a little off though, it's 25.1% to kill a 4 wound 3+sv character with no reroll and 47.4% with a reroll.