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.

Darsath wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.

I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.

I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.

Yeah, I'm not upset either. I've got a busy enough week ahead as is. But I am curious as to why Games Workshop has been so quiet on this front, and hope they don't disappoint with their FAQ. I'm not expecting only small-scale changes if it took this long to work on after all.

I'm not "upset" per-se, but I bit miffed because I've all but put any gaming on hold until this FAQ (which is my choice, of course, not GWs fault).
The 2 main things I want to see is the correct points for Oblits (because it's obvious) and what they do with Bolter Discipline

-

The biggest thing I want to see is if they clarify what "if your army is taken from Renegade Chapters" means in the Renegade Chapter section of Vigilus ablaze. This wording isn't used anywhere else in the game, including not in the previous page talking about Black Legion and COULD indicate that your entire army has to be Renegade Chapter (rather than just a detachment) to get access to the traits. Which, if true, would be huge since all the power gamers are already thinking of the "Heretical 17" red corsair battalion to get bonus CP.

Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.

They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.

They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.

Meh. TOs are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that they're 115 points until GW says otherwise.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.

They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.

Meh. TOs are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that they're 115 points until GW says otherwise.

And many of them do just that, especially for larger events.

Just saying that relying on the common sense of TOs shouldn't be necessary and GW should be perfectly capable of doing the normal 1-week-post-codex FAQ for that, with or without the bigger FAQ pending.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.

They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.

Meh. TOs are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that they're 115 points until GW says otherwise.

And many of them do just that, especially for larger events.

Just saying that relying on the common sense of TOs shouldn't be necessary and GW should be perfectly capable of doing the normal 1-week-post-codex FAQ for that, with or without the bigger FAQ pending.

Yea they seem determined to bundle them. I wonder if they want to come out as close as possible to Ynnari index.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.

It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.

The big FAQ tend to get a LOT of feedback, I would think they want the whole social media team ready and waiting for that when they push it out the door. That may or may not be possible in Easter week - it is one of the most popular weeks for people to take time off work. If they have enough people in some time this week they might go for it, if not then I would rather expect it early next week.

.... it to be out already.

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.

It was a Monday.

Ah, it was the Fall one that was a Friday then. So no real pattern really.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea they seem determined to bundle them. I wonder if they want to come out as close as possible to Ynnari index.

Unlikely. FAQ allegedly incorporates Adepticon feedback and is fairly current. White Dwarf still has a lead time of 6 months or so minimum. Those Ynnari rules were probably written even before the fall FAQ.

I wonder if it will be obvious the Ynarri were designed before the autumn faq, maybe they'll need some substantial FAQing immediately.

My money is on April 30th, just like how the last FAQ was on the last day of the month.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, the reason it feels "delayed" and why most people don't expect big changes is, because that's what GW wrote on March 19th.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/

However, with one of the world’s biggest Warhammer 40,000 tournaments taking place at AdeptiCon at the end of the month, we’re going to wait until after the event has finished before unleashing it upon the world. That way we can incorporate any further feedback generated during this prestigious tournament as needed. The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

So between "a handful of balancing tweaks" and the thing allegedly done on March 19th, the waiting time appears inexplicable.

So we're manufacturing a reason to be angry. Got it. Not my cup of tea, carry on Dakkanauts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My money is on April 30th, just like how the last FAQ was on the last day of the month.

Maybe they'll announce pre orders for it on the 30th, and we'll get it the week after.

Sssh. Don't give them ideas.

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

I am so salty that they still haven't released the FAQ!

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am so salty that they still haven't released the FAQ!

Why? We're not in May yet...

If it isn't out a week today, then feel free to break out the

 Dysartes wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am so salty that they still haven't released the FAQ!

Why? We're not in May yet...

If it isn't out a week today, then feel free to break out the

This. GW has shown they will wait until the last day to release stuff, so set your expectations there.

Drager wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I am so salty that they still haven't released the FAQ!

Why? We're not in May yet...

If it isn't out a week today, then feel free to break out the

This. GW has shown they will wait until the last day to release stuff, so set your expectations there.

I certainly agree that some people are taking this too seriously (myself included) and that we really should set our expectations a bit more realistically.
But, I will say, last year's spring FAQ came out April 16th (I think), and that was a delayed release that was supposed to be in March.

So it's a bit frustrating that the most "realistic" expectation is to expect it about 1 month after the previous year's release.
But for me the only reason I'm allowing it to affect me is because we seem to KNOW it's done and GW has seemingly ghosted us about it.

-

April FAQ:
-In GW Press Releases A, B, and C, replace "April" with "May".

Released on April 30th.

#notserious

Reemule wrote:

Drager wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.

No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.

You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Militarum player.

Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.

Kindly refrain from making such sweeping insults - BrookM

I'd rather see something like Melta doing 2d6 damage within half range. Make Melta scary again.

Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.

Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?

Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?

Actually I think invulns should have limitations. Maybe melta should reduce invulns by 2 as well.

I'm just thinking of a mechanical way to make it relevant again. I don't really care about what things should be, because GW doesn't.

Bharring wrote:
Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?

Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?

Yes, but unfortunately a lot of vehicles have invulnerable saves that completely invalidate melta's higher AP.

Maybe make Meltas AP3, with a rule that vehicles have a -1 to all saves made against Melta weapons?