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.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Cynista wrote:

No, I don't want it dead. I have no issue with soup from a narrative perspective. But it shouldn't be objectively better than mono builds from a gameplay standpoint. There should be a clear benefit to NOT souping up

There is a clear benefit. Usually all of your monoarmy can benefit from the same auras, buffs and psychic powers. They fixed the loophole that allowed other Eldar to benefit of some craftworld psychic powers. You may no think it is a big enough benefit, but it is a benefit.

I am certain that these changes will make monoarmies more prominent (if not dominant.) The biggest reasons to play the Eldar soup have been removed. Similarly the Castellan has been seriously nerfed, so I'm sure some players will choose to replace it with an IG superheavy, and as the other standard component was IG already, this will result a monoarmy.

Seriously doubt mono codex armies are going to be a thing even with the changes.
You say they will drop the Castellen, I suspect it might stay or if it does it could be traded for a crusader.
Also with the fly climb down Guard will be back to draging along Blood angles or Dawneagles.

Exactly, for imperials. Eldar will take shining spears, sky weavers, reavers etc. I suspect we will see units we haven’t in awhile in a few lists the upcoming months trying out different variations of soup. Like I said earlier soup lists that we KNEW are gone. New ones will take their place. People were using what worked then. Now people will use what works with these new rules

No one will be running Reavers. They were neither survivable enough or killy enough to be viable the last time they could jump screens, nothing in this has changed that.

I suspect that for the most part Aeldari soup will fall apart into mono forces. Drukhari I think may end up a little better but will then struggle when they come up against a list with 2+ Knights in it, whilst Craftworlders with 6 flyers, Jinx and Doom will nuke them off the table. I suspect this will push Drukhari back towards 9 Talos as our most relaible method of dealing with Knights and just praying to avoid deep striking Deathwatch Veterans with Storm Bolters and Storm Shields

I still think soup eldar is the way to go, so I disagree with you

The Craftworld flyers still want DE ones to deal with mass infantry and Ravagers are still great, just not perfect against everything.

Eldar soup will be fine.

Knight + Guard soup will still be fine. Either by just absorbing the extra cost of the Castellan or by switching it out for Crusaders.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I still think soup eldar is the way to go, so I disagree with you

It feels more open now, though. Like, I'm planning on running Eldar soup as well, but it no longer feels like the obviously correct choice to me. If I wasn't so attached to certain Craftworld units I'd very happily be running a pure Drukhari force.

 Burnage wrote:

It feels more open now, though. Like, I'm planning on running Eldar soup as well, but it no longer feels like the obviously correct choice to me. If I wasn't so attached to certain Craftworld units I'd very happily be running a pure Drukhari force.

Which sounds exactly like it should be!

 Burnage wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I still think soup eldar is the way to go, so I disagree with you

If I wasn't so attached to certain Craftworld units I'd very happily be running a pure Drukhari force.

Not to poke fun but that kind of sums it up though, doesn't it?

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

"Everybody" is wrong. They have put those there before. Why anybody thinks they wouldn't put again?

Hey last year that is what I have been told when the FAQ rolled up, so that is why I am suprised. Last three updates I may have been angry, now I look at the FAQ and feel nothing. It fixed nothing in my army, save for some reason nerfing heed, but I guess it was too good. I fully expect GW to give a full write up of a new codex in a WD or something. It makes no sense to me for GW to put so much time in to factions that are already doing well, and doing nerfs to one that is doing bad. Unless they have a new codex ready. Cant find any other explanation.


On the other hand am happy that I did not cave in and didn't buy a land raider crusader for my termintors. So all in all seems to be a good FAQ.

Karol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
What I don't understand is why they put point changes in to the FAQ, everyone has been telling me that those are limited to CA, and will not happen outside of them. Bit confused by that.

"Everybody" is wrong. They have put those there before. Why anybody thinks they wouldn't put again?

Hey last year that is what I have been told when the FAQ rolled up, so that is why I am suprised. Last three updates I may have been angry, now I look at the FAQ and feel nothing. It fixed nothing in my army, save for some reason nerfing heed, but I guess it was too good. I fully expect GW to give a full write up of a new codex in a WD or something. It makes no sense to me for GW to put so much time in to factions that are already doing well, and doing nerfs to one that is doing bad. Unless they have a new codex ready. Cant find any other explanation.


On the other hand am happy that I did not cave in and didn't buy a land raider crusader for my termintors. So all in all seems to be a good FAQ.

At the end of the day it's to make the RAW more like the RAI, even if it means clubbing the baby seal armies to do it.

FAQs are rarely about making units or armies better. They are about making the rules do what they are supposed to do and knocking back the most egregious problems in the game. The Bolter Discipline rule is about the only Buff I can recall seeing in any of the FAQs that isn't a side effect of fixing a misinterpreted or badly written rule.

As for Points changes in FAQs, we now have two Spring Big FAQs with a few points increase and a Fall Big FAQ with no changes. We also have two December Chapter Approved with lots of points changes. I expect we may be seeing a trend on when to expect points changes of any sort.

I think this is the best FAQ that we could have hoped for. GW was not going to make monster changes (like changing how CP is generated), but this does address a bunch of issues. The Eldar power nerf is how those powers should always have been, and everyone should have saw the Castellen thing coming with the 4++ because that is exactly what they did with Tzeentch Daemons. I don't know about the point cost though, I have not played against it enough. For my armies I am very happy with CSM and TS. The big ones are the Renegade legions that are god specific now have to be god specific, again that is how is should have been from the start. The Legion traits for CSM now apply to Characters, Infantry, Bikes, and Hellbrutes. That is great as now the Lord of Discord can take traits which makes him really good (I suspect you will see lists with 3 of him Alpha Legion or Flawless Host as the new list people hate). And the ability to put mortal wounds on the Rubrics is cool as one perils does not kill my sorcerer (and then more troops) with that squad. I would have liked to have seen cultists go back to 4 points, but I really didn't expect that. To me the only real major issue that still exists is the -2 Eldar planes.

 alextroy wrote:
FAQs are rarely about making units or armies better. They are about making the rules do what they are supposed to do and knocking back the most egregious problems in the game. The Bolter Discipline rule is about the only Buff I can recall seeing in any of the FAQs that isn't a side effect of fixing a misinterpreted or badly written rule.

As for Points changes in FAQs, we now have two Spring Big FAQs with a few points increase and a Fall Big FAQ with no changes. We also have two December Chapter Approved with lots of points changes. I expect we may be seeing a trend on when to expect points changes of any sort.

Does make sense, and I agree with it. Even if heed was nerfed as part of anti knight nerfs. But what did the brotherhood champion did to the meta, to deserv more then one nerf? I don't think anyone used him, so his changes being 50% of GK FAQ seems like pure comedy. And I mean this as something funny. Is there like a amount of pink they have to add to each FAQ, and the heed change alone would look kind of a small, specially considering GK have one of the smallest FAQ of all factions

I was really hoping that they'd alter Bolter Discipline to do something for the units that have a Bolt Something That Isn't Rapid Fire as their main weapon, I'm sure they got a lot of feedback to the effect that those weapons now look bad by comparison.

Hopefully they'll either adjust points or stats to address that when CA comes out.

The Newman wrote:
I was really hoping that they'd alter Bolter Discipline to do something for the units that have a Bolt Something That Isn't Rapid Fire as their main weapon, I'm sure they got a lot of feedback to the effect that those weapons now look bad by comparison.

Hopefully they'll either adjust points or stats to address that when CA comes out.

I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).

I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.

 Crimson wrote:

 Burnage wrote:

It feels more open now, though. Like, I'm planning on running Eldar soup as well, but it no longer feels like the obviously correct choice to me. If I wasn't so attached to certain Craftworld units I'd very happily be running a pure Drukhari force.

Which sounds exactly like it should be!

I agree. I think my new soup list looks like min battalion of archons and blaster calabites in venoms to make the minimum, then 3 crimson hunter exarchs and 3 hemlocks

 alextroy wrote:
FAQs are rarely about making units or armies better. They are about making the rules do what they are supposed to do and knocking back the most egregious problems in the game. The Bolter Discipline rule is about the only Buff I can recall seeing in any of the FAQs that isn't a side effect of fixing a misinterpreted or badly written rule.

As for Points changes in FAQs, we now have two Spring Big FAQs with a few points increase and a Fall Big FAQ with no changes. We also have two December Chapter Approved with lots of points changes. I expect we may be seeing a trend on when to expect points changes of any sort.

GW explicitly told us that Chapter Approved is where we'll see the majority of points adjustments.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

3: Chapter Approved

As new codexes arrive, and certain styles of army come in and out of fashion, the relative effectiveness of certain units in matched play will change. So we’ll be using Chapter Approved as a chance to reassess the points values of all units across the game (just like we did with the first Chapter Approved).

The FAQs will only have points adjustments for the most egregious cases or when the FAQ itself causes a problem or when they feel its necessary to not wait for Chapter Approved. Otherwise they will be in Chapter Approved.

The FAQs will only have points adjustments for the most egregious cases or when the FAQ itself causes a problem or when they feel its necessary to not wait for Chapter Approved. Otherwise they will be in Chapter Approved.

Both ways or only when something is too good ?

Karol wrote:

The FAQs will only have points adjustments for the most egregious cases or when the FAQ itself causes a problem or when they feel its necessary to not wait for Chapter Approved. Otherwise they will be in Chapter Approved.

Both ways or only when something is too good ?

That's up to GW to decide.

The FAQs will only have points adjustments for the most egregious cases or when the FAQ itself causes a problem or when they feel its necessary to not wait for Chapter Approved. Otherwise they will be in Chapter Approved.

Seems to me that they held to that. Bravo to them

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]

Harlequins say hi.

Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.

Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.

Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.

There's no standalone Militarum Tempestus army; just a very irritating relic from when they were trying to split everything up into as tiny a subfaction as possible with 4 total units taken by subdividing a single entry in another book, where there was Codex Skitarii and Codex: Ad Mech as separate things, one of which didn't even have an HQ to field a Combined Arms Detachment with.

Harlequins have a legitimate argument. I'd also observe that in exchange for the really low toughness, they have open topped and -1 to hit on their armored personnel carriers, and all have invulnerable saves and fly, but I don't have enough experience with Harlequins to decisively make that claim.

I'm mostly just irritated that there seems to be a coherent effort to remove tanks from Marine armies, and or a perception that Marines should not have tanks.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]

Harlequins say hi.

Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.

Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.

Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.

There's no standalone Militarum Tempestus army; just a very irritating relic from when they were trying to split everything up into as tiny a subfaction as possible with 4 total units taken by subdividing a single entry in another book, where there was Codex Skitarii and Codex: Ad Mech as separate things, one of which didn't even have an HQ to field a Combined Arms Detachment with.

Harlequins have a legitimate argument. I'd also observe that in exchange for the really low toughness, they have open topped and -1 to hit on their armored personnel carriers, and all have invulnerable saves and fly, but I don't have enough experience with Harlequins to decisively make that claim.

I'm mostly just irritated that there seems to be a coherent effort to remove tanks from Marine armies, and or a perception that Marines should not have tanks.

Harlequins are in a weird place where they have really decent rules and their stat lines and damage output are pretty good as well melee wise, but they have to get there.. 50/50 invul is a blessing AND a curse, if that makes sense? I love them though. I think troupe could use the SLIGHTEST points decrease, but that’s all.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]

Harlequins say hi.

Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.

Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.

Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.

There's no standalone Militarum Tempestus army; just a very irritating relic from when they were trying to split everything up into as tiny a subfaction as possible with 4 total units taken by subdividing a single entry in another book, where there was Codex Skitarii and Codex: Ad Mech as separate things, one of which didn't even have an HQ to field a Combined Arms Detachment with.

Harlequins have a legitimate argument. I'd also observe that in exchange for the really low toughness, they have open topped and -1 to hit on their armored personnel carriers, and all have invulnerable saves and fly, but I don't have enough experience with Harlequins to decisively make that claim.

I'm mostly just irritated that there seems to be a coherent effort to remove tanks from Marine armies, and or a perception that Marines should not have tanks.

There are standalone Militarum Tempestus armies. Militarum Tempestus is a subfaction of Astra Militarum in the more or less the same fashion that Custodes and Sisters of Silence are factions of the Talons of the Emperor that armies can be made from.
Being a Astra Militarum subfaction, they use many similar support units that the Guard use. But Militarum Tempestus and IG play entirely differently.

The only thing this FAQ didn't address is the silly CP spamming with detachments and soup. I'd love for it to become much more of a fixed number for everyone.
And Bolter Drill would've been better if it was changed to +1 shot if you stand still or within half, but that's been mentioned a few times here, and I'm glad DW ammunition can't use it anymore. Shame about tanks though.
Otherwise this FAQ is really good.

Bolter drill is still amazing. I love it. And I love that they finalised bolter drill so quickly.

The FAQ was never going to make everyone happy, but I think it did well to make a lot of people happy.

In the overall scheme of things, I do not believe marine vehicles got a nerf. Bolter discipline was a nice bonus, but it hardly made it worth fielding anything more than before, not while Castellans were around and haywire/doom was there to counter knights. However, with the drop of the Castellan, 3++ knights, haywire/doom combos, will we see the need for such overwhelming amounts of AT in our lists? If that's the case, maybe marine vehicles start to hit the table again. Dare I say it, maybe the occasional Land Raider?

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I was really hoping that they'd alter Bolter Discipline to do something for the units that have a Bolt Something That Isn't Rapid Fire as their main weapon, I'm sure they got a lot of feedback to the effect that those weapons now look bad by comparison.

Hopefully they'll either adjust points or stats to address that when CA comes out.

I think the main goal with that one is to effect the main "vanilla" marine units, so Rapid-Fire it is. Also, I actually can't think of many non Rapid-Fire bolt weapons other than the Agressor ones and Heavy Bolters (which are in their own rough spot).

I mean, there's Bolt Pistols but standing still to fire twice with Assault Marines isn't really what anyone expects.

Autobolters, Stalker Bolt Rifles, Bolt Carbides, Assault Bolters, the aforementioned Boltstorm Gauntlets, and scout shotguns if you're feeling generous. I'd include Bolt Pistols and Heavy Bolt Pistols in that list as well, if only because Assault Marines and Reivers really need a boost of some sort, and the Gravis Captain's pistol variant of the Boltstorm Gauntlet.

I wouldn't necessarily expect Bolter Discipline to grant extra shots to those weapons if the bearer doesn't move, but I had hoped it would grant some other appropriate bonus to them. For example; Bolt weapons with Assault do not suffer the to-hit penalty for Advancing, Bolt weapons with Heavy can reroll failed to-wound rolls if they don't move, and Bolt weapons with Pistol allow the bearer to make one extra attack in melee using the pistol's profile. Or something.

^aka primaris stuff. So no wonder why I don't think of it.

As I posted in the other thread:

 Brother Castor wrote:
Not much in there to affect me (Ultramarines and Renegade Knights player).

I guess my Whirlwind no longer gets the beta bolters rule for it's storm bolter. I don't run any Dominus class knights and the 4++ max invuln puts me on a level playing field with Imperial Knights

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[...]Space Marines probably have the weakest motor pool in the game. [...]

Harlequins say hi.

Taurox Primes say hi and wave hello.

Taurox Primes are part of a motor pool that also includes Manticores and Basilisks.

Not when playing pure Militarum Tempestus. Then the motor pool is Taurox Primes—overcosted, and Valkyries—just nerfed.

There's no standalone Militarum Tempestus army; just a very irritating relic from when they were trying to split everything up into as tiny a subfaction as possible with 4 total units taken by subdividing a single entry in another book, where there was Codex Skitarii and Codex: Ad Mech as separate things, one of which didn't even have an HQ to field a Combined Arms Detachment with.

Harlequins have a legitimate argument. I'd also observe that in exchange for the really low toughness, they have open topped and -1 to hit on their armored personnel carriers, and all have invulnerable saves and fly, but I don't have enough experience with Harlequins to decisively make that claim.

I'm mostly just irritated that there seems to be a coherent effort to remove tanks from Marine armies, and or a perception that Marines should not have tanks.

There are standalone Militarum Tempestus armies. Militarum Tempestus is a subfaction of Astra Militarum in the more or less the same fashion that Custodes and Sisters of Silence are factions of the Talons of the Emperor that armies can be made from.
Being a Astra Militarum subfaction, they use many similar support units that the Guard use. But Militarum Tempestus and IG play entirely differently.

To be fair, in this instance, that was rather forced by the regiment-subfaction system in 8E (otherwise they'd just be treated largely like Vets were in previous editions), and in the previous edition by basically just removing 90% of the IG codex from use (they had no exclusive units themselves) if you wanted to run stormtroopers as Troops, but there were also Vets which were basically treated identically and used in subsitution of older 4E rules that allowed Stormtroopers as troops (e.g. Grenadiers).

Over all looks pretty good.

The Nerf to Bolter rule for DW hurts a little but my army was never optimized greatly so didn't really abuse it was nice for awhile.

The marine vehicles losing it sucks bad though, felt good on my black stars, which already are meh, felt good on the crusaders and rhinos. I get the reasoning sort of , but who was thinking marine bolter vehicles were rampaging over the world ? I don't think I saw one rant for it.

No guard nerfs aside from the valk and storm troopers thing so that they can't get into half range for the hellguns, that sucks and feels a little needless. At least the guard stayed 4 points though. I guess that is the consolation for keeping people from having rapid fire storm trooper nightmares as they were spreading fear, along side beta bolter land raider crusaders. Thank god we are saved from them now.


Edit: As a Tempestus solo player, they do function a deal differently than a regular AM list will. There are work arounds to the limitations of course for deatchments but solo MT is a thing with super limited options. How they came about, and what they are a hold over from doesn't really matter at this point. Though I don't think Taurox primes are very over costed right now. They were very cheap for awhile when the edition dropped, the climate has changed since then though. They aren't that bad off though. They just are very glass hammer and if you are playing solo MT they are needed and you'll find them worth it. I have to assume most who say they suck didn't play them for awhile at the start of the edition or through the changes in a solo MT force.

Now last edition, last edition they sucked a lot. That is how I can tell the difference as I needed them then, and they were real bad but necessary. Now they just aren't the best but can still put some good fire down.