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.

As far as I know, ITC wobbly model is still in effect for ITC. They might get rid of it, but I really don't like terrain abuses.

The FAQ was both substantial and positive for the game.
Some factions still need more substantial alterations but those will come with a new codex. Neither the FAQ nor Chapter Approved has really changed the way armies play beyond toning down the most egregious combinations of rules or units (Not counting the new Ynnari mini-dex in WD). If this FAQ funnels more forces into the category of winning 45%-55% of games then it’s succeeded. I don’t think that the existing lists that win the overwhelming majority of games will continue to do so.

I have a prediction that Knights will be deminished significantly and that Castellans will remain popular as the model is widely in circulation but it won’t be involved in any more major tournament winning lists. It’s swung a bit to the point where destroying it is a likely outcome for the right list in the initial turn, and that’s too much of a gamble. You can’t base a winning strategy over having to go first in every game to neutralise key threats or be destroyed. Imo the 4++ cap to the Ion shield was all that it needed, but at least using one won’t lead to accusations of power gaming anymore

I also think that my streak of losing to Dark Eldar and friends might come to an end now that the most OTT powerful things about Eldar soup have been eliminated. This was a great change it’s so much more thematic.

Orks and Tau might actually be the biggest winners of this. Both armies are exceptional without relying on soup combinations, both are high performers, and both are now relatively better off.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm still cracking up at the language they are using in the BIG FAQ summary of changes.
GW may as why be saying "Come on guys, you aren't supposed to be abusing the rules like this and you know it"

-

I mean, that is what they are saying and that is what the community was doing.
The intent of rules like Woobly model was very clear, to stop models from falling over and being damaged when placed in akward places but some people in the community went strait to abusing it to place models in impossible situations.
And they damn well knew what they were doing was wrong and against the spirit of the rules.

This leads to unassaultable guardsmen, though. This seems undesirable.

Are you sure the problem here isn't that you allowed a unit to go into an enclosed building when the game has no rules for how to deal with this because your not supposed to be allowing into an intact enclosed building that is not a fortification?
8th edition doesn't have rules for buildings, only ruins.

But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.

And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad

Why do you think you can't assualt a 2+ level building?
Or is this the design of the specific piece of terrain?

Losing loota bomb was big, though.

Martel732 wrote:
Losing loota bomb was big, though.

Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.

Well, they can protect 15 lootas with grots. Those 15 might live forever. The second squad gets no protection.

The game landscape changes so much by turn 3, typically. They might not need any Grot support when they drop in.

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You can shoot them to deal some casualties and then get a foothold up there.

Riiight. All armies shoot well after all..wait no.

Oh and indeed no -2 to hit or worse units exists in the game...wait they do.

Hello tneva82, you may have noticed that I was responding to a post about Guardsmen. I'm of the opinion that if your army cannot shoot a few guardsmen out of cover, you've got a build weird enough not to care too much about. Which army/s were you thinking of, in particular? Perhaps I can help you out.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I repeat - overwatch overrides everything. lol

Yea I think people are over-reading these updates looking for nuggets and it's gonna drive me bonkers.

Same story every FAQ. 99% of the playerbase reads it and says. Okay. This makes sense. Then that last 1% comes in with "but if you squint really hard at this one specific example and use this obscure (mis)interpretation of the word 'shoe', clearly I'm allowed to break this rule that the FAQ specifically forbids me from breaking."

I see you too have been to YMDK.

Seriously though, I feel like most changes GW made here were to eliminate unintended rules interactions and make the RAW more like RAI. It meant kicking the Grey Knights again, but it's ultimately for a better game so I can live with that.

That said, I am willing to bet some stupid stuff is going to pop up in the meta after this FAQ.

 Ishagu wrote:

Yes it was. A veteran tournament player suggested the best way to run Lootas now is with two units of 15, one being held back and teleporting in once the first one is destroyed or reduced.

Problem is that lootas have to be fed 2 or 4 CP each turn to be worthwhile. Reducing their max squad size by 40% makes those CP much less efficient.

I have no problem with lootas.

make sure that when you play against lootas you point out that Gretchen are slain when they intercept. So they don' get FNPs or invun saves. So basically it becomes a game of how many shots you can put on target. If you can shoot 100+ shots at them. Youll still kill a lot of lootas and all the grots will be dead too. Lootas are more of a trap IMO. Then again I run a very anti infantry based force that doesn't really fear AP-1.

The stuff that really makes orks hard to deal with is DAjump and their artillery which is very resilient and lucky rolls just obliterate you.

So, asking for myself, because I am trying to find out where it specifically mentions them, my assasins can't farm CPs now, or more than 2? Not that this is a major problem, I've only really ever gotten it to work once where the enemy left three psykers alone in his backfield.

But I read the notes over lunch and I thought it said there were certain "exceptions". So it only benefits me to kill one character per turn with an assasin basically. That sucks. My Custodes are le sad.

Speaking of sad custodes, kinda pissed they don' get exemption from the deep strike rules anymore. But as long as everyone is playing the same way.

The Newman wrote:
Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.

* Reivers get the Carbide. It's exactly the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.

I am pretty sure GSC are the only army using carbide weapons

But yeah, these need addressing, as well as weapons everyone forgot about, stalker bolters used by DW (no relation to primaris stalker rifles, also DW stalkers actually have profile rifles should have had from the start), infernus bolters, and astartes shotguns (the SM ones, incidentally one of the worst weapons in the game), all of which are in urgent need of a buff...

tneva82 wrote:

But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.

And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad

A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.

 Quinzy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.

And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad

A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.

Or some kind of alternative terrain ruleset whereby seeing thru a terrain piece gave you -1 to hit, and maybe with some special stratagems that let you ignore vertical distance in the charge phase.

THat kind of ruleset would make ruins far more playable!

the_scotsman wrote:

 Quinzy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

But then again 40k doesn't work with ruins that you can see through. 40k needs total LOS blockers. Boom. If you can through ruin or even into it it's useless ruin.

And then with this anything with 2+ levels leads to unassaultable which is also bad

A small change to virtual line of sight makes 8th edition infinitely more playable.

Or some kind of alternative terrain ruleset whereby seeing thru a terrain piece gave you -1 to hit, and maybe with some special stratagems that let you ignore vertical distance in the charge phase.

THat kind of ruleset would make ruins far more playable!

Maybe we can also add things like height advantage, roads giving movement bonus, and such.

I even have an idea for a name: "Cities of Death"

Ok, so the way these changes will affect the meta are as follows –

Crusaders and Gallants will become more popular and likely taken in “3 big Knight” detachments. As a result, the Castellan will still see a fair amount of play as a screened Castellan still beats the other Knights. 100 points is 100 points most Guard plays can find in their lists.

Flyer spam will still be a thing. Sure, it’ll be a little harder to move block things, but, this certainly hasn’t removed move blocking. The only things that can reliably move under a flyer on a 120mm oval base are things with a 7”+ move, or lone models/small squads advancing. Even then, the flyer can just be placed 4” away from the front of the Knight and it still can’t get past unless it advances.

Chaos got a nice quality of life buff with all Characters now getting legion traits. I predict we’ll start seeing more and more Discordants.

T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.

Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.

From a “pure” list point of view, I’d expect T’au, Craftworlds and Guard, maybe Orks and maybe single God Chaos to do reasonably well.


As for the debate about fly and wobbly model.

This only exists because
a) GW’s terrain kits and rules are inadequate for the game, and,
b) FLG didn’t think through the consequences of selling and designing enclosed buildings, and, as such are now stuck with jamming them into the ruleset.

GW could solve the issues themselves by just making sure sections of their terrain pieces are actually true LoS blocking and by updating their rules regarding things like Woods

Kdash wrote:
As for the debate about fly and wobbly model.

This only exists because
a) GW’s terrain kits and rules are inadequate for the game, and,
b) FLG didn’t think through the consequences of selling and designing enclosed buildings, and, as such are now stuck with jamming them into the ruleset.

GW could solve the issues themselves by just making sure sections of their terrain pieces are actually true LoS blocking and by updating their rules regarding things like Woods

If you want a good-looking battlefield, and not something that may as well be counters, wobbly model syndrome is a possibility. Bombarded or natural terrain is never going to be all flat areas, and making structural concessions for gaming looks bizarre after a point.

A significant part of Warhammer is the spectacle of seeing two awesome armies duking it out over a blasted warscape. As much as I love the videogame, I don't want to play my 40k over a Minecraft battlefield where everything is neatly flat for models. I am not alone in this- as such, the rules need to include provisions for wobbly models.

The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.

Its headed to the shelves.

If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.

Reemule wrote:
The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.

Its headed to the shelves.

If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.

What was the question according to you?
Because to me Knights, Monsters and Tanks will still be very much present and few things are as easily slotted into an army and do the same kind of damage as a Castellan.

I think the question was can you oneround something with 20+ wounds, a 3++ invulnerable that can put out enough firepower in one turn to invalidate any vehicle/walker other than itself. Which, all things considered, is a terrible thing for a game anyway when the presence of one model renders anything else in that same category (i..e all vehicles and things not a Castellan) nonviable.

So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.

I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....

Reemule wrote:
The castellan is an answer to a question that isn't on the table anymore.

Its headed to the shelves.

If someone brings a knight, or several knights, most forces have enough firepower through even basic play to deal with it. And at a much cheaper cost than a 700 point option.

I’d argue that most forces don’t have a reliable way of killing a 4++ Knight – much less for under 700 points.

I’m sure there are options out there, but relying on a charge from deep strike also doesn’t fit the “reliable” category.

The Castellan will still see play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks.

Why do you say that? They don't count as Aircraft because they don't have a minimum move distance.

 Irbis wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Edit: Stalker Bolt Rifles, Assault Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Pistols, Heavy Bolt Pistols, and Bolt Carbides* also say high. Scout Shotguns should be addressed as well, although that needed done anyway since they were kind of ----- compared to a Bolt Gun even before Bolter Drill.

* Reivers get the Carbide. It's exactly the same profile as an Autobolter. I imagine future-proofing was at play there.

I am pretty sure GSC are the only army using carbide weapons

But yeah, these need addressing, as well as weapons everyone forgot about, stalker bolters used by DW (no relation to primaris stalker rifles, also DW stalkers actually have profile rifles should have had from the start), infernus bolters, and astartes shotguns (the SM ones, incidentally one of the worst weapons in the game), all of which are in urgent need of a buff...

I literally mentioned shotguns in the post you were responding to. You are right about Reivers though, it's a Bolt Carbine, not a Bolt Carbide

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.

I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....

You know whats really good at killing other Super-heavies while being survivable enough in return?
A Castellan.

Kdash wrote:


T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.

Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.

I disagree with you on Drukhari, Covens have a re-roll wounds strat for combat already which is generally where you want to be with them, it's the likes of Haywire and Dissintegrators that will lose out from the lack of Doom which may push people further into the 9 Talos list.

Pure Craftworld Ynnari will suck, their combat isn't that good and they no longer have Jinx or Doom, I strongly suspect Ynnari will die a quick death on the competitive scene.

Tau may well have come out the best from this.

 Imateria wrote:

Kdash wrote:


T’au will continue to do well, and Ork lists will likely have to change slightly but still might be ok.

Druhkari will likely drop off a little. Not having Doom hurts them – especially Covens.
Ynnari will likely also drop off, but, pure Craftworld Ynnari lists could still do reasonably well as they can often do well vs most armies, even 132 points down. This will likely only exist as an ITC Best in Faction attempt though and then next year will see it disappear altogether depending on FAQ4 and CA.

I disagree with you on Drukhari, Covens have a re-roll wounds strat for combat already which is generally where you want to be with them, it's the likes of Haywire and Dissintegrators that will lose out from the lack of Doom which may push people further into the 9 Talos list.

Pure Craftworld Ynnari will suck, their combat isn't that good and they no longer have Jinx or Doom, I strongly suspect Ynnari will die a quick death on the competitive scene.

Tau may well have come out the best from this.

No Doom also means Venom spam will take a hit, vs Orks and Tau it was insanely good with Doom and Jinx, 9-10 Venoms Flawed Skull (ignore cover +3" movement) with those 2 powers meant everything but vehicles died.

I am pretty sure DE are still going to be top players in the meta, Venoms and Talos are still very good, we might see Venom spam and Talos spam more so for sure and less Ravagers/RWJF spam.

The Vex Mask nerf only hurts attacking DE, not defensive DE, (You charge vs let them charge you).

Doom was almost always used to increase ANTI vehical power of weapons. RR wounds on 1 infantry unit isn't that strong and probably not even worth it's points in that match up.

To kill vehicals you can still include spear head of eldar with aliotoc fireprisms (also very strong and hard to kill).

Or spamming crimson hunters should also be effective.

 Ordana wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, one area this hurts me is my jetbike shield captains. They can't pin Knights anymore, which sucks. There aren't any real good options for dealing with Superheavies now in pure Custodes, without going soup or Playing my contemptors as Telemons. which is fine, I don't see anyone having a problem with that, it's just a pain in the ass to be forced to play the totally broken model in your army.

I expect now that Castellans are off the table, we'll start to see lesser costing Superheavies take the field....Stormlords, Baneblades, Shadowswords....

You know whats really good at killing other Super-heavies while being survivable enough in return?
A Castellan.

You know what's really hard to fit into a pure Custodes list that isn't trying to be flavor of the month? A 700pt unit that literally everyone agrees is overpowered. I would rather take the Orion Drop Ship than a Castellan, and for a little north of half the points, and 4x the actual cost, I can get a roughly better model.