New PL's and FAQs (2020-08-10)

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.

**catbarf**

alextroy wrote:
Fifty wrote:
It annoys me that PL is supposed to encourage fluffy gameplay, and yet 10 Intercessors or 10 Bolter Marines in a Tac squad both cost 10PL but are 200 points and 150 points respectively.

Now, I want to play Crusade using Firstborn Marines using no upgrades except a missile launcher for 165 points, but unless I want to deliberately penalise myself 17.5% compared to my Primaris friend, I pretty much have to max out the weaponry in my Tac squad. And no, it doesn't all even out in the end. The PL seem to be based on maxed out squads rather than typical squads. Just because I want to play narrative, doesn't mean I want to deliberately be underpowered.
I hate to break it to you, but a fluffy 10-man Tactical Squad will have a special and a heavy weapon. Depending on your choice of weapons, that puts you between 165 (Flamer and Heavy Bolter) and 180 points (Plasma Gun and Multi-melta). Slap a few special weapons on your Sarge and you are closing in on 200 points. Still to be fair, they should probably be more like 8 CP for a 10-man squad. It's weapons for the Sarge that inflate the value of the 5 man squad to be closer to Intercessor points.

Tacticals are comparatively overcosted (or Primaris are comparatively undercosted, however you want to look at it) in points to begin with, though; the PL costs are exacerbating it further. A plasma gun, multimelta, and powerfist + plasma pistol on the sergeant still aren't nearly as valuable as having twice as many wounds, 50% more attacks in melee, AP-1, and 6" more range.

**H.B.M.C.**

Ok, so I guess they meant +1 to armour save rolls all along. Not +1 to the Armour Save characteristic.

**Billagio**

Gregor Samsa wrote:
What a waste of resources to spend on fiddling with power level rather than repointing. Whoever's power point slide idea PL was sure has gone to war in ramming an odd system into the game regardless of unpopular and or poorly it functions.

They want to push Crusade games it seems

**ArcaneHorror**

Why is the regular Chaos Lord the same as the Terminator one? I get that it's faster, but this can be negated by the Terminator's ability to deepstrike.

**Daedalus81**

Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.

DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.

Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.

**chimeara**

I'm just glad they made the Magaera and Styrix usable again. 55 points drop on my Magaera. I was hoping the points was an oversight, there's no way a Magaera is worth more points than most Cerastus knights. Now it's pretty solid points.

Which is good, because I just finished painting mine today.

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.

DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.

Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.

It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).

chimeara wrote:I'm just glad they made the Magaera and Styrix usable again. 55 points drop on my Magaera. I was hoping the points was an oversight, there's no way a Magaera is worth more points than most Cerastus knights. Now it's pretty solid points.

Which is good, because I just finished painting mine today.

Glad to see at least some of the big fw models got some love.

**shadowsfm**

catbarf wrote:

Tacticals are comparatively overcosted (or Primaris are comparatively undercosted, however you want to look at it) in points to begin with, though; the PL costs are exacerbating it further. A plasma gun, multimelta, and powerfist + plasma pistol on the sergeant still aren't nearly as valuable as having twice as many wounds, 50% more attacks in melee, AP-1, and 6" more range.

primaris are differently under priced. space wolves grey hunters and even blood claws cost more, wtf?

**tneva82**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Something I don't see being talked about much -- unless I missed the thread -- the new LOS change is quite damaging to several armies and builds.

DE are quite sparse on their ability to guard their HQs with vehicles as is GSC (hello, Court, I guess?). Mini and character dreads got slapped. Talonmasters can't hide behind less than 3 landspeeders. Vypers. Warwalkers. Sentinels. Buggies.

Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.

Go read ork tactics thread. Apart from loss of warboss on bike this is one they are fuming about. Speed freak armies got harder, mek gun spam got nerfed.

Ork players　have learned to fear new faq arrivals. Every time that happens something gets removed or nerfed to death.

**Hecaton**

tneva82 wrote:
Go read ork tactics thread. Apart from loss of warboss on bike this is one they are fuming about. Speed freak armies got harder, mek gun spam got nerfed.

Ork players　have learned to fear new faq arrivals. Every time that happens something gets removed or nerfed to death.

GW thinks orks should be unfun to play as, apparently. Just a perennial loser faction for Primaris players to dunk on.

**Daedalus81**

Gadzilla666 wrote:

It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).

I'm of two minds. I don't think super-friends was their only goal here. Kicking talonmasters and character dreads in the nuts is a greatly welcome change from this end. Not being able to use dreads to cover units stinks, but i'll deal.

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

It's been brought up, just hasn't seemed to stick yet. It's an odd change, as I'd think a simple "characters don't count for Look Out Sir" would have sufficed (obviously worded in a much more complicated and legalistic way).

I'm of two minds. I don't think super-friends was their only goal here. Kicking talonmasters and character dreads in the nuts is a greatly welcome change from this end. Not being able to use dreads to cover units stinks, but i'll deal.

You still can, just not with box dreads. Makes a loyalist firebase of relic contemptors around a chapter master look like an even better option, especially with the silly points buff those contemptors received in ca.

**H.B.M.C.**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.

It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.

So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.

**Spoletta**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

Not really unforeseen.
The rule was meant to contain that 10W+ rule when the BRB came out. For some reason it didn't and was now corrected.

OOE rule is proof of this.

**Mr Morden**

So another round of stuff that should have been picked during playtesting - if it was ever done, they were competant or were not just ignored.

**Not Online!!!**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

I can't say if they're unforeseen or not. The old rule went through a lot of iterations. I see good and bad with this. The good might outweigh the bad, but I don't play the armies that are hit negatively by it.

So besides getting rid of the super-friends gimmick what exactly is the "good" you're seeing? What's the upside of characters not gaining protection from a nearby box dread but getting protection from a nearby rhino or squad of scouts that's been reduced to only three models? Honest question.

I'd seriously like the answer to this aswell.
And no don't bring hamberders up daed!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Morden wrote:
So another round of stuff that should have been picked during playtesting - if it was ever done, they were competant or were not just ignored.

Considering the statements and visual reaction of playtesters torwards the CA pts which they had no influence over, and how disapointed they were?
very very likely the later.

**Ordana**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Hiding characters just got a whole lot tougher.
It's almost as if making sweeping changes to fix specific problems results in a lot of unforeseen consequences...

Previously Tyranid players were a little confused why Old One Eye (character Carnifex) got a tailor made version of Look out Sir in the initial set of 9th edition faqs. Now seeing this I don't think these changes are unforeseen.

They know what they are doing, this was planned.

**Jidmah**

I've changed my mind. If every FAQ results in an ork nerf, I want to go back to 6th edition when GW simply didn't talk to us and never FAQed anything.

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:
I've changed my mind. If every FAQ results in an ork nerf, I want to go back to 6th edition when GW simply didn't talk to us and never FAQed anything.

It would be funny if it weren't so darn true

**tneva82**

I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.

Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.

**Not Online!!!**

tneva82 wrote:
I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.

Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.

There's just 2 issues, organisation and gw itself.

the first, how do you organise people, it would need to be a massive effort, how many people do work on it, how many playtest, etc.

the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.

**harlokin**

tneva82 wrote:
I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.

Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.

Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.

**tneva82**

harlokin wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.

Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.

Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.

Among friends and acquiaintances I can yes. I'm talking about expanding it LARGER base. Like pretty much every major tournament scale larger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.

Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.

Organization is the real issue.

**Not Online!!!**

Without the endorsement, and with the threat of the cimmunity splitting up as it did in 7th?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.

Oh i don't doubt that, i personally have long stopped to really suport GW rules in anyways.
The recent developments just accelerated that to the point were gw can go take a hike off a cliff.
That however doesn't change that the tournament scene would completely splinter most likely, and those splinters would be different from regular hobbiests.

**harlokin**

tneva82 wrote:
harlokin wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
I still maintain best thing that could happen to 40k is if players would raise middle finger to GW for rules and do it themselves. Players have shown they can outdo GW on that area.

Leave GW doing models. Take hand of rules from them.

Did someone tell you that you can't? Amongst your friends and acquaintances you can play with any weird and wacky rules you like.

Among friends and acquiaintances I can yes. I'm talking about expanding it LARGER base. Like pretty much every major tournament scale larger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

the second one, GW will step in, regardless, clamping down as what they percieve as one of their main moneymakers with a bigger margine then their models, considering they print in china.
Not to mention Copyright, etc.

Done right players can just raise middle finger. You can't copyright mechanism etc. Just avoid IP and you are safe. It's been done in past. Not much GW can do to stop you.

Organization is the real issue.

Expanding how though? Admitedly ITC sort of did it, and I found their resultant game horrible. If you ask 100 players on how a given rule should be implemented from scratch, you will get about 103 answers. Have a look at the pointless excercise that is the Proposed Rule forum.

**Not Online!!!**

Actually the proposed rules forum is a nice place to look for inspiration for when you are so fed up that you decide to write your own campaign, or rebalance stuff. And that it does actually quite well.

**the_scotsman**

The Newman wrote:
"Tweaks to Look Out Sir" he says.

For a Vehicle or Monster to protect a character jt has to be ten or more wounds now. No more Daemon Princes or Character Dreadnoughts guarding each other.

Also, strats that refund CP are no longer subject to the one-per-round restriction, although I suspect they'll have to FAQ the FAQ because now as written if you have a unit ability/relic/whatever that refunds CP you can get your 1 from that and then use your CP regen strat on top of it.

Well...yeah, that was the intention. It was pretty stupid that if I had a refund ability and used it, my opponent could use "Agents of Vect" on me and cause me to lose all the CP I spent on the stratagem (because AoV is written as "refunding" your opponent's CP)

**harlokin**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually the proposed rules forum is a nice place to look for inspiration for when you are so fed up that you decide to write your own campaign, or rebalance stuff. And that it does actually quite well.

I'm sure it is. The point I am failing to make is you can see how much of a variation of opinion there is among the player base as to what the solution to any given problem is (or even if something is a problem). Then there is the issue that GW's rules (flawed as they are) allow you to play with strangers and have an common understanding of how the game works. What are the chances that some stranger will agree with you on which house rule variation of the game is the right one to use.