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.

The 40k March FAQ is delayed. And is now named spring FAQ so that means it could very well be onanther month befor it comes out. I am not sure this is good thing. They probably want to include Flyrants other stuff that over performed at Adepticon

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater

We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...

This is explicitly a good thing, as when they do release the FAQ it will last until november or december and gives them feedback from one of the biggest WAAC events in NA.
It sucks to wait, but this was the right call. No reason to suffer broken builds for another 6 months.

While this is a good thing – taking into account the lists used at Adepticon, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed and frustrated.

I’ve been holding off updating/expanding my army along with holding off potentially starting a new army until after this FAQ drops, and I guess I’ll just keep waiting. I don’t have access to unlimited funds, so I can’t just go out and buy what I want, when there is a high possibility of it becoming an illegal list in the near future. I’m far too practical to just throw money away like that

I just hope it gets sorted this week, as it effectively puts every event in the next 2 months in limbo as everyone is sat around waiting.

I'm not expecting anything earth shaking, so I really don't care. I know how the Chaos forces play and don't expect any major changes, just rules clarifications.

I'd rather they take their time and get it right then rush something out that is incomplete or breaks the game.

"So much stuff came up at Adepticon that we cannot ignore it."

See what playtesting can do!!!

I know the wording means it’s a yes, but given it’s the very definition of a Frequently Asked Question, I really, really hope the Chainsword/Misercordia question is put to bed.

Hive Tyrant Spam nerf incoming.

 nordsturmking wrote:
The 40k March FAQ is delayed. And is now named spring FAQ so that means it could very well be onanther month befor it comes out. I am not sure this is good thing. They probably want to include Flyrants other stuff that over performed at Adepticon

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater

We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...

And the award for "Biggest Lie of the past three millenia goes to..."

"We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever" which is why you spent exactly 3 femtoseconds proofreading and playtesting, requiring us to carry Rulebook, Chapter Approved and 3 forests worth of printed FAQs just to have a casual game.

Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

I know how they can fix it: More auras that cause mortal wounds on a 6.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

So I again call for gamesworkshop to make a tournament edition , full of 'balance' and rules written like a legal document and keep the current edition ticking along for the rest of us. Because these tournament armies don't represent the 40k universe at all. You might as well play any game with generic coloured pieces to represent the models. Maybe in a plain checkered board. But then people would still complain about first turn advantage.

Did Adepticon play with the previewed Beta Rules? I assumed the fine tuning around these and their official implementation in some variation (or not) would be at the heart of the FAQ.

Andykp wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

So I again call for gamesworkshop to make a tournament edition , full of 'balance' and rules written like a legal document and keep the current edition ticking along for the rest of us. Because these tournament armies don't represent the 40k universe at all. You might as well play any game with generic coloured pieces to represent the models. Maybe in a plain checkered board. But then people would still complain about first turn advantage.

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

I can't wait for the FAQ to be released. The salt will be immense.

Also most people play games by bunging together models that look cool. Tournament players are the minority so most people don't notice these problems.

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

Name one game that is truly balanced.

Andykp wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

Yeah, sums up my feelings as well. When I look at tournament lists I usually wonder why those people play the game or what's the fun in those lists. But that's my usual reaction to many dakka posts, too.

So.. are you saying that, if GW made a “tournament” version of the game that was completely balanced, you’d still prefer to play the previous unbalanced version of the game????

If the game is balanced across the board, and everything was at the point where an FAQ wasn’t needed for 25% of each army’s special interactions, then there wouldn’t be any problems.

The moment the game is balanced, and is balanced around the GW missions, is the moment we will see things start to move forward. Just because something is unbalanced in ITC or ETC doesn’t always mean it is unbalanced in GW chapter approved missions, but there is still the possibility of it being so. Also, just because a unit hasn’t won an event, doesn’t mean it isn’t unbalanced overall – as we all know, there are other factors involved in winning an event, besides how OP a unit is.

Once the game is balanced around the ruleset, you’ll see or formats start to disappear imo. For example, ITC Champions missions only exist because they are trying to create a balanced format in an unbalanced game. Noone wants to play a competitive game that depends on how many units you have in your army, or whether you can infiltrate onto the relic and run away first turn. ETC missions are just a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom – modified slightly in an attempt at balancing out a few issues.

But – until GW gets their ruleset into line, they will of course have to take things like ITC into account, as that is one of the most public faces of the game. Only time will tell what will happen.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

Name one game that is truly balanced.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.

Don't misrepresent what people are saying Grotsnik. That's beneath you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.

Somewhat of a false equivalency. People aren't angry about GW doing FAQs, they are angry that so many are needed in the first place, when hiring a SINGLE Proofreader/technical writer would have fixed 90% of the issues.

I have a hard time believing GW didn't somehow purposefully want HQ spam. They put a detachment specifically into the game that allows massive HQ spam. In fact, all the detachments besides the standard one are designed to spam.

8th edition *is* about spamming, it's just maybe people are realizing that is a bad idea.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I like how you interpret people not being too fussed about absolute perfect balance as an attack on tournament players.

I like how you assumed I wanted 'perfect balance'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I used to think that, but the recent threads here demanding bannig of stuff like allies or index options in the name of balance have changed my mind. Frankly, I rather have a less balanced game with more options than a more balanced game with less options. Of course any balancing efforts which do not result de jure or de facto removal of options are welcome.

In theory, there are two types of army.

Type A is the pure fluff army that looks exactly like the game's lore states most armies in the setting are. The SM Battle Company. The Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and retinue plus stormtroopers and a squad of Deathwatch. The Craftworld Eldar army that's primarily Guardians.

Type B is the pure competitive/tournament army where fluff and model-coolness are irrelevant. Twinky special rule interactions and the absolute best bang for your points-buck.

In an ideal game system, A and B are the same. The armies that best fit the fluff also work best in the game. The factions in the game's setting are trying their hardest to win all their battles, so the armies they have decided are the best should also be the best in the game.

But the ideal game system doesn't exist.

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

 Sasori wrote:
Hive Tyrant Spam nerf incoming.

FAQs are normally there for clarification purposes.
They should not be abused to change rules and pt costs.