Poll |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2018/04/16 19:37:06
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
Why Aye Ya Canny Dakkanaughts!
|
This thread isn't for discussing why you hated it or why it actually helped with balance, there are many other threads for that, just a simple did you like it/didn't you like it. While arguing about the new rules is for a different thread, feel free to state the biggest things in the FAQ that will effect your army, for example:
The deepstrike nerf will make my bloodletter bomb and terminators less tactically versatile.
The warptime nerf will mean my terminators will have a lower chance of making the charge when they come down.
The Battalion buff will give me +6CP but I will no longer be able to spend that so freely on Tide of Traitors, spending them on Daemon Deepstrike is not as good (see above) but I may be able to use the attack twice stratagem more often.
Bonus Question: will you play using the new rules or will you ignore them until the next FAQ?
|
Ghorros wrote:The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote:All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors. |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:39:37
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Scuttling Genestealer
|
I'd like to vote for FAQ OK (but missing their stated targets completely) - BETA rules gamebreakingly idiotic
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:40:17
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Seems good. There's a few weird rules questions I'd like to see clarified, otherwise I'm interested to see how it affects the meta.
Deep strike reliant armies, like Blood Angels, clearly struggle a bit with the beta rules. This would seem to impact assault armies more than shooting armies, although there are numerous important shooting units that deep strike or deploy via the Webway. We'll see if that shifts the meta more towards shooting, like a lot of people are predicting.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:41:01
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Ways my army was affected:
Baneblades cannot overwatch anymore with an enemy unit within 1" (though I stopped playing that way a while ago). The list went from 12CP to 16 CP.
Zarakynel has to walk instead of deepstriking, unless I'm willing to wait a turn. The list went from 9 CP to 13 CP.
My Sororitas list went from 12 CP to 15CP.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:43:26
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
PROS
- Warptime nerf frees up my sorcerer from being a caddy
- Smite buff helps my rubrics
- None of my lists broke the rule of 3 and fixes a lot of other issues barring perhaps IG
CONS
- Terminators got no love
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:46:12
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Not just terminators - a list of 50+ trash units that should be getting fixes rather than increasing the points of already bad units like warlocks.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:46:36
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Lots of things seem a lot more even and thought out than I expected.
The beta rules seem like good ideas to iterate on - like things you'd put out, and let people try, but don't add to the official rules yet.
There are some rough edges (see my complaints about Corsairs everywhere), but overall it looks good.
Although there are a half dozen factions that various people think are now "dead" because they were hurt worse than anyone.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:47:14
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
I voted Okay and I will use it. I think the "soup" fix wasn't really a fix, very few armies were mixing detachments with multiple factions (Supreme Command was the biggest offender here), but their fix does nothing to stop taking multiple detachments of different factions together.
Everything else seems solid. I like the proposed 0-3 restriction a lot. I kinda hoped they would have adjusted more points on things, but this seems really good overall.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:47:30
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Why do people complain so much about Warlock powers, then complain when they nerf Warlocks (and Spirit Seers)?
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:48:05
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
There goes viable alpha deep strike assault units...
Proposed Beta rule: Guns can't be fired beyond your own deployment zone for the fist turn. Because feth you shooting armies.
|
Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 19:50:31
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Brutus_Apex wrote:There goes viable alpha deep strike assault units...
Proposed Beta rule: Guns can't be fired beyond your own deployment zone for the fist turn. Because feth you shooting armies.
A more reasonable counter-rule, of which I am a fan, is guns cannot be fired at a unit in the opponent's Deployment Zone turn 1.
that way, units that advanced/scouted/infiltrated out of their DZ can still be shot from the dz, just like how they could be assaulted from the dz.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:01:54
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think the FAQ is a bit dissapointing but still an improvement. Of sorts..
The bigger issue is that some of the fixes are bandaids that fails to fix underlying issues. Like, right now spamming units is generally better than having a diverse list. So the FAQ imposes a restriction on unit spam, rather than making a diverse list the tactically better choice. That is perhaps better than nothing, but it is not a true fix.
The same is true of deepstrike. The current meta is extremely centered around alpha-striking. Deepstriking is the perfect tool here, because it both protects you from your opponents alpha-strike while enabling your own. Nerfing deepstrike does not fix the underlying problem of alpha-striking being so crucial, but it is probably better than nothing (it remains to be seen). And a true fix would probably need changes to the basic turn structure of 40k.
And then there is the weird bits: Warlocks got a pricehike, and they are now almost as expensive as a weirdboy? Really?
But all in all I am satisfied that GW changes things up regularly. A changing meta is much better than a stale meta.
PS: Where is the Warptime change posted?
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:03:31
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Page 5 main rulebook FAQ.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:04:56
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Can you post a link to it? No, don't. Found it
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 20:06:19
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:05:29
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:06:21
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Voted "it was okay" and "i will use it." It would have been great except for the fat nerf to deep strike melee and also the nerf to Flyrants. Capping them at 3, also with the 50% points rule, would have been sufficient. The warp time & Swarmlord nerf is a bit rough but i can understand it. However, it doesn't change the fact that Alpha Legion Berzerkers can essentially do this at no point cost. My current list is dead because of the point change to Flyrants. I only ran 2 of them, and i didn't have more than 2 of any unit in my army. So, I had a balanced list that fits into the new format, but i'm no longer legal, and even if i drop the points, i'm not sure it will work without the ability to deep strike.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/16 20:08:49
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:06:52
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin
|
As previously, I dislike the beta rules as there are some bigger issues they cause, but I really enjoy the changes made to the faq. Even though a chunk of them make many of my lists illegal. I think for the game as a whole, they are positive.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:11:58
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Bharring wrote:Why do people complain so much about Warlock powers, then complain when they nerf Warlocks (and Spirit Seers)?
They could have nerfed the powers - it would have made more sense. Why exactly your tier 2 psykers have better powers than your tier 1's is kind of mind boggling. Warlocks were already significantly over pointed and spirit seers I believe were the cheapest unit in the game with real smite. Realistically heres what should have happened. Spirit seer goes up 15 points warlock goes down 5 and biker warlock goes down 20. Range on quicken reduced to 6 inches - protect specifically only buffs "ARMOR SAVES" - no more 3++ shining spears. There - balanced.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:13:11
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
War Walker Pilot with Withering Fire
|
This really needs a "Decent, but didn't address a large number of issues" option.
This really wasn't an FAQ, but just updating the game to version 8.1.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:20:35
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Seems ok so far, does mean having to change a few things around within my Tyranids (as no more mixing hive fleets by the look of it - not allowed to key on the word "Tyranid")
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:28:41
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Waaagh! Ork Warboss
Italy
|
It doesn't affect anything on my lists, except the fact that I can dispose of more CPs now.
I voted for good. Soup, units spam and deep strike nerf were basically the thing I wanted.
I haven't seen the points changings though, but I don't think my armies have been buffed or nerfed in this matter. Two of them don't even have the codex, and the third one has a codex that was released not even two weeks ago, too soon to change it.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:31:37
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Missionary On A Mission
|
I thought it was a reasonable punt at fixing some obnoxious nonsense. My favourite part was when Flyrants were 190pts base now.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:33:35
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller
Watch Fortress Excalibris
|
People whined about 'soup' being OP and now my not-even-remotely-competitive but fluffy and heavily converted Inquisition army is illegal in Matched Play. I can no longer field just two squads of SoS, I need to have either three or none. I can't field a single Assassin, I now need three of them. Having all the traditional Inquisitorial henchmen like Crusaders, Death Cultists, Hospitallers etc. split across multiple subfactions with silly keyword restrictions on their abilities (so that a Hospitaller can't even heal her own boss) was already a pain in the arse, but they now can't even go in the same detachment. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Hilariously, my much more competitive Night Lords army is completely unaffected. Even more hilariously, this is partly because it's (to many people) much less 'fluffy', in that it only has two squads of Raptors. If I'd built the usual 'fluffy' NL army, it'd have fallen foul of the Rule of 3.
I'm about done with GW at this point.
|
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry. |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:33:50
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
I would vote for "they were meh"
|
To many unpainted models to count. |
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:43:37
Subject: Re:Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I looked it over. It's rather amusing as it really makes you wonder just how little the devs actually understand game design 101.
FAQ wrote:Battle Brothers: When we originally wrote this edition of Warhammer 40,00 we wanted to make sure that your army could include appropriate allies...the Rules for what units could be included in each Detachment were therefore very relaxed, but this has since led to some very 'mixed' Detachments that include units from far more Factions than we originally envisioned.
Gee, ya think? Protip: Players minmax. Double so in PvP.
FAQ wrote:Detachment Command Benefits: When creating a Battle-forged army, the Battalion and Brigade detachments are seen as not offering enough command points for the number of units you must include...
Except for a lot of tournament armies, including at DakkaCon, BAO, Nova, LVO, Warzone Atlanta, ATC, etc. that took a Battalion with "cheap" troops (Guard, Renegades and Heretics, heck even MSU Alaitoc Rangers) to provide enough CP to use with another allied detachment.
Likewise, they did not clarify how out-of-phase abilities work, how "Keywords vs Faction Keywords" really works ( RAW, the Daemon FAQ that states that only Faction Keyword Daemons can use Daemon Stratagems is still meaningless), and their errata to Overlapping Fields of Fire/Focused Fire still doesn't work.
Stratagem wrote:Before: You can add 1 to wound rolls for any other T'au Sept Units that target this unit in this phase.
The issue? A unit can target multiple units, and RAW, if one enemy unit failed a save and the Tau player popped Focus Fire, subsequent units could get +1 to wound all their targets provided they target the unit that activated the stratagem.
Errata wrote:After: Add 1 to wound rolls for attacks made by other T'au Sept Units that target this unit in this phase.
Instead of " +1 to wound for units that target," it's now "+1 for attacks made by units that target." RAW, units target while attacks resolve, so this FAQ ruling doesn't actually work.
Most Playtested Edition strikes again.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 20:45:24
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Duskweaver wrote:People whined about 'soup' being OP and now my not-even-remotely-competitive but fluffy and heavily converted Inquisition army is illegal in Matched Play. I can no longer field just two squads of SoS, I need to have either three or none. I can't field a single Assassin, I now need three of them. Having all the traditional Inquisitorial henchmen like Crusaders, Death Cultists, Hospitallers etc. split across multiple subfactions with silly keyword restrictions on their abilities (so that a Hospitaller can't even heal her own boss) was already a pain in the arse, but they now can't even go in the same detachment. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Hilariously, my much more competitive Night Lords army is completely unaffected. Even more hilariously, this is partly because it's (to many people) much less 'fluffy', in that it only has two squads of Raptors. If I'd built the usual 'fluffy' NL army, it'd have fallen foul of the Rule of 3.
I'm about done with GW at this point.
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 21:28:15
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
Daedalus81 wrote:
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
What's the context? Almost no one was using mixed detachments outside that sort of fluffy stuff. You already lose your faction benefits for doing so. That is completely stupid rule that does not improve balance one bit.
As balancing fixes go, overall this is a failure. Most of these changes benefit or do not negatively affect IG gunline, which was already on of the most potent builds in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 21:37:33
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Crimson wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
If you're viewing through only that lense then sure, it sounds bad, but the point of the changes weren't to make Duskweavers' fluffy Inquisition army more viable. You can field a single assassin in an Aux. Lists will change and the changes need to be viewed in context.
What's the context? Almost no one was using mixed detachments outside that sort of fluffy stuff. You already lose your faction benefits for doing so. That is completely stupid rule that does not improve balance one bit.
As balancing fixes go, overall this is a failure. Most of these changes benefit or do not negatively affect IG gunline, which was already on of the most potent builds in the game.
Write me up an IG gunline and let's analyze it.
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 21:43:13
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
I'm not gonna do that. However, being able to shoot firs turn in peace without having to worry about pesky deep strikers is a huge bonus for a gunline. And thanks to the squadrons, Leman Russes are pretty much unaffected by the dataslate limitation. Commissars also got buffed, though they needed that. But still a win for IG.
I also would really like to tell me what was the context in which the new soup detachment ban made sense.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/04/16 21:52:04
Subject: Do you think the new FAQ was good or bad?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Crimson wrote:
I'm not gonna do that. However, being able to shoot firs turn in peace without having to worry about pesky deep strikers is a huge bonus for a gunline. And thanks to the squadrons, Leman Russes are pretty much unaffected by the dataslate limitation. Commissars also got buffed, though they needed that. But still a win for IG.
And FW datasheets are still a problem, yes. I don't support the beta reserves rule in it's current form.
I also would really like to tell me what was the context in which the new soup detachment ban made sense.
There was plenty of assassin / celestine obnoxiousness.
|
|
|
|
|