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.

Not that you should give credence to someone's words, because of celebrity, but this person plays more games than all of us by far. I found this particular comment worth noting:

Thus far in the two games I’ve played under the new FAQ rules both have gone all the way to 6 without a clear winner being determined until at least 5. The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside. You’ll start to see list choices reflecting that, and the game will naturally slow down (from an action perspective not a time perspective).

https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/17/faq-breakdown-part-1/

Well his response is certainly less hysterical than what I've been reading on Dakka. So I imagine he'll be ignored.

I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The removal of T1 drops and restriction of oft spammed items may yet show a reduced damage output overall - barring IG.

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The previous paragraph is: "The loss of being able to use deep strike to establish board control and gain momentum on turn 1 will really shift armies and what they value. Durable units that can take shooting for a bit while they wait for reinforcements will see more play, and faster units that can effectively redeploy will be more valuable to make up for the momentum loss."

So less spam, faster units being more useful and more durable choices proliferating are the premises for his conclusion. I'm not sure I share his optimism, but I really hope he's right!

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The Rule of 3. By taking 5+ Onagers or 6+ Flying Hive Tyrants while taking minimal amounts of troops to fill out obligatory taxes, you're filling your army with the most punchy choices you can get. Without those choices, armies can bring less of their biggest and best weapons, and need to pad out their lists with less efficient choices that simply don't do as much damage. Often this may also mean more bodies and models on the table as well, which means more wounds to chew through.

The only top army that brought 3+ was Tyranids. I don't see the rule of 3 reducing firepower.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Well his response is certainly less hysterical than what I've been reading on Dakka. So I imagine he'll be ignored.

It fails to reinforce my personal world view and must therefore be either wrong or only right under circumstances that don't require me to be wrong.

People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

 Ordana wrote:
The only top army that brought 3+ was Tyranids. I don't see the rule of 3 reducing firepower.

IG Mortars
Plagueburst Crawlers
Dark Talons

I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.

Problem is, how do you kwantify that?

Also that sounds a like setup/ mission issue

 Earth127 wrote:
Problem is, how do you kwantify that?

Also that sounds a like setup/ mission issue

Missions are crucial to balance, but if you are tabled turn 2 it might not matter. And there's a limit to what they can save there.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

These beta rules are like decades old idea. Never worked before. Won't work just because it's Games Workshop that decided for it. You might believe in santa clause and magical fairies but I believe in actual empirical data. Which has shown these rules to be bad idea despite so many different variations being attempted. Already tried and failed idea won't become magically working just because Games Workshop decides to join the club of repeated failures.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Deep strike is destroyed and spam and soup are more or less unaffected by the change. Tyrants are the only unit hit hard by the rule of 3. It isn't an over reaction - it is genuine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If games are going to turn 6 they aren't actually fighting.

This is typical of a board that has too much effing terrain.

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

NO it really is an overreaction. Deepstrike is not destroyed, it just isn't noob stomper stupid. First turn deepstrike assault is bad in tournament play, other than maybe by flyrants. Reserves will now be more defensive than they are now.

Soup is not effected much Ynnari, assasins, celestine are really the only units that are much effective.

The rule of 3 knocks out PBC spam, Dark Talon Spam, Hive tyrants, hurts Reapers...probably some other stuff as well.

There are other changes that hurt top meta lists
Pox walkers requiring points to go above starting size is a big deal, Tide of traitors getting 1 per game. Eldar getting points increases on many key parts, and Word of the Phoenix going up in WC . Fire Raptors going up in points

There are other changes that people aren't really looking at right now as they lose their minds of OMG deepstrike is dead, and OMG rule of 3 sux.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW Rule of 3 is very good for tournament balance in the long run compared to unrestricted list building.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Deep strike is destroyed and spam and soup are more or less unaffected by the change. Tyrants are the only unit hit hard by the rule of 3. It isn't an over reaction - it is genuine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If games are going to turn 6 they aren't actually fighting.

This is typical of a board that has too much effing terrain.

Terrain sucks... now there's too much terrain. How much does it cost to take a trip on the over-emotional see-saws you guys ride around here?

 lolman1c wrote:
I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.

Casual games are what you make it. If you play a random person, discuss lists before hand or suffer the consequences. If I bring a bunch of vypers, falcons, wave serpents, etc to a game against a guy running two Shadowswords, and I don't say something before we start, it is definitely my fault. We are playing two different versions of the same game at that point.

I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

Did it ever occur to you that GW doing it allows it to work in ways that random TO doing it never could? Did it also never occur to you that it makes bad armies unable to hide behind one good choice and be seen as ok. If we go off the assumption that organized play will be the source of all testing going forward, it is exceptionally hard to do so if every army is literally "choose single best unit as many times as I can" that lets them fix one unit at a time by jacking up points. Seems like a poor method vs, armies having multiple different units and if certain armies lack enough units that are good, maybe they get a buff. Now maybe that doesn't happen, but this idea that POINTS are all that are needed to balance things makes for a very unbalanced environment and makes balance much more difficult to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.

This goes along way to showing why you think gunlines are OP. If you play in a shooting gallery gunlines are always OP.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.

For the record, Nick Nanavati played Chaos (the famous poxwalker list) at Adepticon so his most recent list was killed completely by the FAQ. It isn't really accurate to say he plays any particular army, he moves to whatever he thinks will put him in the best position to win (nothing wrong with that of course, it's the game he plays).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

What was 2++ rerollable assaults, Superfriends, and other such assaults doing in 7th then?

You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

What was 2++ rerollable assaults, Superfriends, and other such assaults doing in 7th then?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

WAT

You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.

Did it ever occur to you that GW doing it allows it to work in ways that random TO doing it never could? Did it also never occur to you that it makes bad armies unable to hide behind one good choice and be seen as ok. If we go off the assumption that organized play will be the source of all testing going forward, it is exceptionally hard to do so if every army is literally "choose single best unit as many times as I can" that lets them fix one unit at a time by jacking up points. Seems like a poor method vs, armies having multiple different units and if certain armies lack enough units that are good, maybe they get a buff. Now maybe that doesn't happen, but this idea that POINTS are all that are needed to balance things makes for a very unbalanced environment and makes balance much more difficult to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.

This goes along way to showing why you think gunlines are OP. If you play in a shooting gallery gunlines are always OP.

The power between gunline and DS assault style armies was pretty good - they just fcked that up by taking turn 1 DS away. That's why gunlines are now OP.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.

So let me get this straight xeno: You think gunlines are way op while simultaneously too much terrain is bad and games that go to round 6 are for wussies?
.... Wow

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.

The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.

For the record, Nick Nanavati played Chaos (the famous poxwalker list) at Adepticon so his most recent list was killed completely by the FAQ. It isn't really accurate to say he plays any particular army, he moves to whatever he thinks will put him in the best position to win (nothing wrong with that of course, it's the game he plays).

I said "if he is still running Eldar." If he's not, the impact will be different. But bouncing from one piece of absolute cheese to another doesn't necessarily mean he's good at list building. The netlists he played so far are well documented before he started playing them.

Anyway. I wouldn't treat him as an authority on this specific case.