2018 Big FAQ - how will it affect your list?

[Deathwalker]

 

 

I agree that they need some logic behind giving points to units, however it's not that easy unfortunately. The value of S and T changes depending on what you face and what kind of weapon you're equipped with. The value of weapons changes depending on the BS of the model using it. The value of armor and wounds changes depending on what you get hit with. And so on and on.

 

Notice I did not address weapon costs, and said that they should be scaled (tailored) for the delivery mechanism. If a lascannon costs 10 pnts for a tac marine, then let it cost 15 for a dev as they have the inbuilt +1 to hit for one model and a special gubbins to use it twice in a round, I'm totally fine with that.

 

Then things change again depending on special rules. Yours and the target ones. Then depending on Stratagems and traits.

That's a army choice issue, and special rules should be a bonus, not a cost. My BA should not be more expensive cause of red thirst, nor should a DA marine be more expensive because of grim resolve Should guard cost more because of orders?

They definitely can do better than currently, but I doubt it'll ever be perfect without making things way too complicated for most people. It's a board game and not a computer simulation after all.

 

The beauty of back end design is that the players don't NEED to see it, just know that people work on it, much like a computer game. I don't need to be a modder to appreciate their work. 

That didn't work,hope it makes sense however..

[Captain Idaho]

The thing about Open Play is it's Open. As in if you want Matched Play with free allies you can do that in Open Play. Whatever you want. Open Play .

 

If you want Matched Play in it's purest form you play Match Play and accept all the things about it. Restrictions and all.

 

Frankly it smacks of protectionism really. People who like to take all the little bonus Astra Millitarum and mix them with Blood Angels for massive amounts of Command Points and first turn charges seem to be making a lot of noise about the changes.

 

Lastly, if you really cared about your theme you wouldn't care if you didn't get loads of benefits for taking it. It's funny how all the Theme players didn't exist when they got few benefits to said theme and when the next powerful thing comes in the theme changes...

[MARK0SIAN]

To be fair I know what you mean about bandwagon jumpers and allies but from my perspective I’ve played the same allies since well before 8th and I continue to do so. I would still play them if they received no benefits in terms of command points etc. Sisters of silence and Custodes are relatively new in terms of models but they go together, my Templars, knights and Astra Militarum force is based on the Helsreach novel (knights being the closest I can get to a Titan).

 

I’m happy not to receive any benefits for allies (other than the benefits that go with those models obviously) and I’ve actually never liked the command point system as a concept so if it was removed I wouldn’t shed a tear. The point is though, I wouldn’t be happy at all to have allies removed from matched play simply because GW have created a really sloppy rules system that is open to abuse. It’s not impossible to balance allies in matched play, it just needs some sensible fixes.

[Captain Idaho]

Reasonable compromise eh.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

I disagree with you guys. I like mixed army rules. And I think that this change that detachment must from be same <key word> faction beside imperium is enough.

You cant' take super extra supreme command detachment and that is ok. But why I can't take guard as allies? Or inquisition? Or antoher SM chapter. You said that there is strong bond between fluff and game in 40k. How many battles was fought just with one army? without any support? 

No I think that changes that was made are ok, and they don't need to go further. 

I like this system and I think that from game perspective is ok, because there is much more options to consider, and much more diversity (not in uber competetive level), but on normal match play level, that I play with friends. 

[momerathe]

What they should have done is apply the battle-forged restrictions at the army level, not detachment (with optional exceptions for inquisitors and the like). So you can have your soup, but you lose chapter tactics and regimental doctrines.

[Dracos]

I appreciate what GW and WAAC players are doing for the game. Where as when I began, you had to wait for a new Edition to hopefully correct the craziness, now they’re doing it through FAQ and Chapter Approved every few months. 8th is less than a year old and thanks to this new way of monitoring their product I suspect most of the worst bugs should be shaken loose before it’s even 2 years old. Kudos. The pendulum might have to swing back and forth a couple times to get a good balance but it’s much better than even 7th from what I hear.

 

Next on the list ...

 

My guesss is squadrons, further dialing down on spam, and a way to get the “elite” Codexes to better work as stand alone armies.

[Ishagu]

Why are people getting so concerned over the state of the game on the top tournament tables?

 

Look at your local meta. Are players with mixed armies dominating your local scene? Is it beyond reason to ask them to tone down their lists in friendly games?

 

My only concern is rules ammendments affecting my army composition and damaging the existing units.

 

Edit: Typo

[Dracos]

I think you kind of answered your own question. :) My assumption (and we all know what those are worth lol) is people see that the tournament level play is resulting in rule changes in Matched Play. Which in my experience is usually preferred in pick up games, because it’s seen as the most “fair” way to set up a spur of the moment game and make it equal on both sides with a lot of bartering back and forth that requires a level of trust normally reserved for friends who club play.

 

Just my opinion on the why, because I doubt everyone up in arms are actually tournament players. Though obviously some are, or like myself plan to be soon :D

[crazyterran]

For my current lists not much has changed, my competitve one had to drop a few upgrades to make room for Guilliman, though Im seriously considering switching to Calgar and Lieutenant. Dropping Guilliman allows me to squeeze in an extra Razorback and an Apothecary, but loses out on the beat stick that is the Primarch.

 

Oh well, at least its an actual choice and thought process now, rather than just brainlessly sticking Guilliman in.

 

Over all this FAQ was pretty disappointing, I was hoping the various Marine armies would get tactics for their vehicles, but alas. Insuppose driving a Predator requires braining yourself on the Cupola on the way in to make you forget how your chapter fights. Perhaps the techmarine gets a lobotomy?

 

Honestly command points are pretty bad as they are, I would rather armies recieve ratings and grt command points based on it, with characters, relics or subfactions granting bonuses, with mixed armies of the same mega faction (Imperium, Chaos, etc.) using the highest of whatever the army is made up of.

 

In doing this, however, I would make the Batallion detachment required in all Matched Play list building. Any allied detachments would be able to use any of the others, but the Warlord's faction must make up at least one batallion. (Certain armies like Drukhari could get exceptions in their book.)

 

Say Space Marines have a command rating of five, with Guilliman adding three, so gets eight command points. Guard could have a rating of four, Cadians getting an extra one, with Creed giving another on top of that.

 

Yes, its a reduction in command points for most armies, i imagine, but they should be a limited resource, not something you have in plenty.

[MARK0SIAN]

I appreciate what GW and WAAC players are doing for the game. Where as when I began, you had to wait for a new Edition to hopefully correct the craziness, now they’re doing it through FAQ and Chapter Approved every few months. 8th is less than a year old and thanks to this new way of monitoring their product I suspect most of the worst bugs should be shaken loose before it’s even 2 years old. Kudos. The pendulum might have to swing back and forth a couple times to get a good balance but it’s much better than even 7th from what I hear.

 

Next on the list ...

 

My guesss is squadrons, further dialing down on spam, and a way to get the “elite” Codexes to better work as stand alone armies.

I’m really hoping they don’t remove squadrons. Limiting an army like Astra Militarum to just three tanks seems like a real crime against the army where tanks are a huge part of their theme.

[crazyterran]

7 tanks, Pask, 3 tank commanders, 3 Russ.

[Dracos]

I’m more concerned with trying to get to the 9 Basilisk :eek screened by the hundred or so wounds that are between them and their opponent. How about 9 Talos? 27 Shining Spears? I could be wrong of course. Probably I am. Squadrons have been around forever. I just see that as where the next level of Spam is going to go.

[Brother Captain Ed]

Squadrons have been around forever. I just see that as where the next level of Spam is going to go.

That's the nature of these GW adjustments: benign functions that have always been unremarkable suddenly cause major issues as they fill the void caused by the change to other rules.

 

If the God of Unintended Consequences had an avatar, it would be the Games Workshop rules team.

[Dracos]

Oh I don’t know about “benign” :). I’ve played against more than one kind of armored company in my day since 3rd edition and they are always a pain for an All-comers List of Vanilla Marines. Same with the Shining Spears. Those guys are fast and deadly. Eldar always have gotten all the best toys though :)

 

 

Full disclosure: I’ve also been the guy playing those kinds of list. We had a pretty competitive club back then

[Brother Captain Ed]

By "benign" I just mean "Something that doesn't completely break open what game balance exists if you have the time, resources, and inclination." Not "worthless."

[Dracos]

Absolutely :)

[Panzer]

What they should have done is apply the battle-forged restrictions at the army level, not detachment (with optional exceptions for inquisitors and the like). So you can have your soup, but you lose chapter tactics and regimental doctrines.

 

Agreed. Plus a more gradual system for faction specific stuff.

Get access to more generic stratagems etc. the more generic your army-wide faction keyword is and the more restrictice your army-wide faction keyword is the more stratagems etc. you get to play with. So:

if you have a mixed Imperium army with AM, and SM -> get access to the Imperium stratagems etc.

if you have a mixed Adeptus Astartes army with different chapters -> get access to the Imperium and Adeputs Astartes stratagems etc.

if you have an army with just Raven Guard -> get access to the Imperium, Adeptus Astartes and Raven Guard stratagems etc.

[Tamiel]

A mono-army is fluffy too. Most armies probably work alone more often than with allies. Even when Space Marines and Guard are working together on the same planet, it's still likely that most of their actual battles may be fought in different places. So, even when they are allied on the same planet or campaign, you can still see them working as mono-armies. We all know that Guard are used for attrition warfare in the lore, and space marines are used more for surgical strikes. So in the lore, it's possible that they are given different missions and battles because of this.

So I will make a bold statement: Mono-armies are more fluffy than soup lists.

[MARK0SIAN]

I would actually say it’s the opposite way around. Take the Space Marines Battles novel series. In over half of them the space marines are fighting alongside at least one other branch of the Imperiums armed forces, whether its guard, mechanicum, titans, Adeptus sororitas, inquisition or another element. And those are the novels that are meant to focus on the space marines. In other novels it’s just as common if you don’t include the Horus Heresy series.

 

Ironically it’s actually only the imperial guard novels where it’s mainly just guard fighting with no help from other forces. I take what you’re saying about different missions and roles but you can reflect that on the table. Your guard allies can form a firing line and you can use your marines for surgical strikes.

[Captain Idaho]

The whole war zone sees Marines fighting together but individual battles are usual Marines only missions.

 

Bottom line is you can write background for anything you want. Realistically the game needs to be balanced.

 

Is there a way you can play with your fluffy army ? Yes it's narrative play.

[MARK0SIAN]

Actually in those books it’s normally marines and someone else in the same battle. In Helsreach the marines, titans and guard all defend the hive, in Rynns world the pdf defend the walls alongside the crimson Fists, in wrath of iron the titans, guard and marines all storm the citadel, in purging of Kallidus the Dark Angels and PDF both defend the ridge approaching the city, in Calgar’s Siege the ultramarines own human auxiliaries fight alongside the marines and even the iron warriors fight alongside their human slave-soldiers in siege of Castellax. I could go on but we’ve already shared our views on it and I don’t think either of us will convince the other with regard to allies :)

 

What I would like to see is mono-codex armies being able to hold their own against allied forces and to me, that comes from improving mono-codex armies rather than nerfing or banning allied forces.

[Captain Idaho]

Mono-Codex armies just aren't going to hold their own unless there is a penalty to offset the advantage of cherry picking units that offset army weaknesses.

[MARK0SIAN]

Mono-Codex armies just aren't going to hold their own unless there is a penalty to offset the advantage of cherry picking units that offset army weaknesses.

I agree on your principle but I would rather a bonus to the mono-codex force than a penalty to the allied force. Penalty implies you’re being punished for doing something wrong whereas the bonus feels like a reward for specialising :)

[Captain Idaho]

The problem with a bonus is where is it coming from? "Your army gets 3 extra Command Points for being chosen entirely from 1 Codex" is exactly the same as "your army loses 3 Command Points if it isn't chosen from a single Codex".

 

And as we can see, Command Points are easily made up because you take an extra Battalion of Astra Millitarum for only 150pts and now you have numbers, cheap objective campers and more Command Points.

 

So a "penalty" is the only way.

 

And why is it a penalty? I thought you wanted a theme? Now you're saying it's any unfair penalty to get free access to multiple books Strategums and Relics as well as shore up your army's weakness?

 

Surely if you wanted such a theme in Matched Play you wouldn't mind choosing a single Codex books Strategums and Relics like your mono Codex opponent? Is that not fair? You still have the advantage as you just flooded the board with cheap troops so now you outnumber your opponent, have big tanks and elite core - i.e. no weakness.

 

;)