2018 Big FAQ - how will it affect your list?

[Ishagu]

Command Points need to be re-worked. Here is an elegant solution:

 

You gain 1 command point for every 150 points spent on your primary detachment as long as it's battle-forged.

 

A 2k army comprised of a single detachment would have 13 Command Points for example, with an additional 3 for being battle forged.

[UnkyHamHam]

Command Points need to be re-worked. Here is an elegant solution:

 

You gain 1 command point for every 150 points spent on your primary detachment as long as it's battle-forged.

 

A 2k army comprised of a single detachment would have 13 Command Points for example, with an additional 3 for being battle forged.

I don't find this an elegant solution at all. I much prefer the current system of rewarding troops over that. It's more pregame math too. Which is fine and all, but once so many solutions are adding in so much math it gets hard to keep track of. Maybe that's just me.

 

I do like the idea of receiving an extra 3 CP from using a single codex to battle Forge your army. Marines and Custodes could certainly use it.

[Ishagu]

Problem is, a Guard player can get 13 command points for spending 540 points.

 

How many do you think Grey Knights or Custodes get for that much?

 

This needs to be addressed!

[UnkyHamHam]

Problem is, a Guard player can get 13 command points for spending 540 points.

 

How many do you think Grey Knights or Custodes get for that much?

 

This needs to be addressed!

Once all factions reach a critical point in CPs, which I feel is around 15 or so, it doesn't really matter that you have a dozen more, or can farm an infinite amount.

 

The elite players will be able to front load strategem combos in the first few turns reliably, and tip the scales. You can only use so many a turn, and one of each per phase at most. Having all those extras really only acts as a stalling or comeback mechanic for the high CP armies like guard.

 

So if I fielded a double battalion with new faq bonus and the theoretical +3CP for using a mono codex army, that's 16 CPs. A really healthy amount for Codex Marines with our current Strategem lot.

 

All in my opinion of course.

[HighMarshalAmp]

 

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.

 

That last part would bug me - if you're running an all-ranged army or all-melee, then the tactics will work, but as soon as you don't 100% complement your army's tactic with the units you choose, you waste potential.

Chapter tactics would have to be different than they are now. Not focussed on a certain aspect of combat. And if you have 6 different variants of the same noncommittal tactic, then where's the fun in that?

 

Nah, maybe leave it at "If you have an All-Astartes Army, each Detachment gets the Tactics of the Chapter it's drawn from.", I'd be on board with that.

 

 

Command Points need to be re-worked. Here is an elegant solution:

 

You gain 1 command point for every 150 points spent on your primary detachment as long as it's battle-forged.

 

A 2k army comprised of a single detachment would have 13 Command Points for example, with an additional 3 for being battle forged.

I don't find this an elegant solution at all. I much prefer the current system of rewarding troops over that. It's more pregame math too. Which is fine and all, but once so many solutions are adding in so much math it gets hard to keep track of. Maybe that's just me.

 

I do like the idea of receiving an extra 3 CP from using a single codex to battle Forge your army. Marines and Custodes could certainly use it.

 

The current system alto mitigates one aspect of the current unit choices I perceive as a flaw: it gives Troop Choices an actual value!

 

I mean, sure, Tac Squads are fine objective grabbers, but a Dev Squad - which cost the same bare-bones - does the same thing with a nice boost for the Heavy Weapon. And with the new multi-use Combi-Bolters, you still have your Sergeant for the special weapons.

 

So if you don't go full-on Intercessor (and those of us who still have Tac Squads left from 7th ed's Troop Tax sans Primaris probably won't go full-on Intercessor), they everything but your Scouts isn't quite what it used to be and for many tasks, there's at least one unit that can do it better.

 

Cue the Battalion Detachment.

3 Devastator Squads, for example, + 1 HQ net you 1CP.

3 Tactical Squads + 2 HQs net you 5CP. Which you can then use to give your Tac Squads an edge and get them on par with the Devastators.

 

Your suggestion of adding 3CP as a bonus for a single faction Army would work nicely with that!

[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.

That last part would bug me - if you're running an all-ranged army or all-melee, then the tactics will work, but as soon as you don't 100% complement your army's tactic with the units you choose, you waste potential.

Chapter tactics would have to be different than they are now. Not focussed on a certain aspect of combat. And if you have 6 different variants of the same noncommittal tactic, then where's the fun in that?

 

Nah, maybe leave it at "If you have an All-Astartes Army, each Detachment gets the Tactics of the Chapter it's drawn from.", I'd be on board with that.

 

I don't see the problem you're talking about.

[MARK0SIAN]

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.

 

;)

The bonus to mono-codex armies doesn’t have to be command points based though. This is the problem with 8th. We all agree the command point system is broken yet we are still trying to use it to balance things. Command points in their current form will never be able to be fairly balanced.

 

As for the bonuses to mono-codex armies, what about discounts on certain units like transports, access to different stratagems, objective secured for all units, +1 to the first turn dice roll etc.

 

There’s lots of bonuses we can give that are not command point based. We need to lose our obsession with command points this edition. They’ve been used as a balancing tool when they should just be a bonus to your build :)

[UnkyHamHam]

 

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.

 

;)

The bonus to mono-codex armies doesn’t have to be command points based though. This is the problem with 8th. We all agree the command point system is broken yet we are still trying to use it to balance things. Command points in their current form will never be able to be fairly balanced.

 

As for the bonuses to mono-codex armies, what about discounts on certain units like transports, access to different stratagems, objective secured for all units, +1 to the first turn dice roll etc.

 

There’s lots of bonuses we can give that are not command point based. We need to lose our obsession with command points this edition. They’ve been used as a balancing tool when they should just be a bonus to your build :)

Strategems are probably one of the most interesting thing about 8th that I can think of. It's what turns a mirror match into something else entirely and adds player choice and agency to the game. Not to mention flavor. Something last edition had a lot of, but has been sucked out of this edition in favor of simplicity.

 

You suggest various alternatives...

 

Discounts - this was attempted last edition much to most people's dismay. Those discounts were the crutch of Marines and Admech when fielded a certain way. I definitely don't want to see this return on the scale it was in before.

 

Strategems - I agree here, but giving CP is almost just as good. And you are contradicting your post by even suggesting this.

 

Obsec for all - Custodes have this. It isn't exactly helping them that much. I would also like to deter from things that devalue troops.

 

+1 to get first turn - we already have this. And even with the this bonus it's still a do or die roll off. It's not very compelling or adding any tactical depth.

 

Ultimately, Strategems and CP are the key. Go tally up the strats of each recent codex, then remove the sub faction specifics. C:SM has remarkably VERY few compared to newer books. Even fewer of those are usable or require specific army builds to be applicable. It's really knee capping us right now. Last 3 xenos codexes have superb strategems. And more options in general.

[Captain Idaho]

In addition to 3 Detachments per army, limiting it to no duplication would force Horde armies to take Brigades and thus spend points.

 

Another way would be making it so some armies don't have access to a Battlion but I fear that would scare too many Astra Millitarum armies.

 

Though I preferred my 1st idea way back that only armies from the same Codex Faction as the Warlord can generate Command Points.

[Captain Idaho]

Here's another problem with multi Codex armies - Tyranids with Kronos shooting elements and Kraken Genestealers and another Hive Fleet for other stuff...

 

The more we discuss it the more I want it disposed of and consigned to narrative play.

 

After all, you want the narrative from Books so play the narrative in the appropriate manner - narrative play.

 

The alternative is we all suffer in Matched Play because of a minority of narrative players who won't play narrative games.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

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.

 

;)

The bonus to mono-codex armies doesn’t have to be command points based though. This is the problem with 8th. We all agree the command point system is broken yet we are still trying to use it to balance things. Command points in their current form will never be able to be fairly balanced.

 

As for the bonuses to mono-codex armies, what about discounts on certain units like transports, access to different stratagems, objective secured for all units, +1 to the first turn dice roll etc.

 

There’s lots of bonuses we can give that are not command point based. We need to lose our obsession with command points this edition. They’ve been used as a balancing tool when they should just be a bonus to your build :)

Strategems are probably one of the most interesting thing about 8th that I can think of. It's what turns a mirror match into something else entirely and adds player choice and agency to the game. Not to mention flavor. Something last edition had a lot of, but has been sucked out of this edition in favor of simplicity.

 

You suggest various alternatives...

 

Discounts - this was attempted last edition much to most people's dismay. Those discounts were the crutch of Marines and Admech when fielded a certain way. I definitely don't want to see this return on the scale it was in before.

 

Strategems - I agree here, but giving CP is almost just as good. And you are contradicting your post by even suggesting this.

 

Obsec for all - Custodes have this. It isn't exactly helping them that much. I would also like to deter from things that devalue troops.

 

+1 to get first turn - we already have this. And even with the this bonus it's still a do or die roll off. It's not very compelling or adding any tactical depth.

 

Ultimately, Strategems and CP are the key. Go tally up the strats of each recent codex, then remove the sub faction specifics. C:SM has remarkably VERY few compared to newer books. Even fewer of those are usable or require specific army builds to be applicable. It's really knee capping us right now. Last 3 xenos codexes have superb strategems. And more options in general.

It’s hardly a contradiction to suggest additional stratagems instead of more or less command points. I might personally think stratagems and command points aren’t good but other people like them and they aren’t going anywhere so I might as well try to put them to good use as an incentive and a bonus. And this is exactly what they should be, armies should not have to rely on stratagems for flavour or to simply be effective.

 

And the reason I dislike stratagems seems to be for the exact same reason you like them. You are absolutely right, all the flavour has been sucked out and turned into stratagems, I’d rather the armies were given their flavour back and not forced to rely on stratagems for it.

 

+1 to first turn does already exist but with mine you would then get +2 if you deployed first. A very powerful incentive to stick to the same codex.

 

Custodes are also a special case for objective secured, it doesn’t help them much because (although they are a great codex) they simply lack the things you need to be truly competitive in 8th.

 

With discounts, it would need to be done carefully but just because it didn’t work well in 7th doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

[HighMarshalAmp]

 

I don't see the problem you're talking about.

 

Which part?

 

 

Here's another problem with multi Codex armies - Tyranids with Kronos shooting elements and Kraken Genestealers and another Hive Fleet for other stuff...

 

The more we discuss it the more I want it disposed of and consigned to narrative play.

 

After all, you want the narrative from Books so play the narrative in the appropriate manner - narrative play.

 

The alternative is we all suffer in Matched Play because of a minority of narrative players who won't play narrative games.

 

There would be a rather easy fix for that GW might just put out there to silence this once and for all:

 

1) Ditch Open Play (Who does that anyway? If you try to balance Open Play, you're veering into the other Plays' territory already).

 

2) Add Balanced Narrative Play - Same as Matched Play but without the restrictions on Allies.

 

That would honor the Narrative Crowd by not just telling them to do whatever and if they want balance just use Matched Play rules.

Putting what most people are doing already anyway in writing would go a long way, because the problem is not that there is no way to play a balanced narrative game, the problem is that games that honor GWs fluff are just barely recognized and the fluff gets driven out of Matched Play more and more in the name of balance.

 

So people who want to play balanced fluff games would just like to feel they get some credit and have their own mode, not "Do whatever you want and if you want balance, just idk... tweak the rules of another play mode that's currently being reworked to have even less of what you want in your games."

That just hurts!

 

And no, these folks are not the ones who have spammed Death Star units and had to be stopped by the FAQ!

[Panzer]

 

 

I don't see the problem you're talking about.

 

Which part?

 

 

Uhm, your whole post?

[HighMarshalAmp]

 

 

 

I don't see the problem you're talking about.

 

Which part?

Uhm, your whole post?

XD ok, let me try again - you don't have to agree, but at least you should get a chance to see what I mean!

 

Essentially, given your idea, Imperial Tactics would be an army-wide special rule that affects every single model.

So would Astartes and Chapter Tactics.

 

Imperial Tactics would have to be something every Imperial model would have to profit from at least a little bit.

 

Astartes Tactics could be a sweet thing, fine-tuned to make non-horde units more viable.

 

But Chapter Tactics? Here, they'd apply to the whole army!

So you'd need one rule per Chapter that doesn't only play to that Chapter's strengths, but still complements everything on the field!

 

Because reducing White Scars to Bikes, Templars to brawlery and Raven Guard to Guerilla Warfare opens up great synergies when combined in an army, like a 50 man Kill Team, but army wide Chapter Tactics would only apply if you only play one Chapter!

 

Then, you'd either build the army around that tactic and spam bikes or whatever your Chapter does best - or you'd play by the Astartes Tactics only and a White Scars/ Black Templars army would play exactly the same as an Ultramarines/ Salamanders force!

 

So none of the Chapters would have any identity if you don't play them exclusively!

[Panzer]

 

 

 

I don't see the problem you're talking about.

Which part?

Uhm, your whole post?

XD ok, let me try again - you don't have to agree, but at least you should get a chance to see what I mean!

 

Essentially, given your idea, Imperial Tactics would be an army-wide special rule that affects every single model.

So would Astartes and Chapter Tactics.

 

Imperial Tactics would have to be something every Imperial model would have to profit from at least a little bit.

 

Astartes Tactics could be a sweet thing, fine-tuned to make non-horde units more viable.

 

But Chapter Tactics? Here, they'd apply to the whole army!

So you'd need one rule per Chapter that doesn't only play to that Chapter's strengths, but still complements everything on the field!

 

Because reducing White Scars to Bikes, Templars to brawlery and Raven Guard to Guerilla Warfare opens up great synergies when combined in an army, like a 50 man Kill Team, but army wide Chapter Tactics would only apply if you only play one Chapter!

 

Then, you'd either build the army around that tactic and spam bikes or whatever your Chapter does best - or you'd play by the Astartes Tactics only and a White Scars/ Black Templars army would play exactly the same as an Ultramarines/ Salamanders force!

 

So none of the Chapters would have any identity if you don't play them exclusively!

 

 

Yeah I know what you meant but I simply don't see the problem. Why would White Scars be reduced to Bikes etc? They can just keep the Chapter tactics they currently have which actually works better with Jump Pack infantry than with Bikes even. GW took care about Chapter tactics & co working on most of the models and not on a single unit for a reason.

Tho I've to admit I was mainly talking about stratagems, relics and warlord traits and not necessarily about the tactics/traits/doctrines/whatever.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Going back to the suggestion of free stuff, I don't ever want to see that in 40K again.  If it is something miniscule, like the 5th edition C:SM granting 10-man Tactical Squads free/discounted heavy weapons, that's okay, but the Battle Company with its free APCs for everyone?  That was soooo many free points it was game-breaking.  Warmachine is suffering similar issues with its Theme Force benefits right now, where people are playing mostly the themes that grant the most free points in models.  We gamers are a competitive bunch and as a whole we latch onto just about anything that will give us that advantage.  If you start handing out free stuff willy-nilly as part of army building, you're going to see a re-tread of last edition and the Battle Company shenanigans.

[Panzer]

Yeah, there's a place for thematic free stuff now. It's called Narrative Play. Keep that stuff out of proper Matched Play.

[The Unseen]

Extra points is a very very bad way of balancing.

 

Strategems, CP changes, army specific detatchments, all of those are good to be looked at.

 

Allies in matched play needs to die before the game will ever be balanced, I said it when 8th dropped, and I'm still saying it now.

Matched play should be mono codex, nah, mono-"specific faction". No picking and choosing the best tactic for each piece of your army.

 

If you want to play your themed allies list, narrative exists for a reason.

[HighMarshalAmp]

Extra points is a very very bad way of balancing.

 

Strategems, CP changes, army specific detatchments, all of those are good to be looked at.

 

Allies in matched play needs to die before the game will ever be balanced, I said it when 8th dropped, and I'm still saying it now.

Matched play should be mono codex, nah, mono-"specific faction". No picking and choosing the best tactic for each piece of your army.

 

If you want to play your themed allies list, narrative exists for a reason.

But where do different Chapters/ Septs/ Dynasties fall in there?

'cause it sounds like you can only have one and as it stands... I've made my feelings about that clear ad nauseam.

 

Why should it be banned to combine multiple factions from the same codex?

They're there for a reason!

If you want drastically different play styles, then get a few more codices. But one Codex should always be allowed to be played to the full extent of it's contents!

 

Also, if you then want to only have one faction fighting, you can do that in Narrative Play...

 

 

And after GW read this thread, we'll get a BA Codex, DA Codex, Wolves, UM, BT, Salamanders, RG...

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know what you meant but I simply don't see the problem. Why would White Scars be reduced to Bikes etc? They can just keep the Chapter tactics they currently have which actually works better with Jump Pack infantry than with Bikes even. GW took care about Chapter tactics & co working on most of the models and not on a single unit for a reason.

Tho I've to admit I was mainly talking about stratagems, relics and warlord traits and not necessarily about the tactics/traits/doctrines/whatever.

 

 

Well, saying 'reduced' might be too much, but in my UM gunline, I don't need any CC benefits and my Templars don't care for anything that makes them shoot better.

Which is great as long as I can combine both of them and gain their respective benefits.

 

Now Relics and Stratagems? Limiting those in the way you've suggested, I think I'd like that!

[Captain Idaho]

It's much more narrative to have Black Templars fighting alone than alongside Ultramarines.

 

I'm actually shocked so many Black Templars plans are so supportive of allies. Shouldn't you be clamouring for a change in the Codex to make Black Templars better on the table when undiluted with allies than holding onto something that is contributing to breaking the balance of the game?

[Dracos]

As vanilla as the Space Marine Codex is I find it difficult to listen to the idea that is cheese to use multiple Chapters out of a single Codex as weak as the Space Marine. It might be the one way to go mono-Codex and make them half way competitive. They just don’t get the buffs individually that DA BA or SW get and even those armies dont become close to top tier unles it’s in mixed list.

 

Mind you it’s not how I would play at club or store level (narrative) but if I was going to hit a tournament circuit (matched play) yeah.

[HighMarshalAmp]

It's much more narrative to have Black Templars fighting alone than alongside Ultramarines.

 

I'm actually shocked so many Black Templars plans are so supportive of allies. Shouldn't you be clamouring for a change in the Codex to make Black Templars better on the table when undiluted with allies

You got it the wrong way - many Ultramarines players need some Templar support to stand half a chance in CC!

 

Honestly, within the codex, I feel that the Templars are something special anyway - they have the best Chapter Tactic to complement their melee style by far imo and if you feel the need to add some shoot guys, you get an additional 50% of big guns with the Crusader Squad compared to the Tac Squads.

 

Would I get a Black Templar Codex if GW decided they shall go the route of the 1k Sons and be a small, but once again separate army?

Hell yes!

 

 

than holding onto something that is contributing to breaking the balance of the game?

 

Really?

You really think that the different factions within a codex are contributing breaking the balance of the game?

 

Edit: let me also raise this point: everyone's getting them!

So they make everyone hit harder while giving everyone more flavor!

[Kierdale]

Is the Caestus Air Ram a more viable way of delivering TDA now?

[Ishagu]

Is the Caestus Air Ram a more viable way of delivering TDA now?

I've always thought it's a great model and the rules are solid. Jut the points are a bit high - if it had a drop of 50 points I'd be singing it's praises.

[Panzer]

Defintiely one of my favorite SM vehicles model-wise but no clue about the rules. I never really see it on tables. Neither in my local meta nor on batreps.