BA & The Big FAQ 2!

[brother_b]

 

I would have liked them to add a first turn -1 to shooting for all non-los firing models. This could represent them getting into cover or something but would have helped us against those units we have absolutely no chance of reaching first turn.

 

Those units are rather rare and not exactly THE problem tho. Could be something to errata in for specifically those units on their datasheets but that's not something to add as general rule imo.

 

 

Rare? In what, tournaments? Maybe. It's not rare around here though, and probably with many other clubs, etc. I play IG guys, and many of them have multiple non-LOS units, including mortars and basilisks, etc. Weight of fire power hurts. They set most of those units up out of LOS, and I can't touch them with my melee centric BA.

 

I'd be good with that added in on datasheets. I don't want it to be a general rule for all, just the Non-LOS shooty units for first turn.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

IG is and always has been weak in and of itself only moreso now.

[Panzer]

Not exactly true. They aren't weak on their own right now and they weren't in 8th so far. They just aren't a top tier army on their own.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

IG is and always has been weak in and of itself only moreso now.

They can shoot just about anyone off the table. So I dont know where that is coming from. Plasma executioners don't care about get hot rolls and pump out a ton of shots.

 

You also have all the cheap mortar teams and LoS ignoring 4d6 shots with shred. They are a brutal army to play against.

[Morticon]

 

From what I have heard on podcasts, it likely came from the idea of dropping a unit 10" above an enemy in terrain and then charging for a 1" charge because you didn't count vertical distance when charging. The lead rules designer was at NOVA and saw it happen during one of the streamed games on the first day of the Invitational.

This is a common misconception: there was an FAQ ruling in one of the PDFs (possibly the Rulebook FAQ) that made the 0" vertical charge possibly by allowing units with FLY to ignore the vertical distance, the same as how Reiver Grappling Hooks work.

 

The current Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf did not change this*: the 0" charge fix was done by removing the previous ruling.

 

To be clear: the Big FAQ 2 FLY nerf was on top of removing the 0" charge.

 

 

Edit:

* I mean, it does change it; but that wasn't what actually changed it properly. They could have, if they took even five seconds to think about it, instead just said that FLY units having to measure diagonally - that would mean that dropping on rooftops wouldn't necessarily make it a short charge; perhaps shorter than non-vertically, but not by much.

 

exactly this!!!!!!! 

 

IG is and always has been weak in and of itself only moreso now.

They can shoot just about anyone off the table. So I dont know where that is coming from. Plasma executioners don't care about get hot rolls and pump out a ton of shots.

 

You also have all the cheap mortar teams and LoS ignoring 4d6 shots with shred. They are a brutal army to play against.

 

Agreed.  IG broke the local meta at home.

[STTAB]

Played 2 games post FAQ2. Play Dark Angels (mostly Ravenwing) and Blood Angels.

 

Smash Captain is still great. Just have to carve a hole in screens T1 and drop him T2 and the Ravenwing do a great job at that (talonmaster has ignore cover aura for Ravenwing).

 

Mephiston and Libby dread have done great work for me. If you cast WoS T1, then again T2 they can cover (7or6" +D6"advance)+36" before charging T2 after floating over those screens.

 

Against wolves (going second), T1 the Libby dread got into combat with a relic leviathan Dread (twin storm canons) and smashed it.

 

In his last game Mephiston got into a static Guard gunline T2 (hammer and anvil deployment), finished off a leman Russ, a hydra and consolidated into another leman Russ to shut it down. It then took an impressive amount of shooting to kill him.

 

I put 2 close combat scout squads in a basic rhino and use Lucifer Pattern Engines for the 6" advance and then pop smoke. This covers Mephiston or Libby dread and acts as an additional forward screen for the Ravenwing charachters or a screen for a dropping smash captain in case he fails his charge. The rhino and the scouts can be in a position for a turn 2 charge (don't forget the 3" disembark for extra movement) if it's not dealt with. If it is targeted then it's cheap T7, 10W, 3+ and -1 to hit.

 

One or two basic Dev squads with ML and HB do great by bypassing cover with hellfire/flakk MWs. 2 squads can throw out an opening volley of 4d3 MW with +s to hit (Signum and cherub).

 

In the past I've had fun with an all infantry BA list allied with Sammael in Sableclaw + Talonmaster and 3 DA scouts with HW for objective sitting. Having 2 characters that can keep up with JP BA and output 24 S6 AP-1 D1 and 12 S5 AP -1 D1 (and do ok in cc), rerolling all misses, wound rolls of 1 and ignores cover.

[Shaezus]

My first post-FAQ game has been postponed to next weekend or after, but my tuppence is that whilst we've taken a nerf along with anyone else who uses FLY melee shenanigans, we've come out stronger. Hence the CP increase on UWoF, because with that we can still do what almost everybody else can't now. Take that with FF and I reckon BA are the biggest T1 alpha threat in the game now...

 

...which isn't saying much. And which is pretty much a moot point anyway, when the math seems to lean in favour of shooting.

 

This is a good thing though, because like others have said it helps steer the BA commander away from his thirsty desires and towards a more clinical use of his assault units. Here lies perhaps an unintended advantage; as diagramdude already said, people will be a lot less wary of DS now, perhaps to the point of leaving things unguarded which before they would not.

 

I still intend to FF captain slam forward into LOS cover wherever possible and still use the sanguinary guard - with one of them as warlord for the re rolls - for Machiavellian shenanigans with UWoF. BA still have a unique flavour, they just take more effort and thought to play well.

[Panzer]

My first post-FAQ game has been postponed to next weekend or after, but my tuppence is that whilst we've taken a nerf along with anyone else who uses FLY melee shenanigans, we've come out stronger. Hence the CP increase on UWoF, because with that we can still do what almost everybody else can't now. Take that with FF and I reckon BA are the biggest T1 alpha threat in the game now...

 

...which isn't saying much. And which is pretty much a moot point anyway, when the math seems to lean in favour of shooting.

 

This is a good thing though, because like others have said it helps steer the BA commander away from his thirsty desires and towards a more clinical use of his assault units. Here lies perhaps an unintended advantage; as diagramdude already said, people will be a lot less wary of DS now, perhaps to the point of leaving things unguarded which before they would not.

 

I still intend to FF captain slam forward into LOS cover wherever possible and still use the sanguinary guard - with one of them as warlord for the re rolls - for Machiavellian shenanigans with UWoF. BA still have a unique flavour, they just take more effort and thought to play well.

 

UWoF got a CP increase not because BA are so strong but because our Captain got abused by soup lists.

Also I dare say shooty armies are still the bigger alpha strike threat. Especially Knights.

[Shaezus]

I dunno, the FLY nerf seems much more related to our captain. If the tourny players were using UWoF with him then you might well be right.

 

Knights have just poured salt all over the place in my local meta. Just like they did a few years back. Then again I'd guess that anyone running all knights is playing WAAC but what difference does that make when it's your army facing them. Edit: typo

[Panzer]

Both actually but yes UWoF is one of the things that made him so strong in tournaments as well.

I wouldn't say everyone playing an all-Knight army is a WAAC player. Knight armies are awesome and some people, like me, like them for the fluff. The only reason why I decided against such an army is because I feel it could get boring playing it real quick and then I'd have way too many LoWs to reasonably use in other armies lol

[Shaezus]

Well when someone almost immediately copies the winning net list, buys the knights and uses them in local tournament, that to me is WAAC but obviously that doesn't apply to anyone wanting to play with a knight army for other reasons. All part of the game really, I would be more satisfied with winning with an all comers list because it's more fun and more challenging.

 

But yeah...this FAQ actually leans me in the direction I was going anyway. Apart from the nerf to fly.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I dunno, the FLY nerf seems much more related to our captain. If the tourny players were using UWoF with him then you might well be right.

 

Knights have just poured salt all over the place in my local meta. Just like they did a few years back. Then again I'd guess that anyone running all knights is playing WAAC but what difference does that make when it's your army facing them. Edit: typo

I have a knight house (meaning I have 5+ knights) I'm not a WAAC player.

 

Knights by themselves are strong, but are limited in their availability of CP, the boost comes from guard CP farms for sub 500 points you can have 10 CPs or for about 750-800ish you can have + 12.

 

The thing about net listers are they usually rely heavily on the favorable combinations that others have come up with. The main issue is that the generalship is crutched by the army itself. I don't normally play tournaments because I hate seeing BA+DA+Knights, Guard+BA+Knights, or Space Wolves + DA i.e. Superfriends lists. 

 

In our local tournament meta there are knights in almost every list. At least 1 Castellan per army. Or at bear minimum a Paladin or Warden. An example is this past saturday my cousin played against two knights in the games he played. He lost 26 - 31 against the BA+DA+Knight super friends list and then won the second round and ended up placing 2nd. He didn't field a knight but an IG Leaf Blower list. So its all relative.

 

I mean it isn't any worse than playing Magnus and a Renegade Knight with Tzeentch daemons all over the place. 

 

If it helps why not reach out to your group about it. At least ask the T.O. to do something different.

 

With regards to the UWoF, People would use UWoF to jump on top of terrain for a < 2" charge mid/late game. They also would use it at the end of games to capture objectives for points (which is more reasonable). 

 

 

[Indefragable]

The CP increase to UWoF really hurts. I couldn't use it to capture a late-game objective in my game this past Sunday (a previous go-to Tactic of mine) since I only had 1 CP left.

 

<grumble grumble grumble>

[Aothaine]

I honestly feel that these rules changes should only be applied to competitive matches. When I play with my friends for fun we kind of adjust the rules to our liking and converse about how certain rules should play out. I understand the need for the changes and am very happy with GW being so active with the community. It will only help the community at large and the game overall.

 

Balancing is necessary. It doesn't matter how much testing is done because once a rule is released the WAAC gamers will find a way to bend or even break the rules. 

[Morticon]

I honestly feel that these rules changes should only be applied to competitive matches. When I play with my friends for fun we kind of adjust the rules to our liking and converse about how certain rules should play out. I understand the need for the changes and am very happy with GW being so active with the community. It will only help the community at large and the game overall.

 

Balancing is necessary. It doesn't matter how much testing is done because once a rule is released the WAAC gamers will find a way to bend or even break the rules. 

I would love that to be the case with my group.  The problem is that, while we're not WAAC, we're very competitive and enjoy the game for the tactical aspect.  Having an authoritative ruling on the system makes it "fair" - in the sense that its the dictated framework - even if that framework in itself is not obviously "fair".   (if that makes sense). 

 

 

[Aothaine]

 

I would love that to be the case with my group.  The problem is that, while we're not WAAC, we're very competitive and enjoy the game for the tactical aspect.  Having an authoritative ruling on the system makes it "fair" - in the sense that its the dictated framework - even if that framework in itself is not obviously "fair".   (if that makes sense). 

 

Absolutely. My friends just play more for the thematic gameplay. I have aspirations of eventually touring the competitive scene and tournaments but that is going to have to happen later when I can afford such outings. But I list build with tournaments in mind all the time. I just rarely get to play them. We like to chill while we're gaming, barbie-q, drink and play throughout the night on a more narrative approach to the game. There is no wrong way to play 40k though. It is a game. You pay for it. Play it how you and your friends enjoy it ya know?

[Morticon]

 

 

I would love that to be the case with my group.  The problem is that, while we're not WAAC, we're very competitive and enjoy the game for the tactical aspect.  Having an authoritative ruling on the system makes it "fair" - in the sense that its the dictated framework - even if that framework in itself is not obviously "fair".   (if that makes sense). 

 

Absolutely. My friends just play more for the thematic gameplay. I have aspirations of eventually touring the competitive scene and tournaments....

 

I highly recommend this. 

 

I've played tournaments in 7 cities across 4 continents. It's a really awesome experience. 

[brother_b]

They should never have altered the core game for tournaments. GW should have released tournament guidelines in their tournament packages i.e. Only 3 units, 1 tau commander etc.

 

As far as actual game mechanic changes from tournament results (alpha strike, fly, etc) I'm a little bit on the fence. Some of the rules seem reasonable, unfortunately they hamstring specific types of armies. Melee armies are harder to run now. They could've taken more time, or had a not so heavy hand.

[Panzer]

The 1 Commander per detachment rule is stupid and redundant now anyway since with the rule of 3 you can't spam them anymore. All it does now is hinder FSE detachments since they can't take Ethereals and so are left with only Fireblades after the first Commander.

 

Anyway, I do think it's good that GW adjusts core rules based on tournament experiences, however they should use their "recommendet for events" section more indeed.

[Indefragable]

 

I honestly feel that these rules changes should only be applied to competitive matches. When I play with my friends for fun we kind of adjust the rules to our liking and converse about how certain rules should play out. I understand the need for the changes and am very happy with GW being so active with the community. It will only help the community at large and the game overall.

 

Balancing is necessary. It doesn't matter how much testing is done because once a rule is released the WAAC gamers will find a way to bend or even break the rules. 

I would love that to be the case with my group.  The problem is that, while we're not WAAC, we're very competitive and enjoy the game for the tactical aspect.  Having an authoritative ruling on the system makes it "fair" - in the sense that its the dictated framework - even if that framework in itself is not obviously "fair".   (if that makes sense). 

 

 

 

 

As the founder of the original 40k club I was in used to say: "take two random players from two random parts of the world and put them at a table together. What's the only thing that they are guaranteed to have in common? The main 40k rulebook."  So for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, it's something that provides a common framework that can be agreed upon, even if it's not balanced. As Mort said, it's fair in part because both sides can agree that it may or may not be fair, but at least there's that framework that allows that conversation.

[Shaezus]

How is everyone finding the new deep strike and FLY rules? Only had two games so far - a draw against Drukhari and a win against Death Guard - but I can honestly say the new rules have changed my game for the better. Probably because in the past I always found it difficult to resist dropping on turn 1.

 

Very much a balance of deploying stuff so it will survive if I go second yet still have firepower to clear a drop zone. In both games my oppo pushed forward to try and deny me space to drop, but this worked in my favour.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

How is everyone finding the new deep strike and FLY rules? Only had two games so far - a draw against Drukhari and a win against Death Guard - but I can honestly say the new rules have changed my game for the better. Probably because in the past I always found it difficult to resist dropping on turn 1.

 

Very much a balance of deploying stuff so it will survive if I go second yet still have firepower to clear a drop zone. In both games my oppo pushed forward to try and deny me space to drop, but this worked in my favour.

BA specifically and have almost nixed JPs all together. I'll bring one blob of DC and just Forlorn Fury them into cover and pop smoke on Rhinos and advance them up the board and hope my 2+ save on the big blob isn't completely annihilated by plasma executioners before they can get into combat. Or I will deep strike them and hope I can do enough damage to pop screens. Before they come down turn 2. The problem with that is, 15 bodies deep striking is really hard to position correctly sometimes.

 

I've moved back to mech heavy lists because marines themselves suffer the most from having to pop bubbles and deal with army wide cover saves for prepared positions. More so than any other army I've played.

 

I keep hearing players say prepared positions is great, but in every single game I've played since its introduction the player that does that loses. I've played 13 games so far with it and every single game that player has lost. And I've used it. This is from a casual setting however.

 

And I've honestly moved to playing Nids more than BA lately because my Kraken army is more fun to play, stronger/all around better in ever facet of the game.

 

*even though my W/L ratio with my Carmine Blades is lower, it does have to do with trying different things out to find success where I can. I don't do a ton of allies.

 

**there have been glimpses of success but I haven't found that "best list" yet.

[Jolemai]

It depends. The reserves restrictions as they are now means less models in reserve and thus you eliminate the over-crowding that can happen when they deploy. On the negative side, the only pang of regret is from a reactive point of view ("Oh I wish I could counter with this") rather than a proactive one - and that's not necessarily a good thing. On the whole I'm finding arriving from reserves still rather annoying as what arrives doesn't do anything of note (I appreciate that this is anecdotal and dependent one what I'm using) whereas starting my SG on the board (with their character entourage) last night worked much better.

 

 

 

 

 

More hindered by the Veritas Vitae nerf during Matched Play tbh (yes i know it's beta and thus optional, etc, etc)

[Dont-Be-Haten]

It depends. The reserves restrictions as they are now means less models in reserve and thus you eliminate the over-crowding that can happen when they deploy. On the negative side, the only pang of regret is from a reactive point of view ("Oh I wish I could counter with this") rather than a proactive one - and that's not necessarily a good thing. On the whole I'm finding arriving from reserves still rather annoying as what arrives doesn't do anything of note (I appreciate that this is anecdotal and dependent one what I'm using) whereas starting my SG on the board (with their character entourage) last night worked much better.

 

 

 

 

 

More hindered by the Veritas Vitae nerf during Matched Play tbh (yes i know it's beta and thus optional, etc, etc)

I feel every bit of this. Being a marine player is frustrating right now. And maybe it's because I'm spoiled with how much stronger my nids are than my Carmine Blades.

 

One is a 99 percentile winner, the other is between 30-40% win rates. This is predicated by one reliably handling death guard easier than the other, but also the same army can weather gun lines much more effectively than the other as well.

[BluejayJunior]

Fly changes haven't really affected anything for me so far. I've only got about 3 games in. I've been using Sanguinary Guard and Inceptors as a good turn 2-3 punch. Although the SG can be limited if your opponent focuses on screening them out. I've had 3 wins, though.