Big FAQ has dropped.

[Biscuittzz]

Yes, relatively speaking, factions are now stronger due to the nerf to soup, IKs and Ynnari. But only those factions who were basically untouched by nerfs themselves, such as Primaris, normal marines, Tau, Ad Mech etc. will see this change.

 

I'd argue that the nerf to the GMNDK is on par faction-wise with the nerf to the Castellan. Obviously the Castellan nerf has a much wider implication regarding soup and overall meta. GK have gone backwards from this FAQ and as I've said before if there is a rescue codex on the way why nerf us in the meantime?

 

While the gap between the top soup lists theoretically got smaller for GK, the gap to the unaffected mid-tier factions has gotten larger.

[The great eye]

I agree, but now I'm curious what other soups will rear its ugly head. Thats what soup is at the core, mix and match the best. Mix and match what now? At this point it's more of an issue of what armies can and cannot abuse soup. Obviously the ones that have zero allies cannot ever. Necrons, tau, and orks. Is a nerf necessary? No. And seemingly not in GW's eyes. But at least consider giving bonuses to armies that choose not to ally.

[MegaVolt87]

Knight nerfs bring them into line to what they should cost, they were clearly under pointed and 3++ and lower should not be in the game anyway, too strong for anyone. If anything legion super heavies are still over costed post CA's (falchion, fellblade etc). 

[Plaguecaster]

Death Guard can now actually take Plague Hulks as part of the same DG detachment so they will benefit from all the same rules etc that affect Vehicles and / Daemons which makes me pretty happy

[dogfender]

Primaris (at the very least captains or cm) still don’t have access to other wargear.. hoping they get over this nonsense in the next codex lol

[Interrogator Stobz]

I wouldn't be too hopeful, as soon as Primaris can take similar weapons to Classic marines there will be a tonne of counts as and loss to GW sales.

Why else can't they share vehicles?

 

I doubt that they want that, this FAQ will be for their sales in certain lines, nothing to do with actual balance.

[Halandaar]

I doubt that they want that, this FAQ will be for their sales in certain lines, nothing to do with actual balance.

Yeah because slashing the viability of a £100 model that was too prevalent is really about sales and not balance isn't it. Come on.

[01RTB01]

Small alteration but my understanding says that Horticulous can now pop a tree turn one. Pre faq it was ambiguous (a bit) as to whether he could or not.

 

Problem solved!

 

As for the chaos community going nuts over obli changes, they will still be worth it :)

[Sloeberjong]

To anyone complaining that your army didn't get better:

 

All the best things got substantial nerfs. Your army is better, relatively.

Ishagu, i'm sorry brother, but this is a bunch of bull:cuss. Not everybody plays tournament style min max where you see the same OP stuff. So no, my DW primaris got nerfed for no other reason than freaking SB/SS :cusss taking it to the max.

 

My vehicles finally got a nice little buff that was nowhere near OP, but it got nerfed because of what exactly? Why can't marine vehicles get anything extra to make them a bit more worthwhile?

 

I don't play with or against OP armies or tourneys, but I have to stick to the rules regardless. I wasn't winning big, but Some fun extra bit got cut away for no good reason.

 

Same for GK, they had 1 decent unit.

 

Besides i feel GW can't make up their mind. Either go for gamebalance and let fluff be fluff or make rules that fit fluff and screw any attempt at gamebalance. Honestly, i prefer the latter. Gamebalance within 40k is a unicorn anyway, might as well have fun with it and let TO's nerf the :cuss out of it for competitive play.

 

Maybe it would be best to leave points entirely at home and just do PL.

 

In the end the faq ain't terrible, but it's not good either. For me personally they just took away some fun elements which is disappointing. It won't change the way I play or my army composition, because I play what units I like, not what is best. They got a nice little boost and now they took it away because people abuse stuff, and that's sad.

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

I doubt that they want that, this FAQ will be for their sales in certain lines, nothing to do with actual balance.

Yeah because slashing the viability of a £100 model that was too prevalent is really about sales and not balance isn't it. Come on.

Whilst I agree with you in principle, once their initial successful of the mini is done and sales slow they can nerf if to make shelf space and the next new items more attractive.

Without their sales date I was merely speculating.

But irrelevant really; it happened, they will likely sell less of them now.

[Halandaar]

I can't help but feel that sometimes, people create their own disappointment.

 

For those complaining that Bolter Discipline was "nerfed", bear in mind that it was a Beta rule, clearly marked as such, and subject to change pending feedback.

 

You should view it's confirmation as an official rule as a buff to your infantry which they didn't formally have before. Vehicles remain unchanged from their original position.

 

People also need to bear in mind that their own anecdotal assessment of what is and isn't overpowered based on their local meta is not sufficient to make decisions about the whole game worldwide. Also, the internet =/= the entire gaming community.

 

GW is privy to a lot more feedback and direct game data than any individual here. That doesn't mean their decisions are always correct, but it does mean they have more information to work with than you do when drawing these conclusions.

[MajorNese]

 

My vehicles finally got a nice little buff that was nowhere near OP, but it got nerfed because of what exactly? Why can't marine vehicles get anything extra to make them a bit more worthwhile?

That's a good question. They're the only ones without subfaction buff applying, unlike all other armies. I already tend to field next to no vehicles, this just cements it. Otherwise, I agree with Ishagu. You might not see all of those hardcore combos daily, but once you do (as a non-tournament player) the game itself is often pretty much ruined. The nerfs that do apply to my armies are not that harsh (except for the castellan, but I don't tend to play that thing anyhow), but I'm glad they took out some of the silly hardcore combos.

 

Just one thing I'm not sure about how they meant it, from the Imperial Armour Astartes:

 

Q: Which part of a Drop Pod or Dreadnought Drop Pod should I measure distances from and to, especially if the model has been assembled so it’s doors can be opened or closed?

 

A: Measure all distances to and from any part of the model, including its doors. If this model has been assembled such that you can lower and raise its doors, then when this model is first set up in the  battlefield choose whether the doors will be lowered or raised - you cannot raise or lower the doors thereafter during the battle.

Designer’s Note: Choosing to set this model up in the ‘raised doors position’ simply represents the doors closing the instant after its passengers have disembarked.

It mentions Drop Pod and Dreadnought Drop Pod. The only DPs in that book are the "Lucius pattern dreadnought drop pod" and "deathstorm drop pod", both have the keyword Drop Pod but not the exact same name as mentioned in the FAQ. So...does this apply to the deathstorm pod too? Considering how it fires, that actually makes a huge difference in range. Considering that it makes no logical sense to close the doors on something that will continue firing, the model should be the Open position anyhow.

[sairence]

Let's be fair here, with the effect on the GMNDK...this was really nothing more or less than GW catching up on what they missed when they capped everyone else's invun saves at 3++.

 

Does it suck for them? Sure. But I don't believe for a second there was any more to it than that.

[Toxichobbit]

I wouldn't be too hopeful, as soon as Primaris can take similar weapons to Classic marines there will be a tonne of counts as and loss to GW sales.

Why else can't they share vehicles?

 

I doubt that they want that, this FAQ will be for their sales in certain lines, nothing to do with actual balance.

 

I think it's more to do with their new policy of not giving rules to weapon options that aren't in the kits/upgrade sprues. The new options for Intercessors are in the upgrade kits and the new* options for Captains are on the store birthday Captain.

 

For more weapon options we have to hope that whoever makes the decisions on the design team decides we need more Captains and wants to do different weapons on them.

 

* new compared to the original Codex datasheet, at least.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Certainly a big chunk of that too.

[Panzer]

After a nights sleep I've come to a new thought ... I'm kinda glad GW focussed on nerfing instead of buffing for once. The damage output in 40k has been spiraling out of control for a while now because GW kept buffing everything to try to keep up with their latest screw up. This time they decided to just nerf the strong things. I want more of that. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't things that need a buff but it's a step in the right direction I'd say.

Edited April 30, 2019 by sfPanzer

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I would have liked SM vehicles to continue getting Bolter Drill. LR Crusaders aren't good, with or without it, but I was at least able to fight Orks on a half way even footing if I positioned things right. My lists wont' be changing, but my effectiveness certainly will. On a model that moves 10 inches and survives 1 or so rounds on average, getting full fire power at double the range was extremely helpful. I think once or twice it might have earned its points back. It probably won't anymore.

 

A lot of the other nerfs were good. I can't knock GW for trying. But I do suspect Eldar, even with their changes, are going to start taking the top spots now. They weren't hit as hard as the big C was, even with some of their cheese removed. But I hope i'm wrong. i'd love to see GSC or Orks start topping tournaments now.

 

I'm a little bummed that nothing was done about CP, but I wasn't really expecting that until later this year.

 

As for the Internet not being the gaming community, and our own experiences as players not being enough to compare to the data gathering skills of GW's writing staff? I read that and laughed. More than once I've read a GW rules update and been confused that they'd publish something that obviously stupid. The last Flyer ruling is a good example of that. GW has a lot of talented people working for them, but now and again they are either over worked, neglectful, or just flat out dumb. There are times when their second or third attempt is similar to what I'd have proposed initially, so maybe they need to funnel more money into the rules department. Editting has gone into the toilet, rule writing is sometimes hit and miss, and they apparently can't do even the most basic amount of mathhammer to get a rough idea of where something should stand. The game is still being balanced off of marines, for example, when it should really be balanced off of guard.

[Toxichobbit]

After a nights sleep I've come to a new thought ... I'm kinda glad GW focussed on nerfing instead of buffing for once. The damage output in 40k has been spiraling out of control for a while now because GW kept buffing everything to try to keep up with their latest screw up. This time they decided to just nerf the strong things. I want more of that. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't things that need a buff but it's a step in the right direction I'd say.

 

Genty nerf the top and buff the bottom and eventually they'll meet in the centre. It's a good approach to balancing imo.

[Ishagu]

It's all relative, like I said before.

 

Compared to chess this game is an utter mess.

Compared to previous editions it's much better.

 

And there is definitely some truth to people using their own anecdotal experience to make judgements, which may be wildly in-accurate. The fact that very few people realised the changes to Eldar soup until I pointed them out and were saying there was no big impact of the FAQ is clear evidence of that.

 

The 3 most powerful lists in the game all took a massive hit. Imperium soup is hurt. Eldar soup is really hurt (DE and friends list will no longer function and we'll see more single faction play), Ynnari's most overpowered ability is gone and the faction is re-worked.

 

On the other hand I'm also in the camp of some armies needing new books and releases to function. Those being Astartes and Grey Knights specifically. People can argue that Eldar need new kits but GW has a big focus on balancing the game and the biggest sellers in the range are currently behind the curve in terms of performance.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Ishagu

[Panzer]

I don't think imperium soup got as big a hit as you say. Sure 100p more and only a 4++ isn't nothing, but it's still a T8 W28 Sv4++ model with huge damage output that can easily keep shooting at peek performance for only little CP until it's dead for good. It's still a tough nut to crack for most armies.

 

The most interesting thing is really just to see how Eldar players will adjust.

[Ishagu]

Yes but the Knight was very effective because there was almost no guarantee of destroying it in one turn, and if it lived with 2/3 wounds remaining it can still act at it's full damage bracket so it was often ignored and ran wild.

 

Now if someone wants it gone they can reliably destroy it, and it's 700+ points in one unit leaving you with under 1400 point on t1. It's hurt the CC focused FW Knights even more, however.

 

*Edit* Typos

Edited April 30, 2019 by Ishagu

[Closet Skeleton]

I don’t understand how the LR Crusader was “over preforming “. It seems more like it just wasn’t preforming according to how they wanted the assault carrier to act. That is to say they didn’t like people using their close support carrier as a tank. It’s daft, I was looking forward to predators having at least one thing better than a leman russ.

 

LRC wasn't doing anything, it was the actually good vehicles with Hurricane bolters.

 

 

Ishagu, i'm sorry brother, but this is a bunch of bull:cuss. Not everybody plays tournament style min max where you see the same OP stuff. So no, my DW primaris got nerfed for no other reason than freaking SB/SS :cusss taking it to the max.

 

 

Maybe your deathwatch aren't that great but they were still in less need of a buff than other loyalist marines. Sternguard aren't utterly invalidated anymore.

[Ishagu]

Beta rules often change. I think we set ourselves up for disappointment there...

[Charlo]

I'm sorry, but if people are really that concerned with a few S4 0AP shots from Crusader Hurricane Bolters, then you probably have bigger problems with your list...!

 

Also if you get within 12" (which as a transport, you'd hope) they still get the same shots!

[Halandaar]

As for the Internet not being the gaming community, and our own experiences as players not being enough to compare to the data gathering skills of GW's writing staff? I read that and laughed. 

 

Well, laugh all you like, but both are true. GW see ALL the feedback, whereas you only see what you specifically engage with. Even in situations where it may look like the prevailing opinion of the forum or other group is "this change is stupid", those opinions represent an overall small percentage of total feedback, so there's no way you can extrapolate a relative handful of people saying "this change is stupid" to being the prevalent worldwide gaming opinion.

 

For all we know, there are metas out there dominated by Astartes forces (not unreasonable, given the weight of support behind them from both a marketing and model range perspective) and plenty of people all around the world wrote in to say "hey GW, Hurricane Bolters are a bit much now with Bolter Discipline, maybe rein them in a bit or put their points up". 

 

All i'm saying is, what might look odd to you may look perfectly reasonable elsewhere.

 

Beta rules often change. I think we set ourselves up for disappointment there...

 

Yes! Imagine if somebody went from reading their Marine Codex to reading the new update with no steps in between; "Oh cool, all my Marines are better now, thanks GW!"

 

But no, we have to view it as a nerf because the Beta Rule (i.e. the experimental trial run of a rule that hasn't been formally adopted yet) also included a tank.