Big FAQ has dropped.

[Slasher956]

I wonder if they are play testing other rules* and found the synergy to much?

 

That is BD with (hyperthetical /made up on the spot change here) a +1 to wound and/or -1AP on vehicle bolters??

 

*This would dovetail in with other rumours about SM updates.

[Closet Skeleton]

To my knowledge, the only three non-Dreadnought vehicles that pack hurricane bolters are the Land Raider Crusader, Stormraven and Dark Talon. Two of these are flyers and hence can’t be tied up in combat, with minimum moves of 20” and generally need to be up close (ie within rapid fire range), and so aren’t really impacted all that much by Bolter Discipline.

 

Flyers benefit a ton from Bolter discipline. Just because they're better at getting into 12" doesn't meant they want to. Nobody uses Storm Ravens as transports because they're worried it will turn into a 'too many eggs in a basket' situation.

 

12" rapid fire range forces you into winged monster charge range or meltagun range. 24" range lets you be just about anywhere on the board, especially when the infantry you want to rapid fire into tend to be on the edge of the enemy formation.

 

I want to bring out my LRC too but 200+ point transports for 200+ point units aren't viable outside of casual games and I never get to play those.

 

 

That’s frightening. For a long time things like GW’s actions - notably things like classifying Soup as being multiple factions in one Detachment and ‘fixing it’ - have made me wonder whether GW’s rules team are too oblivious/incompetent to understand their own game and community, or cunning/malicious enough to play dumb and look like they’re trying to help us out.

 

 

In the index era Soup was multiple factions in one detachment. Their 'fix' was over sold and behind the curve but it was a real limitation.

 

GW doesn't understand the way their player base uses their rulebooks, but they do understand the game they're trying to make. 40k is more fun if you properly organize the scenario with a friend and don't min-max your list building.

 

They understand much better than the impression you get of people in rules threads that their product is a hobby with a game element.

 

First of all, good job in taking the least viable chapter tactic for a Storm Raven and trying to prove your point with it.

 

My point was that Chapter tactics on vehicles would be meaningless for a lot of marine players (including me), I wasn't proving some other point with that example, the example was my argument.

 

 

Alright, if the differences between how each astartes chapter uses vehicles is so insignificant that it doesn't deserve rules, would you kindly explain :cussing IMPERIAL GUARD REGIMENTS then. Cause not only do they have very similar, and in some cases just outright better versions of marine tactics, but they get them on their vehicles too, and the ones that wouldn't help vehicles get additional rules for said vehicles.

 

I'd rather see marines get the guard treatment than blanket chapter tactic spread. I don't want my Black Templars to be even more invalidated next to Raven Guard thank you very much. I want to see Alaitoc rebalanced not Raven Guard turned into Imperial Alaitoc.

 

I want to see marines fixed, I don't want an arbitrary bone thrown to an issue that annoys some people who would also be happier with more in depth fixes (not that you can please everyone).

 

I'd be disappoint in the FAQ as well if I thought we'd missed the only opportunity for more loyalist marine changes but the beta bolter rule had nothing to do with the FAQ schedule until it got 'finalized'

 

 

How many times do we see rules errors in WD battle reports or streamed live that GW miss?

 

 

 

I see rules errors in tournament games all the time, they're just a thing that happens.

[Lord Sinaris]

I know it's not technically in the big FAQ itself, but it's flagged as an update in the Marine Codex FAQ and I've seen no discussion about it, so: Why is no one mentioning the removal of double-loading Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles? Has that been around for a while and just now added to the FAQ? Have I missed that discussion? Am I reading something wrong here? I am really inclined to blame my incompetence, but clarification would be aprreciated.

[Arkhanist]

It's a straight nerf, new in this FAQ.

 

The previous version said:

 

"Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem?

A: Yes."

 

Obviously that no longer the case as of this week.

[MajorNese]

I know it's not technically in the big FAQ itself, but it's flagged as an update in the Marine Codex FAQ and I've seen no discussion about it, so: Why is no one mentioning the removal of double-loading Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles? Has that been around for a while and just now added to the FAQ? Have I missed that discussion? Am I reading something wrong here? I am really inclined to blame my incompetence, but clarification would be aprreciated.

Well...double loading was only made possible by last year's FAQ. Now it seems GW dialled back on that (which is understandable, 1CP for 5p is ridiculous), so they removed it with this FAQ. Not much discussion about it, that's right, but the change is new.

[Panzer]

I know it's not technically in the big FAQ itself, but it's flagged as an update in the Marine Codex FAQ and I've seen no discussion about it, so: Why is no one mentioning the removal of double-loading Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles? Has that been around for a while and just now added to the FAQ? Have I missed that discussion? Am I reading something wrong here? I am really inclined to blame my incompetence, but clarification would be aprreciated.

It got mentioned a few times and accepted it as there's nothing we can do about it, really. We should have seen it coming anyway imo. ^^

[PiñaColada]

It's just such a good effort from GW this time around, I realise that there are some legit complaints that can still be made/were introduced but overall 40k is a much better game today then it was a week ago IMO and that should be the overall goal. Basically all the big changes I agree and I love that they actually tell you what the thought process is.

What saddens me is that GW seems to hold their promise in regards to keeping points in CA. Don't put points in a printed medium that requires months of lead time. I think points should be visited twice a year, in the FAQs. That means they can be kept much more up to date. Use CA for new missions and rules overhauls that requires more explaining, maybe also specialist detachments for the races that weren't on vigilus/whatever the next campaign is.

[Lemondish]

Flyers benefit a ton from Bolter discipline. 

 

Well, not anymore, but also not really when the beta rule was out. 

 

It was about a free 10 point upgrade for things like Hurricane bolters, but only from 12-24''. It made some vehicles more capable of achieving their main purpose (like Land Raider Crusaders), or added some oomph to ones that otherwise were performing an entirely one dimensional role (like Rhinos). Flyers didn't all of a sudden get a ton better when they had bolter discipline - they got better, but it was a handful of extra boltgun shots in a limited range band. Nothing to really write home about. 

[ERJAK]

I'm 100% in agreement that Astartes need chapter tactics across all units.

 

The tactics need to be reworked so they can benefit vehicles correctly or to provide other buffs.

 

It's one thing that sets the Marine books behind other factions for no reason.

Not Sisters. And we got our book in december.

[Dracos]

I thought that was a Beta Codex put out so they could find errors and give the real Codex a ... well if not razor edge at least created with community input?

 

 

As a side note: I think we as a community tend to forget Beta rules are just that, Test rules. I don't think it's fair to attack GW for making changes to them just because we take on false expectations or ITC and other tournament organizers often adopt them right out of the box.

 

I say that having hoped the RG stratagem would have been "fixed". I don't agree with it, but calling them malicious or incompetent is just spouting bile. We all have the right to our opinions but I'm sure we can disagree with their decisions without being poisonous. 

[Panzer]

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules. :huh:

[MegaVolt87]

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules.

 

You are right- I will attack them for a lack of more beta rules.

 

WHERE IS THE BETA RULES FOR 30K MECHANICUS UNITS TO USE IN 40K?!  

[Dracos]

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules.

 

Clarifying: "Overzealous" complaining about about changes to Beta rules like Bolter Discipline.

 

Regardless, I think it's poisonous, unproductive and extremely disrespectful to refer to GW game designers as "malicious", "incompetent", etc. If as B&C we want to have a positive impact on future changes, I think we could be good enough members of the 40k community to discuss our dissatisfaction any of the GW products in such a way that anyone looking in doesn't dismiss us as just another "one of those" forums.

[kombatwombat]

I say that having hoped the RG stratagem would have been "fixed". I don't agree with it, but calling them malicious or incompetent is just spouting bile. We all have the right to our opinions but I'm sure we can disagree with their decisions without being poisonous.

I don’t see calling a company malicious and cunning as spouting bile. In years gone by, that was how businesses made money: they treated customers as a hostile entity that they need to swindle or trick into spending more money than they wanted to. They didn’t want what was best for the customer, they wanted to ‘harm’ the customer by leading them to spend more money. The intent wasn’t to financially damage the customer out of spite, but it was certainly self-service at the detriment of the customer.

 

More modern businesses have clued into the idea that you can make a customer spend money by engendering loyalty. They do this through things like transparency and giving the customers what they really want. Unfortunately GW does not caught up to this new reality and still uses the older, more cunning and under-handed style. It’s still a legitimate sales strategy.

 

On calling them incompetent - honestly, I think that’s a reasonable observation. The example about the Land Raider being too powerful is pretty damning.

[Ishagu]

 

 

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules.

Clarifying: "Overzealous" complaining about about changes to Beta rules like Bolter Discipline.

 

Regardless, I think it's poisonous, unproductive and extremely disrespectful to refer to GW game designers as "malicious", "incompetent", etc. If as B&C we want to have a positive impact on future changes, I think we could be good enough members of the 40k community to discuss our dissatisfaction any of the GW products in such a way that anyone looking in doesn't dismiss us as just another "one of those" forums.

I agree it gets ridiculous. GW make no money from the FAQs, and it takes many man hours to produce them, translate them, proof read them, etc

 

People need to show some appreciation.

[redmapa]

I think nerfing GK and SM with every FAQ can be considered malice, once can be a mistake, 3 times its intentional. For whatever reason GW likes to punish the lesser armies, remember the Tyranid/Ork/IG decurions? Absolute dog vomit and then you had the Tau formations which were game breaking good and then there was Gathering Storm which gave the BT formations..oh no wait, it didnt! GW has always have favorites to which they like giving good things.

 

GW is doing great but lets not paint their efforts as infallible when they have failed to adress issues that at this point have been dragging for several editions, including 3 FAQs and 2 CA of which the latest they even advertised GK to be HUGE WINNERS!

[MegaVolt87]

To be fair, GW makes a lot of the rods the community hits their back with themselves, its only fair to criticize them for it. Didn't we get the crazy initial flyer nerf because some GW rules guy got dunked by the original flying charge in a tourny or the like? Or were they commenting on stream and became embarrassed when it played out that way and they looked surprised/ upset? One of the two occurred.

 

Criticism of the value/ utility/ availability/ design/ function/ products/ PR of a company is OK, abusing individuals IN the company via personal attacks is not. PR people/Figureheads are an easy target and often they don't have the influence/ imput customers believe they do, so its apparently ALL their fault to customers- just not true in majority of cases. Anyone in a large company knows you do as you are told in the end, even if your imput is asked for and you may be involved in the process you tow the common line, if not you get shown the door. 

 

GW should appreciate that they have patient customers who are sticking by them despite their many blunders. Its not entitlement to expect a working, functional product you were sold and bought. 

[chapter master 454]

 

 

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules.

Clarifying: "Overzealous" complaining about about changes to Beta rules like Bolter Discipline.

 

Regardless, I think it's poisonous, unproductive and extremely disrespectful to refer to GW game designers as "malicious", "incompetent", etc. If as B&C we want to have a positive impact on future changes, I think we could be good enough members of the 40k community to discuss our dissatisfaction any of the GW products in such a way that anyone looking in doesn't dismiss us as just another "one of those" forums.

I agree it gets ridiculous. GW make no money from the FAQs, and it takes many man hours to produce them, translate them, proof read them, etc

 

People need to show some appreciation.

 

 

There is a fine line between many things, Bravery and Stupidity is one but another is the difference between Critique and Complaining/Insulting. However the latter just requires both sides to be mature about it.

 

We can appreciate the effort but make sure it is clear the effect was not the desired one. We can appreciate an Artists attempts to improve themselves but when it was in the wrong areas it needs to be made clear.

 

I have in many posts stated that there has been a colossal if not tectonic shift in GW practice towards a better process. No longer are we stuck with the same rules, points and units for years on end without any respite at hand. Any of the Drukari, back then DARK ELDAR and Necron players remember using 3rd edition rules in 5th edition? GW have made massive steps now as we have not just 1 but 2 regular publications that alter or add to the game a year along with white dwarf also being a source now as well. The fact they are so willing to do such changes such as adding an entirely new rule for a faction is great news.

However we MUST NOT just say they are getting better and let them off with anything that isn't up to snuff. It is right to compliment them on their change in direction with the game and how they are handling it now is far better than it has ever been in the past at ANY time. It is in fact a glorious age of change but that being said there are elements they still need to refine and one of them is most certainly rules testing and being critical of their own designs properly and thoroughly.

 

They still have a ways to go before getting it right within a much better range. There is movement towards it but we must ensure we keep pushing them in the right direction so long as they are willing to listen. Change is nought if you are just swapping one tyrant for another.

[Tordeck]

Any of the Drukari, back then DARK ELDAR and Necron players remember using 3rd edition rules in 5th edition?

It was 4th as both of those books were the first real ones of 5th (CSM being the first spiritually)

 

As someone who has been playing for 15 years and has seen GW evolve I must say that while there is still things we can complain about the current company is so much better than the Evil Empire I remember it being.

[Ishagu]

 

 

 

 

I don't see anybody attacking GW for the Beta rules.

Clarifying: "Overzealous" complaining about about changes to Beta rules like Bolter Discipline.

 

Regardless, I think it's poisonous, unproductive and extremely disrespectful to refer to GW game designers as "malicious", "incompetent", etc. If as B&C we want to have a positive impact on future changes, I think we could be good enough members of the 40k community to discuss our dissatisfaction any of the GW products in such a way that anyone looking in doesn't dismiss us as just another "one of those" forums.

I agree it gets ridiculous. GW make no money from the FAQs, and it takes many man hours to produce them, translate them, proof read them, etc

 

People need to show some appreciation.

There is a fine line between many things, Bravery and Stupidity is one but another is the difference between Critique and Complaining/Insulting. However the latter just requires both sides to be mature about it.

 

We can appreciate the effort but make sure it is clear the effect was not the desired one. We can appreciate an Artists attempts to improve themselves but when it was in the wrong areas it needs to be made clear.

 

I have in many posts stated that there has been a colossal if not tectonic shift in GW practice towards a better process. No longer are we stuck with the same rules, points and units for years on end without any respite at hand. Any of the Drukari, back then DARK ELDAR and Necron players remember using 3rd edition rules in 5th edition? GW have made massive steps now as we have not just 1 but 2 regular publications that alter or add to the game a year along with white dwarf also being a source now as well. The fact they are so willing to do such changes such as adding an entirely new rule for a faction is great news.

However we MUST NOT just say they are getting better and let them off with anything that isn't up to snuff. It is right to compliment them on their change in direction with the game and how they are handling it now is far better than it has ever been in the past at ANY time. It is in fact a glorious age of change but that being said there are elements they still need to refine and one of them is most certainly rules testing and being critical of their own designs properly and thoroughly.

 

They still have a ways to go before getting it right within a much better range. There is movement towards it but we must ensure we keep pushing them in the right direction so long as they are willing to listen. Change is nought if you are just swapping one tyrant for another.

I don't agree with this. The FAQ is far reaching and significant and has fixed some of the most substantial problems with the game.

 

It's also absolutely massive and has taken a lot of time to put together.

[Closet Skeleton]

Businessmen, even well meaning ones, should be trusted as far as you can throw them because their ultimate responsibility isn't in your interest. Its just that the thing left out of the otherwise useful Hanlon's Razor is that often malice and stupidity go hand in hand. People assume that when a company screws them its some devious plan that because its making them poorer must be making someone else rich when usually its an overworked middle rung guy who has to blag some nonsense to make his boss happy.

 

I find the idea that there's some way to calculate the precise changes to a single rule in a tabletop wargame that will squeeze x% extra profit to be ridiculous. Even obvious stuff like when 8th ed fantasy made the units bigger and come in smaller boxes wasn't a masterplan but a rash attempt to cover up a mistake when they decided to make high detail rank and file models require expensive machine tooling to produce rendering the whole concept of the game uneconomical at the production end.

 

From what I've seen of the GW's staff they seem to be well meaning people who want to make a good product but there are going to be people there who have other concerns. I don't think anyone who is taking the side of GW against the more negative comments in threads like these is trying to say that people don't have the right to complain, they're just reacting against what seems to be an unhelpful level of negativity.

 

 

Any of the Drukari, back then DARK ELDAR and Necron players remember using 3rd edition rules in 5th edition?

It was 4th as both of those books were the first real ones of 5th (CSM being the first spiritually)

As someone who has been playing for 15 years and has seen GW evolve I must say that while there is still things we can complain about the current company is so much better than the Evil Empire I remember it being.

 

 

You misremembering there. Necrons were the last book of 5th and Dark Eldar were after Tyranids, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.

 

I think nerfing GK and SM with every FAQ can be considered malice, once can be a mistake, 3 times its intentional.

 

Space Marines have not been nerfed, Smash Captains are harder to screen against again and that's way bigger on the tournament level than trap landraiders returning to their previous state.

 

The GK invulnerable save issue is clearly stupidity as they already tried to nerf the 2++ but failed due to rare wording.

[Ishagu]

Grey Knights are in need of a new codex. The faq isn't going to re-write the entire book.

 

GW clearly have a vision that doesn't include lots of 2+ invul saves.

[Panzer]

I think people are forgetting that GW straight out wrote that they think vehicles with the Bolter Discipline rule have become too strong. However those vehicles weren't particularly strong even with it. They were okay-ish. Close to being able to do what they are supposed to do. Sure some people are complaining about a huge nerf to vehicles and I don't necessarily agree with those opinions, however citicising GW for such statements is 100% legit because it just shows how little they understand their game.

[Quantum]

If the Bolter Discipline rule is finalized, why can't I find it in the Space Marines Errata?

 

In fact, why are none if the Matched Play Rules in the actual FAQ? I can only find them in the Release Notes document: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_update_April_2019_en.pdf

 

With the rulebook, codices, indices, chapter approveds and white Dwarfs its hard enough to ensure you have all relevant rules at hand; printing some rules in some online faqs but not others does not make it any easier.

[Ishagu]

That's a valid complaint. There are a lot of sources of rule amendments to keep track of. I'm hoping they all get included in the next CA.