40K Online
Main => General 40k => Topic started by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on April 7, 2018, 04:52:17 PM
-
In this The Future of FAQs and Chapter Approved - Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/) post GW mentioned that we were to get a twice a year "Big FAQ".
Does anyone know what happened to it, I was expecting something major last month and again in September 2018?
G
-
The March FAQ is delayed by GW wants to analyse Adepticon first, but should be out in a week or two.
-
Where did you get that information?
-
Where did you get that information?
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater)
-
The Great EnFAQing has begun. Review at your leisure.
Warhammer 40,000 Big FAQ 1: The Low Down - Warhammer Community (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/)
Tau
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_tau_empire_en.pdf (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_tau_empire_en.pdf)
The EnFAQing itself
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf)
-
My Eldar review:
No more quicken on deepstrikeing units hurt. (Also no soulburst move, but not entirely sure on that)
Reapers point increase is fine
Farseer point increase is ok
Spiritseer increase hurts
Warlock increase hurts
Warlock conclave also hurts
I think warlock skyrunners are our best bet right now. But for this pointcost I will only take them for buffs. Taking characters for smite isn't worth it anymore (maybe the farseer). With the point increase eldrad looks very very valuable. With the extra CPs from battalions the seer council looks good aswell.
Ynnari are a mess. No more aeldari ynnari is unfluffy. WC8 on word of the phoenix is quite harsh. The wording on the whole ruling are quite unclear. I hope we are able to take wl traits on ynnari characters. With seer of the shifting vector the WC8 should be fine thanks to Mr. Kitty.
Ynnari Stratagem abuse is still here. I meann Saim Hann shining spears in ynnari with this. Also a cheap 242p drukhari battalion for agents of vect seems good. with a raider for the kabalites it can be quite valuable aswell.
I feared it would be much worse for eldar so I am quite happy. I am very very dissapointed though that the FAQ on ynnari makes things so unclear that another faq faq is needed. Shining spears are the best unit from our codex now and I will try to make a list increase their potential.
Points costs removed to comply with forum rule 1 (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?action=rules) - Iris.
-
Nice to see alpha striking get a kick in the teeth. That was fairly ridiculous.
It does make some armies a lot harder to play, now. It might, however, see play get a little less bonkers.
-
The limit on over using datasheets is nice for some of the games. Saves on unit spamming, other than troops and transports of course.
-
Dang, those craftworld nerfs were really uncalled for, Ynnari soup Dark reapers was trouble, but double nerfing them means they will be shelved again for maybe another 5 editions.
Psykers struggle as it is, and it's not a lack of smite spam that was the problem, rather the opposite. I guess they just listened to what was complained about rather than what was OP. Giving the SMURF's a nod with the smite spam and not the already terrible and now also nerfed warlock conclave was just plain idiotic.
I like the new tactical reserves & the highlander-ish use of datasheets.
The datasheet restriction is however very bad news for Drukhari who has very few HQ options, still it can easily be circumvented by using index datasheets.
-
I'm not sure I understand "Battle Brothers" does this mean I couldn't run an Iyanden Detachment and a DE Flayed Skull Detachment in the same army?
-
I'm not sure I understand "Battle Brothers" does this mean I couldn't run an Iyanden Detachment and a DE Flayed Skull Detachment in the same army?
You still can, you can't however mix CWE & DE in the same detachment, even if it's an Ynnari detachment, which is a bit silly, but I assume the Ynnari (possibly included in the harlequin book which is soon to be released) will clear this up.
-
Bah. The point increases on my Eldar units broke several of my lists. I didn't even spam stuff! Points were just so tight already from trying to get a useful amount of everything. I really feel like a lot of these changes are based around 2-2.5k tourney lists and not the good-ol'-boyz who play at 1500 (or even less).
Overall like the changes.
People should note they included rules that are still beta changes. Not full changes. So the battle brothers and reserves rules are still beta.
-
@Fenris- Thanks bud, yeah that seems to be the way it works. What a weird call by GW. Hmmmm I wonder what this could mean going forward.
-
The Warlock and Spiritseer changes are where the problem is. The other changes are okay. If I'm reading it right you can still take a full craftworlds detachment alongside ynarri and still get your craftworld trait, you just have to take it separately.
The good news is you have to worry much less about screening, and you can use dire avengers to screen outside your deployment zone on turn 1, since your opponent can no longer deep strike right in your face at the very beginning of the game.
-
It's interesting to me that Warlocks took a hit, they don't even have real smite.
No more quicken on deepstrikeing units hurt. (Also no soulburst move, but not entirely sure on that)
Where does it say this in the FAQ pdf? I've tried searching for the word "Quicken" but can't find it
-
CWE changes feels like a knee jerk reaction to what people were having a whine at, but didn't really play test all the changes out with the new rule adjustments.
Not being able to spam reapers, especially given Battle brothers effect on Ynnari, puts a lot of hurt on the tourney lists, which were often backed up with Seer support, that before accounting for the point increases.
Seers are now just too expensive again, which was the problem from the index...
Last fight I had with Necron's new codex went down to the wire (I had 6 models left on the board at turn 5). I'm in serious trouble against this rather friendly Necron list now.
To be frank, it feels more like GW are trying to stop people in tourney's from being nobs, but it comes are a really big hit to those who just play for fun and show some shelf control. If I don't want to be trashed by a new codex now, I'm going to have to put more filth in the lists.
As for Spears, yes they are good, but against the volume of fire out there, really not difficult to deal with. High point cost low model count armies suck in 8th.
Battle Brothers makes noooooooooooooo sense for Ynnari, you are essentially taking a detachment of CWWE and a Detachment of DE instead of being able to mix. Just makes them horribly broken, but I guess that's to the point, too many people having a cry about them.
Reserves.. no more first turn DS nuking or first turn DS assaults. This is good.
Targeting characters wording has changed, so great big models that get taken below 10 can still be targeted, this now makes sense.
I never had an issue with command points for taking a battalion. Is this more of a slap to stop people abusing the other 1 CP detachments? This also puts a massive benefit to low cost armies. I don't get this change either considering the other 1 CP detachments were a way of spamming units, which with the new anti-soup rules makes it very hard to do. Seems like we are being pushed back to CAD style gaming, not a bad thing in itself, but moves away from the rhetoric of being able to play the game they way you want...
Ability to ignore wound stacking, makes sense and is only good for the game.
Smite is a real problem and the nerf doesn't go far enough.
-
It's interesting to me that Warlocks took a hit, they don't even have real smite.
No more quicken on deepstrikeing units hurt. (Also no soulburst move, but not entirely sure on that)
Where does it say this in the FAQ pdf? I've tried searching for the word "Quicken" but can't find it
The BETA reserves rules say you can no longer move (even using a psychic power) after deep striking. They shouldn't have put the two beta rules in the FAQ as people are getting confused.
Magenb - that rule actually means that if there is a conga line of characters (like using assassins to protect another character) you can target any of the characters, not just the closest one.
Also, the increased CP for a battalion helps the more elite armies where these points are soaked up by your HQs and troops. It's also really nice for 1500pt or less games. Gives you some breathing room to actually use/get more stratagems without cramming in min unit extra detachments.
-
ah, interesting. thanks!
-
Also, the increased CP for a battalion helps the more elite armies where these points are soaked up by your HQs and troops. It's also really nice for 1500pt or less games. Gives you some breathing room to actually use/get more stratagems without cramming in min unit extra detachments.
Cheap armies can easily get multiple battalions, or batts + multiple 1CP's. given the power of strats, it doesn't work out in elite armys favour at all.
-
I've been considering the character rules, and they are in no way better than the current rules actually, as you can still hide a screening unit behind a wall, and become untargettable.
You simply can't use a character for screening.
As a backlash, characters can't take cover behind other characters even in the open.
Regarding the CP bonuses, battalions just became the standard CAD. I mean a brigade used to net you 3x the amount of CP as a battalion, now it's only 2.4x.
-
Well, the New FAQ doesn't really effect me at all, but it will make the armies I go against look more exciting. Sort of done with the multi-hive tyrant list.
-
I've been considering the character rules, and they are in no way better than the current rules actually, as you can still hide a screening unit behind a wall, and become untargettable.
You simply can't use a character for screening.
As a backlash, characters can't take cover behind other characters even in the open.
Regarding the CP bonuses, battalions just became the standard CAD. I mean a brigade used to net you 3x the amount of CP as a battalion, now it's only 2.4x.
I agree that double-battalion is now quite a bit stronger compared to brigade. In my usual double-battalion army I'd been considering turning it into a brigade, but now I don't think it would really be worth it at all.
-
Also, the increased CP for a battalion helps the more elite armies where these points are soaked up by your HQs and troops. It's also really nice for 1500pt or less games. Gives you some breathing room to actually use/get more stratagems without cramming in min unit extra detachments.
Cheap armies can easily get multiple battalions, or batts + multiple 1CP's. given the power of strats, it doesn't work out in elite armys favour at all.
Sure cheap armies get even more. However armies that aren't cheap get those crucial extra few CP. Most of my games have been more or less over by turn three. Usually I have enough CP (usually 6 or 7) for that one turn where I use a few special stratagem-unit combos. Then I don't have any left. Cheaper armies always out CP'ed me anyway.
-
Sure cheap armies get even more. However armies that aren't cheap get those crucial extra few CP. Most of my games have been more or less over by turn three. Usually I have enough CP (usually 6 or 7) for that one turn where I use a few special stratagem-unit combos. Then I don't have any left. Cheaper armies always out CP'ed me anyway.
I tend to play at the lower end point wise, so generally its a 1 to 2 CP difference across the army's (CWE/DE/Necron/Nids/BA/CM/DG/ORKS/IG). This will push it to 4 CP difference for cheaper armies, which is huge. I would rather see super elite armies getting bonus CP.
-
Psykers struggle as it is, and it's not a lack of smite spam that was the problem, rather the opposite. I guess they just listened to what was complained about rather than what was OP. Giving the SMURF's a nod with the smite spam and not the already terrible and now also nerfed warlock conclave was just plain idiotic.
You mean the nod they gave to Grey Knights, the one army that is considered to have the most useless codex to the point that you rarely see them being played any more? The army that had a toned down version of Smite that was made all but useless by the beta rules? Yeah, it's such a shame that GW made an exception for an army like that... ::)
I've been considering the character rules, and they are in no way better than the current rules actually, as you can still hide a screening unit behind a wall, and become untargettable.
You simply can't use a character for screening.
As a backlash, characters can't take cover behind other characters even in the open.
Actually, the current rules require that the screening unit be visible. They took away the visible requirement because people were using vehicles to snipe characters. Then they took away the screening ability from other characters to prevent the lists of 6+ Cullexus Assassins from screening an army of characters.
CWE changes feels like a knee jerk reaction to what people were having a whine at, but didn't really play test all the changes out with the new rule adjustments.
Not being able to spam reapers, especially given Battle brothers effect on Ynnari, puts a lot of hurt on the tourney lists, which were often backed up with Seer support, that before accounting for the point increases.
Reapers were ridiculously good with their previous point cost, which is why they were spammed. If you had just left the 0-3 restriction, you would see that cap filled for Reapers every time. That would bring you back to 7th edition lists where Eldar lists started with a Riptide Wing, and then went from there. Now, considerations may be made to other units.
To be frank, it feels more like GW are trying to stop people in tourney's from being nobs, but it comes are a really big hit to those who just play for fun and show some shelf control. If I don't want to be trashed by a new codex now, I'm going to have to put more filth in the lists.
That's just it, these rule changes are in Matched Play. Matched Play is the rules set designed for the tournament players. If you want to play fun, fluffy games, then that is why they have Open or Narrative. But complaining that GW is changing things because they are being abused by competitive players in the rules set designed for competitive players just doesn't make sense.
High point cost low model count armies suck in 8th.
My Custodes would disagree with you ;)
I never had an issue with command points for taking a battalion. Is this more of a slap to stop people abusing the other 1 CP detachments? This also puts a massive benefit to low cost armies. I don't get this change either considering the other 1 CP detachments were a way of spamming units, which with the new anti-soup rules makes it very hard to do.
As was mentioned, this is more to benefit the elite armies that can't really afford to run multiple detachments. In 2000pts, my Custodes have exactly 6CP. After I use one to deep strike a unit, and another to pay for a second relic, I am down to 4 for the entire game. At that point, Victor of the Blood Games is not worth the cost, and I have to really consider if I want to spend 1CP for something like redrawing a Tactical Objective.
Seems like we are being pushed back to CAD style gaming, not a bad thing in itself, but moves away from the rhetoric of being able to play the game they way you want...
We never left the CAD style of games. You have a set number of detachments that are all very similar to the CAD of old.Smite is a real problem and the nerf doesn't go far enough.
It's a solid change. Not going to severely hamper 2 or 3 psykers, but 6 or 7 will feel the pinch.
-
Target characters, is now "Wounds characteristic" rather than simply less than 10 wounds. So Large characters can still be targeted once they fall bellow 10.
Repears are good, but were too expensive at the time of the index when everything cost a lot more, are now spammed, so their idea is to take them back to index pricing when just about everything is cheaper its not the way to fix the problem or balance the game. Unit caps have already been tried and tested for other things that have been spammed, there is no need to change the points so badly, especially when the biggest issue was not even CWE.
40k is played with match play rules outside of tourney's for a bunch of reasons and to a large extent this is where you find a lot of ways to balance the game as gentleman's agreements are formed, like OK 1k points, so no more than 10 DR's, no more than 2 smite attempts per turn on an arm that can't deny it, no turn 1 DS, etc ,etc.
Changing point cost has unintended side effects like, sure spaming reapers and seers was super good, but since you have focused on that by using points, you have broken other things like seer+banshee's, which wasn't great, but you get the idea. It also breaks balanced lists
-
@GML:
You mean the nod they gave to Grey Knights, the one army that is considered to have the most useless codex to the point that you rarely see them being played any more? The army that had a toned down version of Smite that was made all but useless by the beta rules? Yeah, it's such a shame that GW made an exception for an army like that... ::)
Grey knights & Thousand sons = 2 flavors of smurf's, sure I'm not against it, they still forgot the warlock conclave (and probably more things), which also have a toned down version o smite.
They even increased the point cost for warlock conclaves with 50%. A unit which already was the worst one in the entire codex.
@everyone:
Reapers should have become 3-7 in unit size would have fixed the problem, now they will either be on the shelf or in Ynnari lists only. While also nerfing the WotP spell (WC +2) GW is again overcompensating by far.
Regarding the detachments, I think upping the bonus for being battleforged would have been more helpful, to say +5CP.
-
After reconfiguring my lists that used Dark Reapers I think those lists will be ok. I'll need to play test though as I have essentially had to drop a unit (swooping Hawks to be specific for those lists) to account for their price increase, as well as the now more expensive HQs.
I can't argue against the reaper increase as they should have been at least a bit more. Maybe they went too far. We'll have to see. I don't use them in every list anyway
I think the Warlocks went way too far in points. They should have stayed the same. Spiritseer is ok, maybe about 10pts cheaper than it's new cost would have been fine.
Luckily I tend to use Skyrunner Farseer and Warlock anyway and their points weren't changed.
-
It's really hard to justify taking a Warlock given how few wounds it has, at the new higher price. I may take a Warlock Skyrunner instead, or a Spiritseer.
-
I would not be surprised to find they were being taken to get access to 3 more squads of reapers. That said, I don't like the trend of just point costing an option out of the game, if you want to control warlocks, there have been a bunch of systems used historically, such as unit upgrades or only being able to take them after purchasing a Farseer, and making them not count towards the HQ slot itself.
-
I would not be surprised to find they were being taken to get access to 3 more squads of reapers. That said, I don't like the trend of just point costing an option out of the game, if you want to control warlocks, there have been a bunch of systems used historically, such as unit upgrades or only being able to take them after purchasing a Farseer, and making them not count towards the HQ slot itself.
If the concern is people taking a Warlock to take a Spearhead with 3-6 more squads of reapers, the Rule of Three prevents that, and if the concern is that reapers are underpriced, that has been addressed.
It's possible that GW has thought about it and just decided there shouldn't be HQs that cost fewer than 50 pts, which is pretty reasonable. As said, though, Warlocks aren't really a typical HQ unit despite being a spellcaster. The last time I played this game regularly before 8e, lone Warlocks are not available as HQs. In fact, you couldn't take lone Warlocks at all!
Basically, GW made two mistakes
1) making stand-alone Warlock an HQ unit when the Warlock statline is so weak and price is so cheap
2) "fixing" it by pricing Warlock at a reasonable price for an HQ unit, without actually fixing Warlock.
Warlock and Warlock Skyrunner should probably be Elites choices, with Warlock Conclave remaining as an HQ choice. That being said, I'm not really sure if there's an easy solution here for GW.
I guess it's time I finally painted that Spiritseer, heh.
-
At their previous points, I really tried to make them work and was pretty disappointed every time. Sure they may do something for a turn or two, but stupidly easy to kill and give up free Vp... Now I think they will get shelved... good thing I hadn't gotten round to painting mine yet
Rest of the FAQ beyond the Eldar costs I think was pretty much spot on. DR needed to go up slightly. 240% though is a bit excessive IMHO.
-
Hey guys, can someone point in the direction of the 3 detachment limit rule? I downloaded the FAQ, but must be blind because I cannot find it :P. Wanted to know what this new rule means for Drukhari.
-
Hey guys, can someone point in the direction of the 3 detachment limit rule? I downloaded the FAQ, but must be blind because I cannot find it :P. Wanted to know what this new rule means for Drukhari.
The Rule of Three is not a rule, just a recommendation for tournaments. It's in the big FAQ here under Organized Events: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf)
-
Gotcha', thank you!!! ^^
-
Also note, it excludes troops and transports from the rule of three. So still feel free to run your three detachments of cult, coven, and Kabal.
I think DE, while more mono-build now, are still very, very effective.
-
Good to hear, guys, thanks for the info :).
-
And it's only a recommendation luckily. That'll be an awkward line to walk if an event actually wanted to try an promote more fluffy lists. Saim-Hann can only take three units of windriders? Not like tourneys promote that kind of thing though.
-
Three units are plenty. Just take larger squads. There are other units you can take to make a themed list, like Vipers and shinning spears and such.
Speaking of spamming stuff, a buddy of mine, trying to chase the meta, is now selling 5 hive tyrants, and is sitting on $1000 of biovores, he was planning to run an army of (27 in total). I'm glad that sort of nonsense is out of the game.
I don't see any reason why you'd need to run more than three of any non-troop or transport unit anyway, this will definitely help stop the abuse of unit spam. Going to feel like running the CAD of old, I'm happy about that.
-
@Partninja- I feel you on that one Ninja. You really dont want to run huge units of them, because they become such a huge target and are impossible to hide out of LOS and plus the morale rules really sting for large expensive units with low LD.
There are some army builds where thats gonna hurt. This is one of those "tournament" rules that I see bleeding into casual matched play. I've always said that where the tourney crowd goes, the pickup scene follows.
I do think its ultimatley for the best however. People are notorious for there lack of restraint when it comes to 40k. So sadly this kinda stuff is necessary
-
Very glad they are going in this direction, as I feel it's going to make things a lot more balanced and closer to the fluff. No self-respecting hive mind would have a single force of five hive tyrants in the fluff, so why should we allow it in the game? A force should be somewhat balanced, which is something we even see in modern real-life armies.
If you think you've found a loop-hole or exploit in eighth edition and you already have the models, by all means go for it. But don't go buying 50 razorwings or 30 dark reapers because today's GW is going to recognize the issue and shut it down in six months.
-
Three units are plenty. Just take larger squads. There are other units you can take to make a themed list, like Vipers and shinning spears and such. .
You could do that, but I think the ideal solution would be to go back to having subfactions that could treat certain units as troops, like Saim Hannah jet bikes (which eventually became troops for all elder before moving back to fast attack), Iyanden wraithguard, and Deathwing terminators. This is especially the case where the CP disparity between battalion and non-batallion lists has become so pronounced.
-
Three units are plenty. Just take larger squads. There are other units you can take to make a themed list, like Vipers and shinning spears and such. .
You could do that, but I think the ideal solution would be to go back to having subfactions that could treat certain units as troops, like Saim Hannah jet bikes (which eventually became troops for all elder before moving back to fast attack), Iyanden wraithguard, and Deathwing terminators. This is especially the case where the CP disparity between battalion and non-batallion lists has become so pronounced.
I'm not too sure it's a good idea, it would be really hard to balance out and make it work.
Supposedly you want to apply this kind of rules, taking Eldar as an exemple as it's the only army I know. Sam Hann would get scatter bike with 3 of them as troops and take a load of them. What would you do for ulthwe then, give them warlock council as troops? Boost there guardians? And Bieltan, which is a aspect type of army, would you give elite units the troops treatments? It's realisticly not feasible, fluff yes but feasible no.
One option could be having flexible organizations slot for a kind lower efficienty bataillons (3cp instead of the new five for exemple). And that one would be fitted with the special rules of a craft world chapter tactics or what not.
An other option could be having a warlord trait that unlock said unit stacking. You are trading one benefit for an other. Seeing the balance of the game right now I find it hard to think of other options.
You can't give any army free benefit. It won't work with the current player base, a trade off is nessecary.
-
Given the low strength of pure Saim-Hann at the moment, I wouldn't be too concerned. It wouldn't be that hard for Saim-Hann to get a rule like "Saim-Hann Windriders are immune to the Rule of Three" which wouldn't actually be strong but would allow for more windrider-heavy Saim-Hann lists to be played in a tournament settings.
I don't think Alaitoc needs a buff, and their signature unit is already a troop. Same goes for Ulthwé, and Biel-Tan has several units as their signature unit, one of which is a troop.
Iyanden could probably use immunity to Rule of Three for their Wraithguard and Wraithlords, and it wouldn't make them strong. As it stands, it's hard to actually take more than 3 units of Wraithguard anyway, though I have done so.
-
As stated above the examples for Eldar are quite easy. Ulthwe already has their core unit as a troop. Same with Alaitoc. Biel-tan already have an aspect as a troop as well. Saim-Hann and Iyanden are the only exceptions which would really require something.
Iyanden actually make great use of guardian defenders given their trait and is less food for wraithguard (unless you want to use wraithblades). Great for their MCs and vehicles though. Rule of three won't really hinder them given the ratio of points vs models. Making wraithguard troops would help pad out their scoring potential with their generally lower model count.
But this is side tracking.
Some of the adjustments hurt. Good thing there will be another FAQ later this year to hopefully bring some the changes back down (warlocks).
-
In my opinion, solo Warlock and Warlock Skyrunner should never have been HQs. They're too cheap and weak, probably better slotted in as Elite. GW had to bring up the Warlock price to make them priced like a typical HQ, but it really doesn't work.
-
In my opinion, solo Warlock and Warlock Skyrunner should never have been HQs. They're too cheap and weak, probably better slotted in as Elite. GW had to bring up the Warlock price to make them priced like a typical HQ, but it really doesn't work.
Well the Archon's body guards now take up elite slots, so yeah they could do that, or like they have previously simply have a requirement to take something else (units of guardians or a farseer) to get access to warlocks.
The point increase doesn't feel like someone has sat down and worked it out, warlocks being almost double the index price and spiritseers points were dropped because no one was using them in the index, when most of our stuff cost more, now it 1 point less than the index...
I'm happy GW is reacting to problems, but feels like they are in such a mad rush to get everything out, they don't have time to actually think about what they are doing.
There is also the question of the Tournament organisers, you used to find house rules for them to stop stuff getting out of hand. I don't know if GW has had a quiet word with them or if the rush of material means its just too hard for them to keep up.
-
Correction. I didn't notice that the BRB FAQ actually prevents reserve units from moving twice, not just the beta rules for tactical reserves. First turn deepstrikes beyond your deployment zone are still allowed as this is a beta rule.
-
First turn deepstrikes beyond your deployment zone are still allowed as this is a beta rule.
Watch the live stream video, they are dead keen on blunting alpha strikes, which is why the first turn DS beta rule was introduced. So you may as well play by the new rules.
-
As soon as it's an actual new rule we will.
-
At least in my area everyone plays with the new beta rule whenever they are available, so my friends will be using these rules.
-
Beta rules are the way to go. Played my first game with the new updates tonight, nothing really drastic to how I used to play, so I didn't really notice anything different, besides now having two more command points.
All these changes are healthy changes to the game.
-
We prefer to wait. Don't want to get used to the beta rule only to have them change it or decide it's not necessary.
-
We prefer to wait. Don't want to get used to the beta rule only to have them change it or decide it's not necessary.
I think you'll be in the minority on that. The previous set of beta rules were widely adopted. I think all events adopted them. The changes are all healthy for the game, I see no reason to not use them.
-
I'm not making an argument. That's just what my LGS is doing.
-
I'm not making an argument. That's just what my LGS is doing.
Fair enough.
-
Deathwatch FAQed
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/warhammer_40000_deathwatch_en.pdf)
-
We prefer to wait. Don't want to get used to the beta rule only to have them change it or decide it's not necessary.
I think you'll be in the minority on that. The previous set of beta rules were widely adopted. I think all events adopted them. The changes are all healthy for the game, I see no reason to not use them.
We don't play Beta in my group either. Maybe once or twice to test them (as is the point), then we send email to FAQ team and go back to playing normally. The last lot of Beta rules were changed before being added properly.
-
We don't play the beta rules here either, because they are not very clear in what they should do.
Psychic powers lacks a lot of clarity, the example misses the target.
New character rules can be abused just as much as the current ones.
The new reserves restriction don't hit their target, instead they hamper a lot of melee units. I think the "CC in 40k is ridiculous"-choir have been heard a little too much, especially as the point cost of affected units are not adjusted accordingly.
-
'Quins get their FAQ, and like their 'Dex it's short and sweet
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/warhammer_40000_harlequins_en.pdf (https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/warhammer_40000_harlequins_en.pdf)
-
Knights, renegade Knights, IA Imperium and IA Chaos as well as Ad Mech all got updated FAQ's