Big FAQ Update

[pretre]

7 minutes ago, Dark Trainer said:

Too lazy to look, no Necron changes yet?

ERRATA
Pages 87 and 99 – Catacomb Command Barge and
Annihilation Barge, Abilities
Add the following ability:
‘Hovering: Instead of measuring distances and ranges
to and from this model’s base, measure to and from this
model’s hull or base (whichever is closer).’
Page 112 – Methodical Destruction
Change the rules text to read:
‘Use this Stratagem after a Sautekh unit from your
army has attacked an enemy unit and the attack resulted
in the enemy unit losing one or more wounds. Add 1 to
hit rolls for attacks made by other Sautekh units from
your army that target the same enemy unit this phase.’
Page 117 – Named Characters and Warlord Traits
Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph:
‘If either Illuminor Szeras or Anrakyr the Traveller is
your Warlord, then replace the <Dynasty> keyword in
their Warlord Trait with Necron.’
Page 118 – Points Values
Move the entries for Deathmarks and Lychguard from
the ‘Troops’ section into the ‘Elites’ section.
FAQs
Q: Can C’tan Shards use a Power of the C’tan while within
1" of an enemy model?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a Triarch Stalker use its Targeting Relay ability to re-
roll hit rolls of 1 for its own attacks after the first?
A: No.

 

[spagunk]

2 hours ago, pretre said:

On the other hand, with the inability of DS to come ferret you out of your DZ, you can hide behind terrain turn 1 and survive until turn 2 if you have good LOS blockers.

"Hit, run, hide. The Highland way!"

I don't play no Space Wolves!

[Dusldorf]

The salty tears of spammers are so delicious 

[DisruptiveConduct]

17 hours ago, PumpkinHead said:

I am on the fence about the first turn no charging. It gives gun lines a free phase they know they won't be harassed. If you run mawlocs, they now have a chance to spread out further making them less good. I am not sure why biovores got bumped to 50 points. They were decent but not game changing.

where do you see a price increase for biovores? is it somewhere other than the tyranid faq?

[CaptainA]

6 minutes ago, DisruptiveConduct said:

where do you see a price increase for biovores? is it somewhere other than the tyranid faq?

Its in the BIG FAQ, near the bottom.

[Munkie]

I'm mostly okay with this FAQ, but making the Drukhari raiding force obsolete after a week and a half seems pointless. 

"Hey there's this super cool formation you can do! If you take 3 patrol detachments you get +4 CP. You read that right, if you buy one extra HQ, you will be rewarded with one less CP than a battalion, isn't that great!"

I was excited to run that for the OFCC but now I'm back to the drawing board. 

[PumpkinHead]

There is A LOT of hate being tossed around for this FAQ. The one that gets me the most is not being able to assault units that are on lvl 2+ of ruins if you can't fit your models. Giving someone a non assault able unit is all sorts of bad juju for the game.

[WestRider]

16 minutes ago, PumpkinHead said:

There is A LOT of hate being tossed around for this FAQ. The one that gets me the most is not being able to assault units that are on lvl 2+ of ruins if you can't fit your models. Giving someone a non assault able unit is all sorts of bad juju for the game.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see that one get reversed. That said, this is GW, so I wouldn't be particularly surprised to see it stay, either. The only other things that really bug me at all are the Imperial Units with no HQs (IMO, should have added an Agents of the Imperium Faction Keyword or something like that, so you could have a mish-mash Detachment of Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and maybe Legion of the Damned), and the Rule of Three ends up killing off a lot of cool options along with the obnoxious spammy ones.

[Skkipper]

my biggest issue is my renegade knight porpyrion needs to find a way to get into my chaos lists. He will probably his own detachment in the future.

 

[SPaceORK]

Huh... At first I was super salty about this FAQ but realized it doesn't do all that much? 

I can still add a 200 point IG detachment and get +5 command points.

I usually don't deep strike my custodes till turn two anyways.

20 man alpha legion beszerker squad charging turn one still works.

I can still take 4-6 demon princes. (There I think 3 different dp dataslates?)

The only thing that really doesn't make sense is the invulnerability of units to assault if they are in ruins?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SPaceORK said:

The only thing that really doesn't make sense is the invulnerability of units to assault if they are in ruins?

It makes sense to me until someone explains that we measure that 1" distance from base (aka the feet of the model). So a really tall model can't engage people on top of a high building without actually being on the building.

[SPaceORK]

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

It makes sense to me until someone explains that we measure that 1" distance from base (aka the feet of the model). So a really tall model can't engage people on top of a high building without actually being on the building.

Yea, you've always, as far as I know, measured from the base/feet area of the model. It's a stupid rule though and everyone should tell GW so.

[pretre]

16 hours ago, Munkie said:

I'm mostly okay with this FAQ, but making the Drukhari raiding force obsolete after a week and a half seems pointless. 

"Hey there's this super cool formation you can do! If you take 3 patrol detachments you get +4 CP. You read that right, if you buy one extra HQ, you will be rewarded with one less CP than a battalion, isn't that great!"

I was excited to run that for the OFCC but now I'm back to the drawing board. 

It's OFCC. Ask Bryan once the player packet is done and he'll probably let it happen. It isn't like that one is OP.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, SPaceORK said:

Yea, you've always, as far as I know, measured from the base/feet area of the model. It's a stupid rule though and everyone should tell GW so.

In AoS, measure from any part of the model. Regarding terrain, my favorite so far is the GW rules for buildings in AoS:

1 unit (any size) and up to 1 character (any size) can occupy a piece of terrain. They embark it like a transport. While occupying unit is still on the table, unit has cover (+1 to save) and unit is considered to be that piece of terrain for all LoS/measuring purposes. With two units embarked (character and one other) units are considered in the same spot for rules that depend on closest or furthest models, though they are still separate units.

So, you occupy a tower, gains you cover and a vantage point, but on the other hand, you are much easier for the enemy to shoot at you. Rules are supposed to be buildings, but they work well for just about any terrain feature. Very simple. Ignores the entire issue of terrain types. Makes Auras really huge, but that's about the only potentially OP rules interaction.

I'd love to run 40k terrain pieces like this. So much easier on the rules.

[Munkie]

4 hours ago, pretre said:

It's OFCC. Ask Bryan once the player packet is done and he'll probably let it happen. It isn't like that one is OP.

It's not about whether or not I can take it. It's just that it's objectively not as good as just taking a battalion. 

Raiding Force is 3 HQs, 3 troops, for +4 CPs

Battalion is 2 HQs, 3 troops, for +5

The raiding force was a a thematic and cool idea for about 10 days. Now it's a thematic but bad idea. Which is sad. 

[pretre]

1 minute ago, Munkie said:

It's not about whether or not I can take it. It's just that it's objectively not as good as just taking a battalion. 

Raiding Force is 3 HQs, 3 troops, for +4 CPs

Battalion is 2 HQs, 3 troops, for +5

The raiding force was a a thematic and cool idea for about 10 days. Now it's a thematic but bad idea. Which is sad. 

Ahh, but... Raiding force gets you Cabal, Wych, Coven with only 3 HQs.

[Munkie]

9 minutes ago, pretre said:

Ahh, but... Raiding force gets you Cabal, Wych, Coven with only 3 HQs.

True. There is some value in that. But I love mandrakes and scourges so much that the amount of value I get out of 3 obsessions is lessened.

Battalion+vanguard/spearhead/outrider seems better. Same troop and HQ tax but I gain 2 CPs at the cost of 1 obsession. 

[pretre]

20 minutes ago, Munkie said:

True. There is some value in that. But I love mandrakes and scourges so much that the amount of value I get out of 3 obsessions is lessened.

Battalion+vanguard/spearhead/outrider seems better. Same troop and HQ tax but I gain 2 CPs at the cost of 1 obsession. 

Sure, sure. But there is a value to it. :)

[Guest]

I've been thinking that armies need less command points, not more, but I can see why GW wants more, given that the main difference between a codex army and an index one is the stratagems and a $50 book. More command points means more reason to buy a codex.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I like vk

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I've been thinking that armies need less command points, not more.

To clarify, I just think that command points slow the game down. The cards help, but the game still slows. I'd rather play without stratagems and command points, and just be able to complete games faster. Depends on the players, but I'd guess I could save about a half hour per game if we played without command points.

Been thinking about Organizing a Black Friday Apocalypse game (Probably at GG) this year. Gotta simplify the game if I want to complete it. The pregame stratagems are easy, but with 100k per side, stratagems will be a disaster.

[Munkie]

4 hours ago, pretre said:

Sure, sure. But there is a value to it. :)

Good point.

 

 

 

 

 

For me to poop on!

[Lord Hanaur]

The massive and I mean MASSIVE avalanche of posts and texts and emails I got about this when i returned from the Bahamas yesterday was...  crazy.  I had to scramble and update the FAQ's for our GT and the one thing i am really unsure about what to do is the building thing.  You could literally just spread out and be unable to be charged.  Wobbly model is designed to handle this problem.  Yet somehow GW thought suddenly that this was an issue?  

I'm seeking opinions on the ruins thing because I think I may just ignore that one and continue to allow the 1" rule to be THE rule of choice for dealing with what is or isnt a charge.,

[pretre]

Those of you with your finger on the pulse of Warhammer 40,000 gaming will have noticed that this week saw the launch of the Big FAQ 1 2018.

This update covered commonly asked questions sent in by players of many armies, as well as introducing new matched play rules to the game and suggesting new limitations on list building for organised play events. It also presented some new matched play beta rules for community testing.

A large number of these changes have come about because of the emails that the community (that’s you!) have sent in to our rules inbox.

We received thousand of emails with feedback on the game from players across the world, but we also have a dedicated playtest team, who trial new rules and offer their own expert perspectives on any proposed changes. Many of these guys are also involved in organising some of the biggest independent Warhammer 40,000 events around the world, and have first-hand experience from watching and playing thousands of games.

As the people who have had a chance to get to grips with these changes the longest, we asked a few of our matched play playtesters to give their thoughts on some of the changes in this Big FAQ.

First off, here’s James, one of the tournament organisers from the London Grand Tournament.

James: The Warhammer 40,000 Big FAQ may be a little later than expected, but as the old saying goes, “good things come to those who wait”, and there’s a deep well of riches in this FAQ that makes it well worth the wait. It’s hard to pick one change as my favourite but, being involved in the UK tournament scene, it’s going to be one focused on matched play, as that’s what I’m primarily interested in.

The beta Tactical Reserves rule, requiring any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the first turn to be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone, is terrific. This is a massive change for the better (or should I say ‘beta’)! Before, a player could design an army whereby all of their firepower could deploy in turn 1 and wipe your army off the table. This was not fun to play against. What’s more, it meant that their opponent had to spend ages deploying, desperately trying to limit the deployment of those reserve units. This slowed the game down a lot. Now, you don’t really need to worry about any of this in the first turn, because your opponent will have to place their reserve units in their deployment zone.

Matt and Michael from the Nova Open event also had some thoughts on these developments. Like James, they highlighted the changes to Tactical Reserves, and mused on the updates to Command Points and the suggested limitations on datasheet repetition at events:

Michael: Many players will initially read Brigade Detachments getting 12 CP and Battalion Detachments getting 5 and think “Well that’s silly, now Astra Militarum can have even more!”. This was an initial reaction during testing, too, but upon deeper analysis it’s a bit irrelevant. The issue with Command Points was the narrow range of armies that could get “enough to do what they really wanted/needed to”, while others already had more Command Points than they could realistically use. We could have chosen to in some way limit their Command Point access, but all that would do is make all armies struggle to generate enough CP. Instead, we increased the number of points generated by Battalion and Brigade Detachments. This both encourages fielding armies that “look like armies” with a healthy dose of officers and troops, and enables most factions and builds to generate more than enough CP by fielding at least a Battalion Detachment.

Matt: The suggested limit on datasheets included in armies at events is by far my favourite change. This edition has been a huge success, but one of the things matched play has been missing was some real structure. This change will really help bring the story alive, as we’ll ultimately see far more thematic armies come to the field.

Michael: The more nuanced impact takes a bit of analysis to unveil. This edition of Warhammer 40,000 is focused on a very freeform Force Organisation structure, so armies entirely comprised of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, or HQ are legal. As a result, solely shuffling points without other changes bears the risk of simply creating “the next spam* list”. Instead, the suggested 3 Detachment limit in a 2000 point game enables the design team to keep points for powerful units at a fairly competitive level – after all, you can’t have more than 3 of most of them! In so doing, this enables – with time, Chapter Approved releases, and future codexes – a consistently enriched meta** where more and more units find their way to the “sweet spot” between points cost and effectiveness.

This change is immediately good for the game in its impact on things like Flyrants***, Plagueburst Crawlers, and Ravenwing Dark Talons, but it’s also important for the longer term evolution of Warhammer 40,000, as it enables more even-handed costing of a wider variety of units across the depth and breadth of the game.

Greg is part of the team that runs the massive AdeptiCon event each year near Chicago (an event that provided a huge amount of data that informed this Big FAQ). Still fresh from the event, he was especially excited to see the limitation on datasheets in organised play events:

Greg: For those who love matched play and want to see more variety on the tabletop, the “No More Than Three” suggested rule in 2000 point games is part of the solution. Combined with the beta rules of preventing cherry-picked inter-faction Detachments and limitations on Tactical Reserves, I’m excited to see what combinations the community creates.

Reece has long been a champion of Warhammer 40,000 organised play, and is part of the team that runs some of the biggest tournaments in the US, such as the Las Vegas Open and SoCal Open. He was pretty stoked about the changes:

Reece: This FAQ brings balance to Warhammer 40,000, encouraging creativity and diversity in matched play list-building. This is the best thing to happen to the new edition of the game.

Thanks playtesters! We’ll leave these guys alone now, so they can go off and roll dice to test for the next update. But they’re not the only ones who can test out the rules – with regard to the new matched play beta rules especially, we want to hear from you. If you have any thoughts on these new updates, or any rules for that matter, get in touch with our rules team.

Warhammer 40,000 player lingo breakdown:

* A unit taken in large numbers, to the exclusion of other options.
** Strategic trends in gameplay.
*** A Tyranid Hive Tyrant with wings.

The post The Big FAQ – Words from the Playtesters appeared first on Warhammer Community.

[Skkipper]

funny that "Greg" from adepticon team was my college roommate for a couple of years.

 

I like the rule of three but I will need to purge some of my extra models.