40K: The New FAQ Is Here…What Will We Do?

40K FAQ Request-horz

Now that so many of your questions have been answered, how will the community react?

As a community, we are so used to resolving issues ourselves, that the new FAQ almost seems like an after thought.  This does not, of course, lessen my appreciation for the fact that GW did what they said they would do.  I think for most of us, the FAQ is a good thing, and that we will welcome the clarification it provides.  Some, of course, are already nerd raging about certain things; sorry, only Vision can move through walls!  And then there is the “one-shot” grenade “nerf” for those hoping to assault a vehicle and Krak grenade it to death; I know Dreads are SO hard to kill without it.  Like sharing?  No more sharing transports for you, even with your best buddies.  The Void Shield change that eliminates the “toe in the water” syndrome.  Most are glad for the information/clarity.  Some, as you would expect, are not.  But no rule set will satisfy everyone.  GW has listened and responded.  Now let’s get on with it and play our game.

orks-nobz-horzDis’ Ain’t No GAME!

Does it make the game more balanced?  There’s the 40K “B-word.” Simply put, it will not.  Moreover, it was not meant to provide balance.  It’s main purpose is to clarify questions that have resulted from wording of a not-so-watertight ruleset (as though such a thing actually exists in any minatures game; don’t get me started, please!).  Seeking balance in 40K is like playing Don Quixote in Man of La Mancha.  No matter how tight the rule set, someone will seek to maximize their advantage, and balance becomes a proverbial ghost.  The FAQ doesn’t address balance because the rules weren’t meant to be abused; the writers consider them inherently balanced.  As stated earlier; some will like the answers provided and some will not.  Which brings us to another point…

What about those who already write their own FAQs and modify rule sets?  Modifying rule sets does not balance the game; it merely meets the needs of specific constituencies that exist in the 40K community.  Honestly, why should the “modifiers” care what the FAQ says?  They pick and choose from the existing ruleset as it is, or ban certain units/builds.  It does not stand to reason that any FAQ responses that don’t fit their vision of how the game should be played will be any more acceptable than certain published, specific rules are now.  Given their rationale of “everybody changes the rules,” it would at least be consistent.  What is not consistent is their application of rules modifications/nerfs/bans.  For example, let’s modify/nerf certain psychic powers because they are “too powerful/disruptive.”  OK, then help me understand how allowing two Stormsurges in the same army list is not way more powerful than a psychic power that, according to the new FAQ, can only be cast once?  Are they going to nerf the new Sorcerer Cabal because it is “too powerful” as well?  They also talk about Grav being too powerful, yet even six Grav Cents would be extremely lucky to kill a Stormsurge in a single turn.  It has long been understood that we should do whatever we want as a community with the rules.  And, to be fair, if a part of the community wants to play a certain way, it is their right to do so.  Just be consistent when you call something “too powerful’ or “too disruptive” to the competitive play scene; especially if you are picking and choosing from a FAQ that the parent company which created 40K was finally responsive enough to create.

neil-patrick-harris-fighting-ninjasFighin’ Words!

Authors disclaimer…it may seem that after my rant/segue in the previous paragraph, that I am some kind of ITC hater.  Nothing further from the truth.  I have been listening to Reece and Frankie since the summer of 2015.  I respect the passion they have for our hobby, and for their professional commitment to grow the tournament scene.  It is more than apparent that they work their asses off for their constituents and to make the hobby a better place to play.  I would be proud to buy them both an adult beverage of their choice if I ever get the chance to meet them in person.  What I don’t like is their inconsistency in picking which rules/units/weapons to modify/nerf.  I have provided a couple of examples in the preceding paragraph.  But as in all thing where folks share a common interest, there will be disagreements.  This is such a case.

Group-pf-people-toasting-beers

I will categorize how I think different segments of the 40K community at large will respond.  I break this into three groups; casual gamers, non-ITC TOs, and the ITC compliant organized gamers…

  • Casual gamers:  This group will most likely accept the responses as written.  If it says that I can’t load my Admech into Drop Pods anymore, then I won’t.  For the most part, casual gamers adhere to RAW anyway, with a few tweaks using house rules now and again.  For example, my local meta uses the Malestrom cards in a way that we feel minimizes the randomness that many in the competitive scene dislike.  Overall, I think this group will talk about the changes, then go about their business playing the game.
  • Non-ITC TOs:  I would think this group will also welcome the clarification this FAQ, in its final form, should provide.  I would anticipate TOs in this group modifying their own FAQs to align with the new document, and to support any reasonable local meta dissention.
  • ITC TOs:I strongly believe that while this document is most welcome by the folks in the ITC, that it is more of a sidebar for them.  They have, and should (just listened to SFTF Episode 430), pat themselves on the back for any FAQ responses that are consistent with decisions they have already made.  However, I can already see those wheels turning, considering which parts of the FAQ to ignore/modify.  I just can’t see this FAQ having that large an impact on ITC play.  Their own tome is already extensive (24+ pages) enough to absorb any system shock that might occur.  Moreover, their propensity to modify the rule set gives them the room to allow this thing to “walk on by.”

 

microphone-BW1They heard us!

The community as a whole seems to have welcomed this FAQ for what is appears to be: an honest attempt by GDub to respond to the 40K community in a way that shows they are at least making the effort to listen to us.  How different “factions” within the community react will certainly depend on their individual perspectives and how invested they are in the game.  Some play it for recreation; Others own businesses that depend on the success of GW as a company.  Whatever the response, it is great to see that our favorite minatures company seems to finally be attending to the most crucial aspect of their business…customers.

 

 

What’s your take? Are you an FAQ Adopter or are you an FAQ Rebel? Let us know in the comments below!

  • rtheom

    FAQ is great, but they really gotta take a page from Privateer. Burn the whole thing down and build it all back up at once. That’s gonna be the only way you’ll ever get anything resembling balance. Playing “rules and points-cost catch up” only results in a slow but steady inflation of everything. Just look at the economy for a great example! :p

    And I think this is what they wanted with AoS, but it was more like “burn the whole thing down and now build a whole new thing” instead…

    • Secundum

      They don’t care about balance – as this article even says. The rules are inherently balanced, it’s the players who abuse the system by taking 9 fliers in 1500 point list (an example from 6th edition).

      • J Mad

        The rules say you can tho….

        • Shiwan8

          Should you tho?

          • J Mad

            But that wasnt my point, just b.c someone does what the rules say doesnt mean its the players fault, its the rules fault.

          • Shiwan8

            So, being an a-hole is fine because the law is not against it?

          • J Mad

            You know some people enjoy the challenge and competitive of the game and like to play with better units.

            If you want to play at a lower level that is ok, dont tell comp players they are A-holes b.c they want a different game style.

            You can go play with people you like, its not that hard.

          • Shiwan8

            I enjoy the challenge. It’s one of the main reasons why I do not play eldar, tau or marines. The tournament builds are the WH40k easy mode. “Competitive” does not mean cheese. Actually, I have no idea why “I want to play broken units to roflstomp my opponents” is twisted from the truth to something like “I like to be competitive”. Those same “competitive” people are the worst whiners when they face their own creatios with something reasonable.

            Anyway my point was that bringing those kinds of lists against people who do not use them is what makes a person an a-hole. If one wants an actual challenge one uses seaker lists.

          • Damistar

            The world’s gone mad, I’m actually agreeing with you this time. A lot of the metas problems do start with the players.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            If they enjoyed the challenge, they would play a harder to play army, rather than cheese out a codex in order to table an opponent.

            Come to think of it, one could say that the more balanced codex has the fewest ways to cheese it out. By that definition, the Eldar codex is horribly balanced.

          • J Mad

            Right… Thats like asking a Professional Bowler to play against a new bowler and give him a large handicap.

            Playing Comp isnt about the book, its about trying to find the best thing and using the your knowledge to win.

            But to be far I personally do play DE and I play against highly comp players/lists all the time.

            Why? B.c its fun, but I dont QQ about my partners bring Super Best friends and ask them to take it easy on me.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            If being competitive means taking cheesy spam lists that bend the rules to get an advantage, then maybe 40k shouldn’t be considered a competitive game.

            Playing against a list whose sole purpose is to table an opponent isn’t fun no matter which army you play.

          • J Mad

            It isnt… no one said it is, Im saying if people want to play like that let them, you dont have to play with them.

          • DJ860

            Would bowling still be fun if the rules allowed you to bowl the ball from anywhere on the lane, not behind the line? There will be people who try to play in the spirit of the game and play to enjoy and then there would be people who would walk up to the pins and smash them all down from an inch away.

            The rules don’t help, the players don’t help. Just play against normal people and hope that GW keeps improving.

          • J Mad

            But there are better balls, wrist supports, better shoes and even trainers. Not everyone can afford these things, doesnt mean the ones that can should be penalized

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            basically Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan

          • Drpx

            If you really like flyers…

          • Shiwan8

            Doing anything that is not against the law is fine if you like it?

        • georgelabour

          The rule book also says don’t be a jerk…..

          and that it’s about having fun with other people…

          Which are both actually stated before anything about army building crops up…..

          • J Mad

            But for many people, to them it is fun to make the strongest list possible, thats kinda the whole point of tournaments.

          • Mr.Gold

            the best way to sort this is if both people know that you wish to take the strongest list possible, so that they may also try to do the same. whereas if you and your friends are looking to have fun then just take a standard list.

          • J Mad

            Right, so there is no reason anyone should be mad about balance then.

          • Josh Watkins

            this reminds me of a post I did a while back about how some players were taking tournament lists an swapping out a unit or two an calling in their beer an pretzels list … If my local LGS is full of nothing but those kinds of people then how am I to compete even on a casual level? This is why I stopped playing 40k an swapped to Warmachine, The fact that you can have competitive armies at a beer an pretzel level is great plus their tournaments required a lot of skill (for MK2 at least) with play timers and a boat load of diversity and terrain dynamics. Right now GW only cares about profit hence the constant flavors of the month and allowance of multi dex army lists. just look at those space marine formations that allow access to free transports … sorry but when you imply to a casual player that they need to buy a boat load more models just to remain on a casual level … thats messed up.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            the problem is, a lot of those people don’t know how to make a “standard” list. To them, cheese is standard.

            I’ve met people who literally have no idea what their army fluff is, they simply chose the army for a gaming advantage. These are the people you see at tournaments.

            That kind of thinking is alien to the rest of us.

          • Shawn

            I know someone like that. I was rather amazed. He had no idea about the background, just likes 40k and the look of his faction. Every game has some kind of story behind it. It just blew my mind.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            ha. I always have some kind of backstory and theme behind every army I build. I’m 100% a fluff buff.

          • Shawn

            I’m a fluff nut myself. I hardly ever use bikes for instance, since the Iron Hands don’t use them much, even though they’re codex complaint and could deploy them. They’re all about war machines, hence I have almost a dozen different dreads, three vindicators, two predators and a couple of different landraiders.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            You get it, then. I play Iron Warriors, so I only use undivided units plus tons of vehicles and walkers. It isn’t what a lot of people consider competitive, but at least my army has enough backstory to fill a novel with.

          • Shawn

            Very true. Having that fluff gives you a feel for who and what the army is, it’s soul so-to-speak. I just wish GW, or even FW would give me the tools/models to make Kardan Stronos and Chief Librarian Lydriik. I’d be a happy camper.

          • euansmith

            A Dirt Dozen ‘Dread Division would look most excellent; it might be rubbish, but would look excellent. Plus each ‘Dread could be given its own little bit of backstory.

          • Shawn

            The Dirty Dozen Dreads?

          • georgelabour

            and for many people it’s fun to play with other people instead of with themselves.

            Your argument also doesn’t invalidate the ‘don’t be a jerk rule’ as being as much a part of the 40k game as the ’15 guardsmen and 1 Reaver titan in a youngbloods tourney is legit’ angle.

      • Rasmus Høgh Nørskov

        I am sorry, but the rules are far from balanced.

        Chess is balanced, because both players get the same “armies”. So the only way a man can win is by his own skill, and not by having a board with superior models.

        However, when you make a game like 40K, and you introduce many different types of models with many different types of abilities, it becomes much more difficult to balance, because so many factors comes into play.

        If the rules were inherently balanced, it should, by all standards, mean that if a guy actually brought 9 fliers in a 1500 points list, it would not even be called “abuse of the rules”, because no matter what he brought, the opponent would have an equal chance of winning.

        This is just not the case.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Balance should mean every army is capable of combating any strategy, however, individual lists will still have holes that clever players will exploit for their own gain.You may lose to the flyer list today but tomorrow you can build the anti-air list to combat your friends list

          • Gorsameth

            That is an arms race created by GW to sell you new kits to beat your friends new kit.

            5th edition allowed for all-comer lists. Armies that had a decent chance to win no matter what appeared on the other side of the table.
            7th no longer allows such lists.

            There are to many extremes in the game, the result of bad balance.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            People didn’t take balanced lists in 5th. They brought lists full of spam and cheese. They do the same thing in 7th. Difference is, with formations and allies, you can simply do different kinds of spam.

          • Gorsameth

            Sure I’m not saying it was perfect but it was a lot less rock-paper-scissors then it is now.

            The problem with 7th is to many things (flyers, psykers, super heavies) require specific weapons to fight or are just nigh immune to damage.
            It takes away the feeling that a player can fight back which creates awful games.

            Yes 5th had a lot of spam and cheese but a lot less “oh you brought X, guess you win unless you roll terrible all game”.

          • What you just described is the most interesting and diverse field of opponents I’ve ever seen, though. There’s half a dozen different builds for the top books, tons of different combos and ways to leverage a win. Add in a decent set of missions and you have a really solid edition.

            Only real problem is the game takes twice as long to play as 5th

          • Rasmus Høgh Nørskov

            But at that time, he would have made another list, that is “OP” because he knew the anti-air builds were coming.
            Even if he didn’t make a new list, he would still dictate the entire hobby, because everyone will have to build certain ways, if they want to have a close match or a victory.

            I don’t really believe in game-balance, but I do believe that some games come closer to balance than others. 40K has yet to reach “fair ground” in my opinion. This is why I mostly hope people would play with models they find cool or go after a certain theme, instead of just pursuing what will make you win most fights 🙂

        • Oliver Milne

          ‘Balance’ doesn’t mean that every build is as good as every other – the best definition I can come up with, in this context, is that there are a wide variety of top-tier competitive builds, with every codex having some of them. From what I read (I’ve not actually played a game in more than a year, more’s the pity) that’s not the case at the moment.

        • Talys

          Sadly, chess is not perfectly balanced. White has a better chance of winning, all things being equal. The numbers are actually statistically significant (something like white wins 55% of the time, on average). Go is a slightly better example — black goes first, giving it an advantage, which is compensated for by special rules. But I will happily agree that both are way more balanced than any miniature tabletop wargame!

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            Going first isn’t an advantage.

            Playing 40k should have taught you this

          • Talys

            haha… in some games, going first is an advantage; in others, going second is an advantage. My point being, it’s not actually balanced unless going first or second is irrelevant, it’s balanced by a game mechanic, or both sides move concurrently. Football is a good example of a game mechanic fixing First Move Advantage — if you start in the first half, your opponent starts in the second half; StarCraft is another example of no First Move Advantage, because the two sides move simultaneously (but obviously, there are other potentially unbalancing issues in both games).

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            going first in chess still isn’t an advantage.

          • Talys

            Look it up with your Google-fu 🙂 It’s a real thing.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            I did. Still isn’t an advantage

          • How is it not an advantage if, all things being equal, going first gives you a +10% chance of winning vs black?

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            White, which goes first, winning 55% of the time doesn’t necessarily mean that going first gives you a +10% chance of winning.

            There are so many factors that aren’t being taken into account here. That statistic is far from credible in determining whether going first is an advantage or not. To think otherwise is being naive.

          • Thus the “all things being equal” qualifier

          • georgelabour

            And Musashi, Alexander, and Sun Tzu should have taught you that seizing the initiative IS an advantage.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            They would have also taught you that there is a tactical advantage in seeing how an enemy moves before acting 🙂

          • georgelabour

            Which is kind of easy to do with chess.

            Horsies move in Ls, tiny round heads go forward, etc.

            So now I have both the initiative, control the timing, AND know both his moves and mine.

            According to Musashi that means I’m doing pretty good. Not undefeated in one thousand battles but still pretty darn good.

            It also means white still has an unbalanced advantage.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            Different players make different starting moves 😉

            But since we’re talking about war, not chess, it is almost always advantageous to let an enemy make the first move.

          • euansmith

            If World War II taught us anything, it is “don’t let the Germans be first player”.

          • euansmith

            The White Bishop Alpha Strike has always been OP! 😀

          • Ben_S

            I was tempted to make a ‘white is OP’ remark but, if you randomise who gets white, then it’s not really a problem – the two players have equal chances.

          • Talys

            @Ben_S – but that’s not balance; that’s just a cointoss for advantage 😀 If you alternated starts for a very large sample of games, if one player is only slightly superior, you might end up with player A winning 58% of white starts and 48% of black starts, and player B winning 52% of white starts, and only 42% of black starts. Player A is clearly the better player, but that doesn’t change that, as you put it, white is OP 😀

          • Shawn

            And in a coin toss, despite being a 50/50 chance on paper, the coin will still mostly land on tails then it will heads.

          • Rasmus Høgh Nørskov

            Thanks Talys for reminding me that chess is not the ultimate balance :).
            Maybe it would be more like boxing, then? The rules are the same for both parts, and noone gets a “headstart” :).

          • euansmith

            But some boxers are more OP than other.

          • Me

            The only truly balanced game that I have every seen is Tic-Tac-Toe. It does not matter who goes first. With two experienced players, no one ever wins.

          • Haighus

            Hmmm, I have just had a thought for a modified chess where both players move simultaneously… Like, they have to choose their moves secretly, then reveal them at the same time, then execute the moves. Makes the game a bit more unpredictable when planning your own move too.

      • Gorsameth

        If the rules were balanced that 1000 points would be equal to 1000 points regardless of the form they take.

        The fact that this is no true means that the rules are not ‘inherently balanced’.

        Now true balance is impossible but that does not mean that a game designer should stop trying.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Disagree. In a game where you can choose to play without pawns or with all rooks, you are going to run into situations where your opponent will be able to exploit your lists weaknesses.

      • Nameless

        The rules wuld only be inherently balanced if points efficeincy was uniform accross all units and armies. As it is even withing some armies some units are much less efficeint per point than other units leading to imbalance without any abuse.

        • euansmith

          So those units should cost less points 😉

    • Bleh, no thanks, I’ll take familiarity over balance every day of the week. Ditching the whole ruleset would be an awful move, something only worthy of a dying game

      • rtheom

        It could be done, but it would need to be done carefully. Could we trust GW to do that though? Eeeeehhhhhh…. in the past I’d say “definitely no” but they have been better lately so…. maybe in a little while?

        Bigger questions is: Could we expect GW to devote the resources needed to do it properly? That will probably and forever be “Heck no.” :p

  • Greatsword

    New FAQ are here? Where? GW website still shows the dec 2015 version.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      The beta FAQ is available on Warhammer 40,000’s Facebook page.

      • Koonitz

        As stated, it’s on the Facebook page. It is a first draft, with intent to get feedback to make sure it’s clear. It’s not an official release, yet.

        • Coltcabunny

          So, this is just a rehash of what was already released for BOLS to get more of those sweet, sweet clicks.

          Gotcha.

          • euansmith

            Gotcha? Gotchew? Gotchme? Gotchusall!

          • Me

            Gesundheit!

  • This could to a large degree eliminate the need for ITC.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      ITC will always be needed, since GW’s FAQs are never as comprehensive as the ITC

      • This is very comprehensive

      • Shiwan8

        The problem is that ITC works directly against some armies while favoring the already strong. GW is neutral.

        • Agreed.

        • Shawn

          Double Agree. One of the reasons I’m not fan of ITC.

        • euansmith

          I though GW favoured the new kits?

          • Shiwan8

            In codex releases. This is a thing that comes after the initial sales rush and thus I doubt that they care, at all.

    • ITC’s main function is as a comp system though, they will probably overrule some GW rulings (as they already overrule things like invis and ranged D) and continue to leverage their position as the 1000 lb gorilla of us 40k to semi standardize any competitive event they can wrap their vaguely nonthreatening but kinda creepy tentacles around

  • Chris Cook

    These are still in draft form though and haven’t been confirmed yet have they??

    • J Mad

      Still a draft, but many people are treating it not like it.

      My local are using it to “test” the rules more so, some of us are emailing the FAQs service with how our local is liking it and not liking it.

    • The released version won’t have many changes. They even said on the facebook page that all they are interested in now is wording changes to make it clearer.

      • Chris Cook

        Will be good to have the final version soon. I understand though they after feedback though,

  • Marcus Cabeceira

    I’m actually glad that the game isn’t 100% balanced.

    If I wanted to play chess or checkers, I would play chess or checkers.

    • Shiwan8

      It would still be better if it was at least moderately balanced in stead of not being balanced in any way at all.

      • Marcus Cabeceira

        I understand your point, but I disagree. For me anyways the fun is in playing the game, not necessarily winning.

        Chaos Space Marines and Dark Eldar are my primary armies. I can win with them. Using that extra bit of effort to do so is fun for me.

        Using an auto-win button to try and beat someone’s different colored auto-win button just sounds ridiculous to me.

        • JN7

          You say balance isn’t necessary, yet disparagingly describe some options as auto-win. You could still be a special snowflake if the rules were better written and an attempt was made to provide better balance.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            the confirmation bias is strong in this one.

            When I’m describing “options” as auto-win, I’m describing broken combinations used for the sole purpose of winning at any cost, aka the current tournament meta.

          • JN7

            Hmm. I think you need to re-read the definition of confirmation bias. I don’t know that you are qualified to speak for the motivations of all tournament players, either. If using an option you (you specifically, to be clear) find cheesy is like Clinton, I guess using sub-par options and then complaining the deck is stacked against you is like the Bernie Sanders of 40K.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            found the Hillary shill

            lol just joking with you, this is fun

        • Shiwan8

          Ridiculous as it is, it’s still fair. At that point it’s about skill.

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            You’re right. Eh, to each their own I guess. I can respect that.

  • RS TROUT

    Hello! New 40k player here. I crossed over to 40k after gw blew up my beloved game and made a child’s game out of it. Anyway I feel that 8th edition fantasy wad balanced well enough (I play beastmen, bretonnia, daemons, warriors, wood elves, dark elves, and vc). I would beat skaven with my brets and have beat woc with beastmen. Anyway, is 40k not as tactic based as fantasy? If I lost, I knew it was my own fault by lack of tactics or deployment. I have picked up grey knights and magnetized my daemons for both systems but have yet to play a game of 40k. What I am asking is, is it impossible for orks to beat eldar? Is it impossible for csm to beat sm? Are tactics not as important in 40k compared to fantasy?

    • Shiwan8

      In a tournament setting orcs and CSM will lose 100/100 times in those matchups. I’m not sure what happens when you go to thousands though, so technically you should be able to win a game or 2 once in few years while the present status quo persists.

      If you want a balanced game this is not it. If you want to mostly win by doing random stuff then play eldar or SM. Otherwise you are either a masochist or this is not a game for you.

      • RS TROUT

        Ok thanks my lord. How are grey knights and daemons? Will daemons always lose to grey knights?

        • Shiwan8

          That’s a closer match. GK is worse but then again it’s designed to be the hard counter to Daemons.

      • Marcus Cabeceira

        My CSM fare decently in tournaments, I even take vanilla chaos marines 😉

        • Shiwan8

          Do you win tournaments?

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            It isn’t about winning, it’s about having fun!

            I haven’t won a tournament since the 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex. 😀

          • Shiwan8

            Not about winning, sure, but is 100% chance to lose and 0% chance to win fun?

          • Marcus Cabeceira

            100% chance to lose sounds a bit pessimistic, dont ya think?

          • Shiwan8

            Can you find a credible measuring instance that proves this to be wrong in 7th edition? You know, a high end GT or similar? I have not and believe me I’ve searched.

    • Marcus Cabeceira

      Don’t listen to that other guy. The tournament setting != the 40k scene.

      All the tourny scene is, is using a blue auto-win button against a green auto-win button

      CSM and Dark Eldar are my primary armies, and I win just fine.

      • Dan Wilson

        What lists do you play with CSM and DE out of interest? I’m enjoying cultist shenanigans from the Crimson Slaughter supplement, and I’d love to play DE more but I just don’t find them viable atm unless you take haem covens which is not my fluff.

        • Marcus Cabeceira

          With CSM, I’m like the Oprah of melta guns and havoc launchers.

          I don’t run any list “type” per se. I’ve been having success with 10 marines, melta, heavy weapon, naked sergeant, rhino with havoc launcher and extra armor, IotLW, melta bombs on the sergeant if i have points to spare.

          isn’t too expensive and can do most things without being too specialized.

          My DE have been collecting dust for a bit, but I’ve always had luck with ravagers, warriors in raiders, and a squad of 20+ wyches coming out of a WWP.

          • Shiwan8

            Oh wow. Your local meta is super soft. I refuse to play with or against hard lists and even the casual scene laughs at 10 tac equivalents. 😀

      • Shiwan8

        When those win buttons start popping in front of this guy he will realize than listening me would have been the right call in this situation.

  • PrimoFederalist

    I’d be happy with simply cutting down on Battle Brothers shenanigans. I think most of the community would be on board with that as well.

  • drpigweiner

    Infinity is balanced. Granted it doesn’t have a setting as interesting as 40k but that will all soon be obliterated anyway – at least if they go the aos route for 40k.

    Switch games- gw doesn’t care about balance or a good rule set anymore. You can look to their business plan for that, and they just want to make money off some rich kids once or twice before some other rich kid gets interested and they get them to play their game.

    Here is an idea reopen the gw forums – oh wait they were removed because of bad publicity by their own consumers – how dare they criticize the workshop and have their faith falter. Time to exterminatus the forums! The people know too much and have voices to prove it!!!!!

    Oh wait white dwarf used to show you how to convert miniatures and scratch build some amazing and imaginative terrain? Exterminatus. Then reboot as a product catalogue for the month and print a sister magazine that just does the same thing but x1000000 and say it’s “botique”.

    The problem is that it’s a public company and all they care about it profit.

    You want a balanced game that involves both players every round then move on to a legitimate gaming company like Corvus Belli that produces quality miniatures and a quality game. They support tournaments every year and update rules for EVERY ARMY with each update book that you can DOWNLOAD FOR FREE. They support their own army builder – which is updated and fixed constantly. Better game, better company, better customer service.

  • Randy Randalman

    The codex FAQ’s are still coming as well for further rules clarification. “Balance” will come when the remaining 5-6 factions get their codex updates and a campaign supplement here and there.

    If GW burnt the whole thing down and launched a new edition (as a few PP homers suggest), people would complain that they “got screwed” for buying in two years ago. Furthermore, PP has only proven that the rules themselves will NEVER balance the game. As tight as their rules are supposed to be, there comes a time when players themselves find out how to abuse them. Mk.3 will only band-aid that for a few months at most.

  • Some of them weren’t FAQ, they were errata, and clearly at least some of the people who write codexes thought the grenade rule worked differently, as they allow you to buy, say, every sternguard a melta bomb. And the question of going through walls is a change from how the game used to be played (the 5th Ed book I think even said that difficult terrain roll represented breaking through a wall), and the first time in 2 editions it has been specifically addressed, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that people are annoyed about the more cavalier rules interpretations.

    • The grenade thing is a hold over from previous editions when you could throw 1 grenade per model. It’s actually pretty clear in the 7th ed book that only 1 model gets to throw a grenade in assault. Players are throwing a fit that it’s a big game balance change when the reality is players have just been player it wrong this whole time.

      As for the comment on the codex’s, you’re right in your statement that the codex writers thought the grenade rule worked differently. But only in the sense that the idea of paying for grenades per model is a hold over from 3rd edition. Alot of mechanism’s in current codex’s are clear copy and pastes from older dex’s. Take a look at the Stikkbomb chukka in the Ork dex. There is 1 model in the entire codex that doesn’t have Frag Stikks in it’s profile (the Dok, which I swear is a typo) The Stikkbomb chukka is clearly a copy and paste!

      “This is not a game balance FAQ” is the most important thing brought up in this article.

      • Not really, it says that models can only throw one grenade per phase, it then says that a model can use a grenade as a melee weapon (which is not throwing a grenade) and that those grenades are “clamped into place.” So no, the FAQ errata’ed that rule.

        • Technicality and clever interpretation of the rules. Exactly the kind of thing this FAQ is meant to correct.

          • Or the intern who wrote the FAQ didn’t have strong reading comprehension

          • Are you seriously expecting 40k to be written by lawyers? This isn’t Magic the Gathering.

            Stop reading the rulebook as if it’s a contract. GW’s old adage of “rules as intended still applies”

          • No, I’m expecting the rules to make sense. The intention is clear, melee grenades aren’t thrown…because they literally aren’t thrown. The fact that whoever wrote the FAQ doesn’t get that makes the whole of the document rather uninspiring. Which is fine, because the players actually determine the rules, and nobody has to stick to this.

          • In the 5 stages of grief you are currently in Bargaining, keep going. 2 more till acceptance.

          • This is the advantage of playing the game for fun with decent human beings, nobody i play is going to make a big deal out of playing the rules as intended instead of the rules as poorly faq’ed. Not that it should bother them, I don’t run units with grenades and they will get to use them against my maulerfiends.

          • Still Bargaining

          • You know the stages of death are experienced by the dying person, not the grieving relatives, right?

          • Yes, but the Kübler-Ross loss model also applies to major and minor (but significant) changes to a persons life as life, not just death.

          • Shiwan8

            Ok. Is cheating ok too? I mean, that’s what you are doing if you use more than one grenades per unit in melee.

          • So it’s cheating for me to house rule a disadvantage for my army to correct a poorly thought out and stupid FAQ ruling? Yawn.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s cheating to play against the rules to deliberately change the results to someones favor. So…yes.

            I get that you want to automatically win. It’s ok. I just suggest that you look at this from the perspective of a nid player who does not spam flyers. Try it, just for laughs.

          • Again, I play Daemonkin and daemons, the only grenades in my army are on my bike squads and possessed and I’ve never once had cause to use them. Meanwhile my maulerfiends are much stronger not having to fear krak grenades. I don’t care, the FAQ is a bad ruling and on my table it will be played logically, each model makes a grenade attack in place of melee, since they aren’t throwing them.

          • Shiwan8

            Ok, so, all your troops flick the nade nibles in to the fray and miraculously never hit eachother….and that is things being played “logically” for you. Come on…

          • No, they’re each attempting to attach a grenade to their opponent via bolt, adhesive, or whatever other means, no one is throwing anything

          • Shiwan8

            You know that marine grenades do not work like that, right?

          • It’s literally what the rule book says about using grenades in assault, it is also why you can only use them against monstrous creatures, gun emplacements, and vehicles.

          • Shiwan8

            And you really think that that raging tank size blur of claws is just going to let each one of those marines do to it what ever you think crack grenades do?

            The idea is that the whole team tries to distract the thing long enough that one of them can find a weak spot to put the bomb in. It’s like playing tag and trying to catch someone who has sharp weapons and is trying to kill you. You can try this at home with something not lethal. Get a sock (this is your grenade) and try to put it in your friends pocket while he/she tries to defend against you. If you get hit by a leg/hand/arm or any other thing that is used for defense you failed and “die”. To simulate a monster give the defender something to increasehis/her reach.

            Now, if you manage to get around 50% success rate without practicing I’ll admit that I was wrong, but I really doubt that you will reach even 10%.

          • Otoh I’m not a 7 foot tall man mountain wearing speed and strength enhancing armor. The differential in speed and skill between opponents is already abstracted into the initiative step and weapon skill mechanics. Slow, low WS monsters are much easier to hit, whereas a fast monster will kill you before you swing, and a skilled monster will make you land many fewer hits than a less skillful monster.

          • Shiwan8

            Now you are just resorting to excuses.

            Do what you want. The rule is clear however and a lot more logical than your version.

          • And I think my version is more logical, the real question is why you care how someone house rules a game so much?

          • Shiwan8

            You have a right to think so.

            I care about balance and this thing you continue to do makes balance worse…or rather keeps it worse than it would be with proper rules. It’s not a problem that you break the rules but it starts to be a problem when more people do the same by your example.

            This comes from a CSM player so I have nothing to gain by wanting to play by the rules.

          • Admittedly I don’t care at all about balance, so that never enters into my thinking for 40k

          • Shiwan8

            Then what you are doing might be the best decision possible for you in this situation.

          • An_Enemy

            You’re arguing that ten men can attach their grenades to a raging wall of steel and claws…while in base to base…and claiming the logical side of the argument?

            You realize that this is the same phase that you punch things and swing swords right? You’re within arm’s reach and in real time it’s maybe five seconds a phase. The book even spells this out.

            If you want to argue that ten men can plant ten high explosives on a death machine right in front of their faces then OK….remove your models at the end of the phase. They just blew themselves up whether they hit the Dread or not. fair?

          • Likely? No, because some will be killed by the whirling claws of a fast monster, some will miss, and some won’t wound. Possible? Anything is possible in 40k:

          • An_Enemy

            I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone see what the rules writers have ruled, disagree with them, and then ignore them claiming they like to play rules as intended.

            The rule as intended is that you throw one grenade in the shooting phase and one in the assault phase. What you’re choosing to do is neither written nor intended. You’re house ruling it. That’s fine, but don’t expect others to nod along.

          • Your statement assumes the person who wrote the FAQ wrote the rule. It’s entirely possible for the author and the FAQ author to have different understandings of how the rule works. The rest of the FAQ is thrown together, it seems to be the work of a low level social media staffer/intern.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s an attack. There is no “clamp” attacks nor are there any “throw” attacks. There are ranged and melee attacks.

          • Shiwan8

            Well, the intern still clearly had a better one than you do. It all fine, we can not know everything about everything.

        • Koonitz

          Arguable. Looking on page 180 of the rulebook, the term “thrown” is used in the first paragraph (bolded, even, for importance). This statement goes as such:

          “Some grenades ca be used to make shooting attacks or attacks in the Fight sub-phase, albeit to different effects. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.”

          Nowhere does it clarify this relates in ANY way to specific attack types. Only that one grenade may be thrown (directly after stating that some may be used in both). This interpretation of thrown seems to imply the use of the word is meant for any and all usages of grenades, both ranged and melee.

          This then is followed by your “clamped into place” section, which clarifies that SOME grenades may be used against vehicles, gun emplacements, and/or monstrous creatures, but have to be clamped in place to maximize effect.

          By that wording, a krak grenade can never be used as a shooting attack against a vehicle, gun emplacement or monstrous creature as it must be clamped in place to maximize effect.

          Clearly there are some… misinterpretations, here. Just what a FAQ is meant to clarify. Looks like the clarification is “thrown” is meant to mean any and all use of grenades.

          • In what way is thrown implied to mean used as a melee weapon and clamped into place?

          • Koonitz

            Because they state that only one may be thrown right at the start, after saying grenades may be used in both phases. Without clarifying that there is a difference, they give you something that seems to imply a blanket restriction.

          • You can throw a grenade in the assault phase, though, on over watch

          • Koonitz

            Arguing semantics, now. Clearly, an FAQ was necessary and the clarification was given. “one grenade thrown per phase” means both shooting and melee, as I’ve argued. Whether you believed you were right and they were wrong or not.

            It’s also worth pointing out that if you do overwatch with your one grenade, you don’t get to use it in melee, because it’s the same phase.

        • Shiwan8

          You are simply wrong. Search for something that explicitly states that more than one grenade can be used as a weapon in melee by a single unit. If you find that and quote it here then I withdraw my previous statement about you.

  • Speaking as a TO the most important thing in this whole article is “This is not a game balance FAQ”

    This is a clarification document meant to show players how the game is actually supposed to be played and to close a variety of loopholes and clever rules interpretations that the player base has been using for some time now.

    Any game balance changes as a result of this FAQ should be assumed to be purely coincidental.

    If this was meant to be a game balance FAQ there would have been bigger bombshells in there than ‘Only one model can throw a grenade in HtH’. Which for the record is clearly stated in the 7th ed rulebook. Throwing multiple grenades in HtH is from a previous edition.

    Why aren’t there any changes to powers like Invisibility? Limits to deathstars? The Psychic phase? Jink Saves? etc etc etc
    This is not a game balance Doc.

    For those of you holding out that the “official release” of the FAQ is going to be radically different from this? Don’t hold your breath. GW made it clear in the original post that this is pretty much the end product, save for some spelling corrections and minor wording changes to make things more clear. (Along with a fix for the IC page which is clearly a bad cut and paste job)

    We should BE HAPPY that GW has actually bothered to release an FAQ for its game for a change.

    • You totally contradicted yourself.

      • Game Balance and playing the game as intended aren’t the same thing.

        • I’m all for the new FAQ.

        • Shiwan8

          Actually in this case it is. In ghis game there is no balance if the game is not played as intended by the designers.

    • Haighus

      Actually, it does hit psychic deathstars somewhat, what with a unit only being able to cast the same power once per turn, regardless of how many IC psykers there are in the unit. So if the Invisibility roll is failed, there is now no second chance. Means there is now some use of throwing all the Deny the Witch dice at stopping certain key rolls.

      I’m not saying that it is intended for balance, I agree it is not, but it has accidentally damaged some of the more competitive builds anyway.

  • Know

    No new FAQ is put on GW website. That mentioned FAQ are from Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. Don’t understand why BoLS always has to mislead the subject.

  • JP

    What will we do? Run around like headless chickens of course!

  • Countdiscount

    The fact that 30k uses the same BRB, but is considered largely a balanced game, means the rule book isn’t the problem with balance but the Codexes in 40k.

    • Shawn

      I’m inclined to agree Count.

    • Shiwan8

      BRB is still biased against melee armies. It’s just that there are none in 30k. No army in 30k is forced to play the uphill battle.

      • Countdiscount

        Armies are only forced to be melee by the rules in their Codexes. Would you ever argue that the BRB is biased against armies that want to win by Tank Shocking their opponent’s army of the board? Of course not because that would just be a bad strategy by the player, not a fault of bad core rules. There is no promise, nor should there be an expectation that any and all strategies are equal because they’re not. Close combat simply doesn’t work as well as shooting. Modern military can attest to this.

        The Codexes generally force an armies style of play towards an aspect or two of the game and if the Codex rules doesn’t support that style well enough, that’s a fault of the Codex design, not the 7th edition core game rules. 30k proves this.

        • Shiwan8

          Actually, since there are going to be specialist armies the rules that do not support those are the problem, not the obvious to be designs.

          • Haighus

            Well, theoretically this could still be balanced by the Codex in question by either making assault troops suitably cheap, or giving them mitigating special rules to make them effective still. But isn’t as efficient as modifying the core rules in this case.

          • Shiwan8

            Could, sure, but then they’d have to write those codices to deliberately contradict brb in pretty stupid ways.

      • TenDM

        I’ll agree that there are things that could change for the better in the
        rulebook, but I think Countdiscount is right in that the serious
        problems lay within the individual Codices. I mean I could re-write the
        rules to make melee units more powerful, but that would benefit all
        armies not just melee-centric armies. The few melee units in my army are
        about as effective as they need to be. They do their job well enough
        and cost about the right amount. A buff to the core Assault rules would make them too powerful.

        To
        beef up melee armies specifically we really need the Codices for those
        armies to offer better stats, better unit sizes, better upgrades, better
        formations, better costs and better special rules. Increase the cost to
        effectiveness ratio of those specific units. Granted the waits on Codex updates are infuriating.

        • Shiwan8

          Just out of general interest, what are these menee jnits you speak of?

          • TenDM

            In my specific list buffing the general melee rules would result in my Striking Scorpion units being too effective. They’re not intended/priced to be melee all-stars.
            I see a lot of average melee units performing well enough as long as they have some fire-power/utility backing them up. It’s only when the list is heavily melee specialised that I see big problems.

          • Shiwan8

            Ah. You play eldar. Try nids or similar.

            Dont get me wrong, eldar are a fine codex. Others are not. Eldar would not really change by making brb balanced. Other factions would benefit though.

          • TenDM

            Actually I do play a tiny Tyranids army on the side from time to time and funnily enough I would love to make a melee only Tyranids list (who doesn’t want to control a sea of teeth and claws), but the Codex just doesn’t seem to be written with that in mind. Most of the melee specific stuff is either too expensive or doesn’t have enough access to protection from within and/or other melee specific units.

            I feel like no matter what changes you make to the rulebook this Codex will never let me bring a Tyranids list that does more than simply lean towards melee. I’d much rather they improve melee on melee synergy within the Codex so the forces that should excel at melee can get buffed without raising the overall effectiveness of melee units game-wide.

          • Shiwan8

            Graviton -> save = S test.
            5th edition transport rules.
            Assault on the same turn the unit comes from DS and/or reserves. (Not conjured units.)
            Assaults on 1st turn after scout moves.
            AssaultS on 1st turn after infiltrations.
            6th edition monsters and Smash.

            What would happen is a meta in which all unit types would be viable, even croot and vespid. Gunlines would suffer slightly but other than that it would all be good.

          • Haighus

            I feel Tanks are losing out still, not Rhino rush or Flyers or Super Heavies, but heavy vehicles like Land Raiders and Leman Russes and Dreadnoughts (to a degree). Not sure how to adjust them though.

          • Shiwan8

            Thats a codex problem. Too many too easy ways to counter them.

  • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

    BOLS – Stop trying to classify different types of gamers. You have no idea what you are talking about and it detracts from the hobby and contributes to any animosity amongst our community. SMH

    • Shiwan8

      Tornaments divide the community. Hyper competitive/WAAC people divide the community. BOLS or any one other site can not divide the community.

      • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

        When you start classifying players and basically saying they don’t have a say so etc., you are dividing the community. The rest I agree with you.

    • Stormcaller

      There ARE different types of players in 40K; tournament devotees, casual players who never play in tournaments, players who play 30K against 40K opponents, those who only play 30K, etc. etc. They each have a different perspective on the game, and DO react differently to events. For example, in my meta, we have no one who plays in tournaments. They don’t care about what competitive players and their surrogates do in terms of reacting to the FAQ. They will read and follow it, with a sprinkling of house rules. By the way, the community isn’t even really divided as you state; we are hobbyists who have a common interest, and play the same game in different ways.

      • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

        While I am not going to be a jerk, obviously I don’t need a lesson on 40k and its players if I am here. You along with the moderator manager seem to miss the point by not reading what I said without putting more into it than I said, and I never “stated” it was divided, I said it contributes, but since you brought it up, you couldn’t be more mistaken. Playing in your ‘meta’ doesn’t qualify your statement as fact but of all the nonsense out there both on forums as well as YouTube etc., does justify mine. So, with that said, if you read what I wrote as it pertains to the portion in the article and refer to the other articles published by BOLS regarding what I am pointing out, you will see you are not in line with my direction of speak. In other words read more than my comment if you want to comment about something not related to you and try to defend for someone. SMH

  • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

    BOLS – did you delete my comment on classifying types of gamers? Must have been offensive to tell you not to do such as you help to divide our community.

  • euansmith

    I think it is such a shame that so many companies make minis that aren’t as cool as their artwork. That is one cool looking marine.

  • davepak

    Agree.

    The “it will never be 100% balanced, so don’t even try” is a pathetic cop out. No one is looking for 40k to be perfectly balanced – we are looking for gw to even make an attempt.

  • ColonelFazackerley

    17th May. The GW site is down for maintenance and the black library site is showing a BRB FAQ from Dec 2015.

    It’s not “here” yet.

  • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

    Wow…so twice BOLS deleted my comment about their contribution to dividing the community with rhetoric in this article classifying players. What was so wrong about that BOLS? You guys spout a lot about players in general and then you go and put them in boxes and then censor speech that calls you out on it? SMH

    • Since when does “When did this issue of the magazine come out?” (which you deleted yourself, btw) equate to “You’re dividing the community!”? That’s all I have from this account in the deleted queue. Your comments on this topic are still public for everyone to see, always have been…

      http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/05/40k-the-new-faq-is-what-we-asked-for.html#comment-2678096850

      http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/05/40k-the-new-faq-is-what-we-asked-for.html#comment-2678657278

      • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

        Wth are you talking about? It was in response to their FAQ article and classifying gamers as I said…I guess disquis moved it around again on this post, and I never delete anything unless it double posts. I have had this problem before with disquis. Please next time just ask instead of “since when”

        • If you’re going to call out my mod staff for things they didn’t do, I’m going to call you out in the same tone you used to accuse. Please next time check your Disqus homepage before accusing my staff of unfairly deleting your comments multiple times. Your profile shows all of the comments you’ve made with links to find them.

          • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

            I’m aware, but if you want to fire back at me for the wrong thing then you need to check yourself as well. I made a comment about something one of your people wrote, and it’s not the first time they have tried to call out or label members of the community. If you don’t like it, then fix the problem. By sitting here arguing with me instead of investigating the problem and my not seeing my post on your page, who else would have made it disappear if I was so adamant about the article piece in question? Regardless, now I know I’m dealing with some self righteous people with BOLS and I thank you for that confirmation.

        • TenDM

          Maybe you got switched to Sort by Oldest rather than Newest or something? I really wish Disquis would implement a ‘Show Mine’ button that filtered the comments down to only threads I had either upvoted or commented on. It’d save a lot of fishing around.

  • TenDM

    While I totally agree that Games Workshop aren’t even trying to do their job here, I’ve got to point out that Warhammer 40,000 isn’t the same as other miniature games. I mean there is so much more to balance here. A huge range of unit types, weapon types, vehicle types, and then you throw all these factions on top. Decades of baggage. So much stuff that they implemented without any thought to balance that is now so deeply ingrained in the system it can’t be removed. The model they use to update their game fights them at every turn. It’s a nightmare.

    I wish they’d get someone in to bring it all under control but I don’t envy the team that gets put in charge of sorting all this out.