40K BIG March FAQ – The Biggest Fixes We Need

Next month the semi annual 40K FAQ will hit – and here’s what the smart money thinks will be in it:

First let’s remember that GW is reworking the 40K FAQ schedule with a twice yearly “BIG FAQ” update in March and September:

 

 

LVO has come and gone and Adepticon looms ahead of us.  The game has a bunch of big issues that we know GW is aware of.  Here’s our short list of what we expect to see in the big update:

Dark Reapers – These guys are clearly overpowered and their performance at LVO has made it plain to see.  Expect them to get a harsh beating with the nerfbat.

Ynarri – Again, this teensy sub-faction only introduced around 3 models (when is the last time anyone saw the Visarch on a tabletop?) has completely destabilized the Eldar race. There are myriad ways to deal with them – but I would expect them to get hammered.

Soup Lists – There’s nothing wrong with taking combined armies from a lot of sources – but the cross codex-relic-stratagem-special rules combos are getting out of hand.  I expect to see some type of sanity control to give a bit more power to the individual codex players.

Stratagems – Stratagems currently are a big dividing line between the full codex and the Chapter Approved armies. While this is quickly fading – within each codex there are often a handful of “must-take” Stratagems that players build entire armies around – and the other 90% that are ignored. I would not be surprised to see many of the most potent Stratagems either reworded, or somehow more strictly limited to narrowly focused armies. Looking at you Vengeance for Cadia, and several more.

Massed Characters – The test FAQ rules tested out at LVO seem to be working. I expect them to be adopted to keep mass waves of characters in check.

Massed Smite – ALL HAIL +1 per subsequent Smite attempt.  Easily solved!

Psychic Powers – As with all editions, less than a year into the game we all already know the handful of psychic powers that are worth their weight in gold. Powers that players will build armies around and find any loophole to shoehorn into their army.  It’s still early days, but Warp Time is feeling like it could be 8th’s version of 7th’s Invisibility. Who knows if GW is taking a careful look at it.

Stacked Negative Modifiers – The game is starting to allow multiple negative modifiers in lots of circumstances – making it almost impossible to hit or wound targets in some situations. I would not be surprised to see this getting modified in some way to keep the game fun for both players.

~That’s our short list – what do you think will be in there?

 

  • Wampasaurus

    Stacked negative modifiers are seriously ridiculous under the right circumstances and this needs to be addressed. I recently played my Tyranids against a Eldar Alaitoc Ranger heavy list during a Cloak and Shadows mission. Needless to say I COULDN’T hit them.I feel like when it gets to “Even on 6s I don’t hit” things need to change. For me the simple solution there would be a rule that says “If stacked negative modifiers bring the total beyond 6 the firing model can still hit, albeit only on a 6”

    • Devil_Eyez

      I like that idea but would need the added ‘but without any bonus effect like extra hits on a 6’.

      • Fredddy

        Agreed. 6 shall be a simple hit at worst.

      • Wampasaurus

        Yes something like that. Tack on something also about them being unmodified natural 6s also most likely to clear up confusion ahead of time

    • Simon Chatterley

      Age of Sigmar has that as a rule of one.

      1’s always fail, 6’s always succeed

      So I can’t understand why they don’t just port that over

      • Karru

        As people like to say, mostly Eldar players though.

        “It would break the game, because certain armies rely on their debuffs to hit to survive! Orks would be overpowered with that!”

        So you know, the normal.

        • euansmith

          Orkz being overpowered would be an issue? But dat iz juzt da nak-tur-al order.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            Hur hur hur!

        • Orkimedes

          It does feel more overpowered in some situations than others. I think they would have to be careful how it is implemented. There are situations where negative modifier debuffs are another very good tool on top of an already excellent toolbox (like with Eldar), and others where they are one of a faction’s few good tricks (looking at you, Dark Angels).

          • Muninwing

            maybe then the FAQ should look at the armies and units and make a simple “not anymore” change to units prone to abuse, and a “no, but… here” gratis to those who are not?

        • Drpx

          Heaven forbid Eldar actually lose a unit.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eldar, the children of GW.

        • Luca Lacchini

          Yup. While multiple sources of negative modifiers isn’t an issue per se, when they stack it becomes unbalanced very quicly, with plasma guns overloading and flavourful 6+ effects becoming unattainable.

        • Geemoney

          Orks were not overpowered in 7th edition when invisibility and snap shots were a thing….

        • Socrates Kentaro Matsuura

          muahahaha us orkzes overpowered? nah, i like being underestimated and then watch the tears when we krump ’em gud. like when i win with my halflings, we play our army out of love, not the ego 😀

    • zeno666

      The modifiers only apply to shooting.
      Hit them in close combat

      • V0iddrgn

        Assault isn’t in the vocabulary of tourney players.

        • Drpx

          Even Sigmar players will tell me there’s no point in a melee army :/

          • V0iddrgn

            Competitive players box thselves into mathhammer bullsh!t and refuse to expand their tactics beyond shoot shoot shoot. Whatever, let them lose to Ranger heavy Eldar.

          • Drpx

            They also think only in terms of kill points and tabling because that’s all anybody ever wants to do in Pickup games. I made one speechless for a few seconds when he said he couldn’t think of any reason to take melee and I replied, “to push people off objectives.”

          • af

            What does “tabling” mean? Is it winning on the first turn without letting the other player take their first turn? Or did I completely misunderstand the term?

          • PinkTerror

            Wiping out every model of your opponent off the “table”. Thereby, giving that player doing the tabling a war-gasim and a sense accomplishment in their life as they head back to grandmother’s basement.

          • Koonitz

            “Tabling” means winning the game by removing all of your opponents models. If, at the end of the turn, one player has no models on the board (or only flyers, as they do not count, since Chapter Approved), they automatically lose the game.

            This loss is regardless of other win conditions. So, if you are 15-0 on maelstrom points, but lose your last model before the game officially ends, you automatically lose the game.

            Some people build their lists to focus on tabling, instead of the mission. In 8th, everything is so powerful, with such a heavy focus on alpha strikes, that these armies can reasonably table an opponent by the end of turn 2 or 3 (as compared to 7th, where my experience was that tablings occurred on turns 5-7).

          • af

            Thanks a lot! You wouldn’t believe how hard it is to find definitions for these terms 🙂

            Another question: I get the impression tabling is frowned upon or seen as a WAAC tactic even in competitions, is this right? And if so, why? If tabling is allowed by the rules, isn’t anything that can be done by other players to protect against it? (just as there were real world tactics to protect against exploits such as the blitzkrieg, once understood). Or are countermeasures against tabling boring or impractical?

          • Koonitz

            1) Tabling is generally not frowned upon. It’s a viable tactic (and can be countered. You just need one single model out of striking distance by the end of the game to counter a tabling).

            Some people don’t like it. Personally, as a balanced/mission/narrative player, I do find BEING tabled to be a bit of a sour loss, unless it was a “turn 5-7, could have won if the game just didn’t go on to that turn”, which can be real fun nailbiter games.

            In a tournament, it’s 100% viable and you should expect it. I see no problem with that, myself. Except, personally, the current “turn 2-3 tabling” capabilities. I have to ask “What’s the point arranging a game, spending 30 minutes to set up your game and table, only to end the game in another 30 minutes?” That’s not fun, if you ask me. At a tournament, “Why did I bother to show up, again?”

            2) Countermeasures? Build an anti-alpha-strike/anti-tabling horde army. If you have more models than he can reasonably kill in 5-7 turns, he can’t table you. If you have proper screening units to push back deep strikers, he can’t strike your core on turn 1-2, giving you the time you need to cripple his army or go for objectives (then play the “keep alive” game as I mentioned in point one).

            Or, just don’t play that person a second time. 😛

          • Muninwing

            it is still, for the time being, a separate game… so that’s not necessarily relevant…

          • Drpx

            Yes, because, it wasn’t a beta run…… for 8th ed 40k………………..

          • Muninwing

            that’s… not necessarily true. if anything, there’s more evidence that it was its own game that someone (a designer, an exec, someone in charge of sales, someone with power) had come up with (or discovered) and ported into WHF (complete with new background) as a replacement.

            there’s too many new ideas that don’t line up with the prior fluff or mechanics. the came out of nowhere instead of organic growth. businesses cannibalize other ideas. it’s far more likely that this is some specific designer’s brainchild that took prevalence when they were scrambling for new ideas in the 8th-WHF panic. it’d also explain why it’s so piecemeal from other sources, why its initial fluff was so terrible, and why ideas have been ported into 40k as well.

        • Huntard

          Except it was used as a primary backbreaker by the lists at LVO…

          • V0iddrgn

            Tell that to the guys complaining about Rangers.

        • Cy S

          Yeah other than those 3 assault armies in the top 8 of one of the largest tournament to date.

          Get your facts checked 🙂

      • ZeeLobby

        Usually with Eldar the issue is mobility. As Tyranids he should be able to do it, but yeah, it sucks for less mobile shooting armies. The funny thing is Orks shooting wasn’t all that bad in 6th/7th.

      • King Renegado

        Yeah, because that is an option when you are a guard or a tau player, or when you are trying to bring down a flyer and need a 7 to shoot it because you have no units that can assault with the FLY keyword.

        • zeno666

          Tau doesn’t have anything with the Fly keyword?

          • Reven

            I feel that I meant other armies that might not have brought fly capable melee units. Not all Ork players bring stormboys, and guard need to bring out of faction to get flying melee.

          • zeno666

            If they don’t bring them, it doesn’t seem to be that big of a problem really.

            Also placement is a thing if we’re talking Eldar. You can negate the Alaitoc -1 by beeing within 12″.

          • King Renegado

            They do, but I was speaking for assaukt purposes.
            Even crisis suits aren’t exactly ideal for say, assaulting a crimson hunter.

      • Wampasaurus

        Not that it really matters, and this is to the replies below this also, I DID have 2 Broods of Genestealers each with 17, A Broodlord, A Flyrant (He was down to 5 Wounds at the end of turn 1 and was my Warlord) and a 10 man Hormagaunt squad for Assault that he shot off the table right away. So the idea that I took no Assault units is simple incorrect

    • Dragon2928

      I like this much better than the other proposed solutions of “a roll of a 6 always hits”. That feels too strong to me for crap units. Making it so modifiers can never make a hit roll worse than 6 would solve any issue imo.

    • Logandarksky

      or make 6s always hit

      • LankTank

        Still think it should just have the Necromunda impossible shot rule. You have to roll a 6 then roll another successful hit based on WS/BS. This means a captain will likely hit after they roll a 6+, but a loota is hoing to struggle needing to roll a 6+ then 5+

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah, negative play experiences killed my enjoyment of 40K in 6th and 7th. Looks like they’re still there in some cases.

    • Huntard

      Again though the big problem is that because 6s always wound, you can’t also have 6s always hit. Otherwise the insane efficiency of horde armies this edition only grows again. Every race has access to auto-hitting weapons along the lines of flamers, if you’re having to root out a lot of Eldar (the one race that really exploits this) perhaps you should look into your options?

      • Muninwing

        maybe the idea of “6s always wound” is part of the problem…?

        if i had to pick one, i’d rather always hitting than always wounding. because if there’s no point to shooting something, i’ll shoot elsewhere and hit it with a higher-strength weapon from another unit.

        i understand that it was part of the changes to get vehicles in line with monstrous creatures… but perhaps it didn’t work? perhaps a different system needs to be considered, or a modification?

        • Djbz

          The to wound should have ended up like the “7+” to hit from fantasy
          Where once it gets high enough you need to roll a 6 then another number in order to wound.
          Stops the whole str 5-7 may as well be the same vs T 4 sort of thing too (which is just silly)

    • Underoath6

      Winning solution right here: Modifiers don’t stack, positvely or negatively, ever.

      Negative modifiers create negative play experiences for armies that are already low-accuracy (orks), and positive modifiers (and rerolls) make gameplay feel static. Don’t let them stack, ever.

      They won’t do this, but that’s the best solution.

  • Devil_Eyez

    Somethings i would like to be addressed in the Guard book, conscripts need to go back to 3 points so they become a valied choice agian espically with the changes to Commissar. Also need to change the VALHALLA – Send In The Next Wave! statergem which can’t be used in match play (I think nids and choas have a similar one) as it limits the statergem choice for those faction. They need a new stratergem basicly so they are inline with the other faction in there books.

    • Wampasaurus

      The Tyranid one is called Endless Swarm and can only be used on Termagants, Hormagaunts or Gargoyles (or ANY Hydra Infantry unit)

    • Fredddy

      Agreed. Even if conscripts were overpowered (they werent) now the bar is much higher than it was 3 months ago.

    • Karru

      I fully support this. Conscripts got nerfed too much, make them 3pts a piece and no other changes on them and they have a use again. The thing people forget is that a Conscripts units HAVE to be taken in units of 20 minimum, which means they cost a minimum 60pts normally, 20pts more than an Infantry Squad. Since Infantry Squad is just plain better at everything than the Conscripts so why take them now?

      Meanwhile, Valhallan – Send In The Next Wave! needs to either be made usable in Matched Play OR Tide of Traitors and other similar abilities needs to be nerfed as well since Tide of Traitors for example is just plain better and can be used in Matched Play.

      • LankTank

        I agree. Conscripts to 3 pts, and commussars should get execute a single model again. However conscripts should have a undisciplined special rule or something which means that a commissar nust execute d6 if morale fails

    • ellobouk

      The difference between the Chaos one for cultists and Send in the Next Wave is, the cultist unit has to be alive to use it, which means there’s a timing element. SitNW lets you recycle a dead blob which is hugely powerful.

      • Karru

        You do realise that Cultists are plain better than Conscripts, right? Also, the Cultists can come in within 6″ of any of the table edges and over 9″ away from the enemy. This gives you huge table control since you can just hide a unit of 40 of these guys somewhere, holding your objective and then on the later turns, port them over to the opposing side as soon as you punched a hole in there. Don’t forget as well, Cultists actually get upgrades, Conscripts don’t.

        Meanwhile, Send In The Next Wave can only be used by Valhallans, it can be any Infantry Unit excluding Characters and Combined Squads, but it still has to be Valhallan, and they have to come in within your Deployment zone and still over 9″ away from the enemy.

        What this means is that, yeah sure, you can bring in something like a Veteran Squad that you lost earlier in the game, but at the same time, you can ONLY bring it on your Deployment Zone, so you can only use it to attempt a blocking manoeuvre against an enemy that is already in your Deployment Zone, that’s about it.

        Tide of Traitors is just plainly better in every way and they cost the same in CP. Difference is, the worse one can’t be used in Matched Play, or more accurately, has no use in Matched Play.

        • DeCold

          ROFLed at cultist plain better than conscripts. Worse armor and leadership, limited ways to keep them not running from 1 dead guy.

          • Karru

            Uhmmm… What?

            Cultists are LD 5 base, 6 with their Champion in the unit. Conscripts are LD4 base.

            They have better Ballistic Skill in exchange of having one less armour, same thing with Weapon Skill. They can also be taken in bigger units and smaller units. They can also take CC weapons or go with the same thing.

            Are you sure you read the entries correctly and didn’t mix them up when writing this?

        • LankTank

          Yeah cause cultists can be the recipient of a million orders? Or have a 5+ armour? Poor gamers compare units like for like. Good players understand a units points is also determined by its strength in the army. If guard got the equivalent of ToT then they woukd have a serious power skew

          • Karru

            Do… Do you even play Imperial Guard or do you actually look at their dataslates before posting this?

            Cultists have better Ld, better BS, better WS and once again, CAN BE BROUGHT IN FROM ANY EDGE. Why people keep ignoring this part completely I wonder.

            Millions of orders? On Conscripts? Got some news to you buddy, since the Codex dropped, and actually even before that, Conscripts got this rule where they can only receive an Order on a 4+ instead of automatic.

            And once again, try to understand the biggest thing about the Conscripts. They. Have. No. Use. In. A. Guard. Army. Right. Now.

            With the same price as Infantry Squads, but you are forced to take them in units of 20 instead of 10 while having nothing to offer that the regular Infantry Squads can’t do.

            Please read the rules correctly next time.

          • lessthanjeff

            I agree that conscripts and veteran squads should have a point difference, but maybe the correct solution isn’t that conscripts come down in price. Maybe veterans should be going up. After all, comparing a vet to a cultist gives +1 leadership, +1 armor save, more weapon options, and access to orders for the same cost.

          • Karru

            What I would do is increase the price of Infantry Squads to 5pts a model, and decrease the price of Conscripts to 3pts. Infantry Squads are extremely cost efficient right now and Conscripts have no other use outside being a bubblewrap. Also making a rule that you can’t have more Conscripts than Infantry Squads in your army in Matched Play could work.

    • Solvagon

      You know that they have the Adeptus Custodes Guy now who is even better than the Commissar?

    • Munn

      Not every strategem is GOING to be usuable in matched play. Nor should they be.

      • Devil_Eyez

        Yeah but the ones give to just 1 faction of an army properly should be match play it kind of add to there flavour. I do think stratergiems in the all faction part there could be non match play choices but not the 1 regiment only stratergiems. Now I play vahallans even without the send in the next wave but why in match play do I have to be more limited then the cadian player I’m against

    • LankTank

      Why cant it be used in match?

      • Elliott Cross

        You are right it can be used as long as you have the reinforcement pointer left over points but why am I leaving r0 points spare to spend 2 CP on a unit I need to being into my deployment zone when it dies. I’m not asking for it to be free (although that be great) I would prefer it redone total or you no brought in line with tide of traitors which as explained above does the same but better for NO reinforcement points.

    • Socrates Kentaro Matsuura

      if a conscript costs 3, how much should a grot cost???
      grots are 3 pts for glorious: S2 ws5+ t2 ld4
      conscripts ain’t supposed to be stars, they are expendable assets – canon fodder, that’s why they were conscripted in the first place

      • Reven

        Yeah, but a conscript costs the same as a guardsman while being worse then a guardsmen.

    • Elling Moen

      They really need to buff the Vanquisher – bigly!
      Not just a points adjustment either, it has to be made actually good at its role. Currently it will on average inflict less damage VS vehicles than a regular Battle Tank, while also being much much worse VS horde type targets.

  • Bernd Lurk

    Didn’t they say that 8th had YEARS of secret playtesting? So why do I keep reading about imbalances every frickin’ week?
    And as they still require to spam errata indicates that they should hire a theoretical mathematician who specializes on logic to overhaul their rules texts. But hey, at least they turn the disadvantage into an advantage by talking to the community = getting more news & discussion = having cheap advertising = selling more stuff.

    • Bernd Lurk

      uuh, or they could start a bug bounty program: they will pay for each new bug found in a rulebook (40000 10th of a cent sound fair ^^) and reprint it after correcting it.
      They should still hire the mathematician first to keep their bounty costs low.

      • euansmith

        “Dear, GW, regarding your “bug bounty program”; having purchased the latest Tyranid Codex I would like to report that I have discovered an apparently endless supply of bugs.”

      • Munn

        …that’s really really stupid. Why would they reprint the book? That’s literally just burning a couple thousands dollars at a time.

        • HeadHunter

          Or they could, you know, just do it right *the first time*.

          • Monkeybrains

            Or, you know, we could all get some common sense, and stop actively looking to break the game in every possible way, by abusing every rules wording.

            It takes an internet community of tens of thousands sometimes months to find these rules errors and link them into a combination with another books poorly worded rules, what makes you think a studio of ten people just trying to get the rules out the door to appease the angry fans who constantly complain their book isn’t released can keep up with the malicious hive mind that is the internet.

          • HeadHunter

            I’m aware that we cannot legislate common sense, so to speak. But seriously, when I can open a book and tell you right off the bat that something is going to be broken or misused or twisted in intent, it doesn’t take “thousands of players” or “months” – it just takes better writers and better playtesters.
            A good writer takes it on faith that there will be people who try to abuse the rules or misinterpret vagaries and addresses the matter. A good playtester should TRY to bend the rules until they break – and report it.
            The need for “first day patches” shows that neither is done with due diligence.

          • Monkeybrains

            8th edition has been out for many months now, and every time a new codex is released the internet discovers a few new ways to “game” the system. So yes it does take months.

            Here’s the thing we remove all the flavor from the codexs and make it a very balanced game where every units actions occur on a single set value and the models price is based on that value, and the game may as well be a single dice roll, but the community will freak out at the lack of depth and ability to build your own list, or we make a very complex game that accounts for every scenario and allows you to take whatever you want, which will inevitably end in plenty of whingeing about “broken rules.”

            The need for “first day updates” is indeed an issue, and should be worked on, but again doing things based on a asinine reading of a rule is ridiculous. You wouldn’t do something stupid based on a poorly written e-mail at work, why do something obviously stupid when your trying to play a game for fun.

          • Wayne Molina

            A lot of these bugs are found within hours of a book leaking, sometimes even sooner. There’s no way it’s even remotely being playtested adequately if basic things are slipping through that are found almost immediately by the community

        • LankTank

          Bernd lurk. Master businessman apparently

    • Karru

      Because the playtesting, the proper one which is Matched Play, was done by Tournament folk, not average player. This means that they focus on making the edition more efficient so they can cram more games in and as such make everything more lethal and broken because that makes the game go much faster.

      If the game ends on average around Turn 2/3 and lasted little over an hour but less than two, it’s good for the Organisers because they don’t have to worry about people having to run short on their time.

      • vlad78

        And add on top of that it suits GW really well because people can have more minis in average battles.

      • Drpx

        MLG killed video games, now it’s going to kill tabletop.

    • zeno666

      Because GW just can’t write rules. They have proven this over and over again.
      And they fooled us all when they said this would be the most balanced and streamlined edition ever.
      It actually plays slower than the earlier editions (perhaps because the standard reduction in points means we’re buying/playing with more models than earlier editions).
      Balanced? Hard to say with all the points going up und down all the time.
      And with all the soup crap there can never be something even close to balance at all. GW are too lazy to balance things as they are. Now combine some and see what happens? Won’t happen. Thats for the players to beta test.
      And for them to patch with the next errata and look like they know whats going on.

      • Karru

        It is not that they can’t write good rules, it is that they don’t want to write good rules. Many of the problems of 8th edition and earlier editions comes from various rules that give players “freedom” with their armies, which leads to things getting spammed to oblivion.

        In 8th it is even worse since they WANT you to spam detachments to get CP. Also the very Magic: The Gathering style army building where you make up a massive combo that annihilates the enemy with as less enemy involvement as possible to harass your chances of success. Things like the Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers or Warp Time doom drops are all things that the game encourages you to do.

        If GW actually wanted to make the edition great, they have everything they need to do so, but the problem is that they either are not allowed or just don’t want to write great and balanced rules.

      • marxlives

        That is true, when you think of all the tabletop games out there balance never comes up with 40k. Great lore, great models yes, but not balance.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        Add in the removal of USR and we’ve had more looking up rules than ever before. I get the idea they were going for but it doesn’t work that well in reality. Also the fact that some people don’t play every week adds to the forgetting of rules…

        • LankTank

          I literally have to look up maybe 2 rules max. And um glad I dint have to shell out $80 for a rukebook with 50 USR instead of the free pamphlet I got

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I’m talking about “feel no pain” and the like, the basic rules are nice for being so short.

        • zeno666

          True! Thats another mysterious design decision.

      • LankTank

        Man you’re full of it. This edition has been a blast and has so much better balance than prior editions. I assume your another “veteran” player who has based their opinion on second hand complaints and anecdotes. Clearly, based on the overwhelming continued success of 8th, players approve

        • zeno666

          You’re correct. I am a “veteran player”.
          I do base these complaints on my own experiences though.
          And its “you’re” 😉

        • Reven

          Maybe the success of 8th has more to do with the improved interactions with players, communicating with them and in general improving the community’s view of the company itself?

          • LankTank

            8th edition has been so much more incorporating that it has brought in a larger player base. The great rules have engaged more players. Then the improved interactions from GW has retained them. But it was 8th that brought people back, not “wow GW has a FB page”

          • Reven

            See, but it’s things like the Facebook page, demos, and new video games that got new people to try 8th. Just we have a new edition and it’s the best edition yet that they always said isn’t going to be what got new players to join. The game is not currently balanced, it was semi-closer to something resembling balance in the indexes, but the codices have been getting ridiculous.

            Players returning could have seen GW facebook page and them communicating with players and go “Oh, maybe they aren’t a piece of crap anymore let’s give them a shot.”

          • LankTank

            I dont really see which single codex is dominating so the balance seems pretty good to me, best it has been for a long time for certain.

    • Orkimedes

      Balancing is hard, especially in a format with rolling productions where all the rules are printed in books. Its not like balancing a computer game. More importantly, though, no amount of playtesting is ever going to account for every possible combination in advance. Things always get discovered when you roll out a game to thousands of players. Even companies known for good balancing (like Blizzard) have to keep rolling out patches as their player base exploits and adapts to a constantly changing meta. For my part, I am glad GW is at least finally listening to the community and keeping on top of this stuff, rather than not changing anything at all for years, which is what they used to do.

      • marxlives

        That is true but there are better forms of playtesting. PP’s CID is a good example of this.

        • Orkimedes

          Yeah, they’re definitely not doing it perfectly. I appreciate that they are making an effort, though.

          It’s also worth noting that the meta (as we the players see it) isn’t stable yet. It will be interesting to see where things are once they push all the codexes out.

          • marxlives

            That is true, the game is not complete yet, however the game will always get new factions or new codexes for existing ones (space marines) so the game is always changing and any game is always in release. Every game is getting new models, new factions, scenarios etc. every year.

            And this is why it is important for GW to use crowdsourced playtesting. Doing FAQs and internal playtesting with limited playtesting from selected tournament players was the industry standard 10 years ago. To be up to industry standard the current method will not work, there are just to many interactions taking place.

            However the biggest reason why GW is not using crowd sourced playtesting is because to do that you have to make all the unit rules and all the rules (even the advanced ones) and scenarios free. While that may increase model sales it would drop book sales.

            Until that is done each FAQ will only bring wild power swings because the secret is that no game system is a stable state game. But the reason why certain games have a reputation for being a competitive system rather than a list building exercise is because they have solid playtesting it is not because those games are in stasis.

    • Drpx

      AoS was their play testing.

    • Wayne Molina

      Because they let tournament guys test it .People who feel listbuilding and hunting for combos and exploits are the pinnacle of skill.

  • J Mad

    Comp scores will fix a lot of that.

    And add “When rolling to hits, a roll of 6 always counted as being a hit regardless of modifiers”

    • Karru

      Yep, but of course, if a modifier takes you over 6, you don’t crit. To me, that sounds fair.

  • Grieux

    Anyone else thinks 1500 points for a Thunderhawk is too much too? I know it’s a very marginal point but there is so much more bang for your buck you can get with 1500 points that its a bit weird.

    • bad mood

      The Thunderhawk is sold by FW, here you have your answer: No. Anything and everything from Forgeworld must have an inflated point price by 25-200% to disincentivise people from spending money on non-main GW products.

      • Koonitz

        Tell that to the various Sicaran tanks, that saw a general points decrease in Chapter Approved.

        • bad mood

          So did they go from 50% overpriced to 25%?

          • Koonitz

            A Hellforged Sicaran Venator with lascannon sponsons went from 280 points to 235 points. By comparison, a Predator Annihilator is 190 points. The benefits of the Venator weren’t, generally, worth 90 points. 45 points, on the other hand, to quote goldilocks, is “just right”.

            So, no, I’d say they went from “50%” to “0%”.

  • Krisped

    Smite nerf is going to kill the little viability Grey Knights has as an army unless they are exempt from it.

    • zeno666

      Unfortunately they don’t sell enough Grey Knight models to care to fix them :

    • Seismic Ghost

      And Tzeentch and Tyranids.

      • Krisped

        Irunno man. I play mostly against Tyranids in my local group and he sure as hell does not need Smite to win. Either GK are way overpriced in points (yes), or every other army seems genuinely underpriced (also yes).

        • Seismic Ghost

          I mainly play against Tyranids too, and I agree with everything you say.

          The amount of times I’ve had this conversation:
          “So it’s Strength 10?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it moves 24 inches?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it knows 3 psychic powers?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it has a 3++?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it has an aura that gives everything within 24 inches immunity to psychic powers and the morale phase?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it gives me a -3 to hit modifier?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And it’s a troop choice and comes in units of 35?”
          ‘yep.’
          “And how many points is it?”

          ’16.’
          “And…. you definitely don’t see a problem with that?”
          ‘None at all. it’s not the best thing in my codex by far.’

          They do everything.

          BUT – if you wanna play a Zoanthrope list, you should likely be able to. They need a fix but I don’t think this is it. The Smite scaling seems to me like another way to take away advantages form things that are not Space Marines.
          Like in a Tzeentch army, why would you EVER bring Horrors or Rubrics? they’ll either ruin your chances of casting smite with your actual wizards, or, not be able to cast after your wizards.

          • Seismic Ghost

            After becoming a swarm army and getting a zillion psychic powers and losing immunity to psychology, Tyranids are the army that Chaos apparently desperately wants to be.

          • Koonitz

            Let’s not forget Rubric Aspiring Sorcerers will explode (guaranteed, or almost guaranteed on the scarab occult) on a perils, taking out d3 of their own rubrics, plus more to everything around them.

            Though, Aspiring Sorcs can now take one additional spell, so they don’t need to use smite anymore. Thousand Sons players just need to be a little more clever.

  • Moonsaves

    Gotta say, not a big fan of orks just flat out not being able to shoot at all if they get enough negative modifiers. Not fun.

    • James Regan

      old fantasy, where they had similarly rubbish BS units and negative modifiers just had rules for how to roll a 7+ i think for a 7 to hit it was 6 followed by a 4+

      • Lord of the Rings rules also still use this.

      • vlad78

        Unnecessary complicated. Just rule out that 6s on a D6 are always hits, spare one more roll and get done with it. I really wonder when GW will eventually hire good rule writers.

    • zeno666

      How about killing stuff in close combat? No neg modifiers there.

      • Price Vanderburg

        How do Orks fight a flyer?

        • Rabid Wombat

          Stormboyz with choppaz.

        • Reven

          I’m pretty sure the Dakkajet has a melee profile

  • mrbleak

    I think you spelt “Quickening” wrong there in the Psychic powers points

  • orionburn III

    The two things I’d like to see gone I don’t think can be handled with a FAQ.

    First is doing something to get rid of all the rerolls in the game. It’s actually worse than 7th and I didn’t think that was possible. Buffs to reroll hits, then wounds, and then FNP. It’s laughable at how bad it’s become.

    Second are any abilities giving back command points. IMO this is broke AF. It’s easy to build a list with certain armies to get 10+ CP and then have the ability to gain points back.

    • Karru

      My group has fixed the CP issue with a simple change. CP is earned during the game, not building lists. You still have things like the regaining CP in there, but it isn’t as bad at this point. You do get 3CP by playing Battleforged though, but that’s all. That gives you plenty to actually have to CHOOSE what you want to do on the first turn, after that it is all about holding objectives and moving about the board to gain them if you want CP.

      • We do something similar. CP is earned by following certain thematic choices. But choosing detachments definitely doesn’t net you sweet CP.

        I definitely like the idea of earning CP through gameplay. That is solid.

      • zeno666

        Doesn’t that turn it into a sort of Win More-scenario?
        The player who takes the lead can use more stradegems (ie, break the rules)?

        • Karru

          It doesn’t actually.

          The thing is, most bs in the game comes from people doing Turn 1 Doom Drops using Stratagems to guarantee them full effectiveness.

          With this system, the problems of people stacking CP is all gone. It also balances the game for all armies, not giving advantage to horde armies that can take multiple detachments without problems, making mono-armies much more viable.

          Also, something I should have mentioned is that there are 6 Objectives on the table always. They are either placed normally like the Mission states, or with 2 on each player’s Deployment Zone and 1 from both players in the No Man’s Land. The CP is scored at the end of your Opponent’s Turn, not yours, which also means that going second disadvantage is reduced by giving them extra CP from getting their CP after the opponent has done their turn first.

    • zeno666

      It is quite funny though. Watching the “streamlined” edition of ReRollHammer.
      Not so streamlined when you have to roll everything twice now is it? 😉

  • Solvagon

    >Soup Lists – There’s nothing wrong with taking combined armies from a lot of sources – but the cross codex-relic-strategem-special rules combos are getting out of hand. I expect to see some type of sanity control to give a bit more power to the individual codex players.

    Please, please, tell me what exactly is going out of hand. I’d like to know very much, because I can’t make out any serious issues… oh right, there aren’t any.

    • Kabal1te

      See the winning LVO list where one craftworlds detachment allows a ynari list with mixed craftworlds choices to get away with silly strategem combos that normally shouldn’t be available. Similar is several atypical combinations of DG and CSM detachments to bend the strategem rules.

    • Examples are combined detachment armies where folks are mix and matching army special rules and faction specific strategems for over the top combo effects.

      Examples are things like combining Multiple craftworld strategems with Ynnari effects, or using Strategems like Vengeance for Cadia on other AM detachments.

      Lots of shenanigans out there – which I expect to be nerfed.

  • Fergie0044

    Are people expecting this to be like the Chapter Approved with new points and rule changes? I would have thought that a FAQ was more going to be answers to rules questions, clarifications of vague abilities etc and just general …. well frequently asked questions!

    • zeno666

      Exactly!

      Chapter Approved might “fix” most of the entries.

      • Drpx

        You can’t “fix” an “imbalance” in a game like this, just shift the meta around so people don’t get bored.

    • Price Vanderburg

      This is the exact statement GW made regarding these March and September FAQs.

      Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.

      This is – by their own words – going to be a broader stroke than just answering questions.

      • Fergie0044

        Oh, I wasn’t aware of that. Awesome possum.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. FAQ has taken such broadly defined strokes for different games. It’s hard to know what to expect some times. Thing people are just overreacting.

  • zeno666

    Sure, they will release a rules patch… sorry, I mean an FAQ in march.
    But the first and second entry in the author’s wishlisting should come out of an errata.

  • Randy Randalman

    This article is a massive overreaction. None of these are “huge problems” or “destabilizing”. This isn’t the unplayability of 7th, or Grey Knights only of 5th. It’s an unfinished edition with rapidly appearing codices, and the meta keeps changing accordingly. GW has been actually better than the community in regards to their FAQ’s against what the community thinks needs to happen. They have been moderate and incremental.

    • HeadHunter

      Ah, the old “give it time” argument. How long are we supposed to allow before an edition is “finished”? By the time it’s finished, they move on to the next edition.
      And you needn’t mention the “promise” that this would be an ongoing edition and there’d be no 9th – these are the same people who promised that we wouldn’t need to carry around a bunch of books to play this time.
      A verbal promise from GW is not worth the paper it’s written on.

    • Price Vanderburg

      Reapers need to be fixed. Some of the rest of it may be sweeping but as an Eldar player I can tell you Reapers are an issue and will remain as such unless they’re changed in some fashion.

  • Rob brown

    I’d like to see stratagems limited to the detachment that they we’re enabled by. Soups lists are fine for models but not sharing stratagems – even with shared keywords

    • I expect this to be the case.

      Wouldn’t be surprised at all to see stratagems limited to the detachment they are from.

  • Jason Bingham

    GTFO with that +1 smite beta fix. Stop jumping on the bandwagon. No one wins games with Smite spam. Sincerely- the Thousand Sons player.

    • silashand

      The big problem with Smite was already addressed when they fixed the cost of Malefic Lords. Since then you don’t really see Smite spam anymore except maybe from Guard psykers, and they are fairly easily dealt with.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    I would hazard gamers need to calm the speculation as to what may or may not get looked at or addressed in the March FAQ update to 8th. I don’t personally think there will be any sweeping changes and a lot of hobbyist are going to be disappointed if they have their hearts set on very specific things. For which they will only have themselves to blame for the disappointment but will likely still bemoan GW.

    I would imagine the biggest tweaks with be the two changes that have been specifically road tested at LVO and released to the community for feedback i.e. Character Targeting restrictions and Psychic Focus*. Beyond that, I reckon the vast majority of the FAQs will just be a bunch of “intended rules” clarifications (errata changes to wordings if needed) for abilities and “rules interaction” clarifications.

    *If I were a betting man, I would hazard Grey Knight will get an exemption added to Rite of Banishment in regards to this.

    • Price Vanderburg

      They stated though they would be addressing game balance related concerns in these big FAQs. The FAQ per book the week after release is for immediate issues and confusion, the March and September FAQs are to be much bigger more sweeping documents that actually address the state of the game.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        Not quite. Why does no-one ever read things?

        The March and September Updates will be addressing clarifications and interactions, with a focus on game wide queries. It “might” include rules changes to balance overly powerful, or underrepresented units. It is no way a given, and personally I don’t think we will see a lot of those kind of changes. Note this is not going to be done with points alterations at these points: which will always be done as part of each years Chapter Approved.

        “2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs
        Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.”

        https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

  • LordKrungharr

    Regarding Warp time it’s not that big of a deal IMHO.

    Regarding stratagems being used by a different detachment than t he source of the stratagem, I think that should change to be more limited, though it would screw over my space Wolves until the codex drops.

    Regarding stacked modifiers, they should make it where 6s always hit and 1s always miss.

    Regarding the space elves, I’ve hated/been jealous of them for so long I yearn for anything to gum up their sleek beautiful operations.

    Regarding character spam, my Sons of Malice renegades need the 11 Lords to be the doomed ones with which they can summon Malal into real space. So don’t mess with my three supreme commands!

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      Well obviously. It’s Malal, he doesn’t show up to a party for just anyone.

  • KingAceNumber1

    In addition to the things listed, I’d like to see a bump in points for shining spears. Additionally, if Ynnari replaced the craftworld keywords for anything in their detachment I think that would be a solid fix for the combo’s they can pull now.

  • CannonBall

    I feel like I see Primarchs in almost all list configurations anymore from an Imperial/Chaos side of things. I don’t really have an answer to that conundrum other than “moar pointz!” but it just feels odd to see.

  • Drpx

    There’s plenty wrong with taking combined armies from multiple sources, but that can of worms is open now so we just have to deal with it.

  • EmperorOfMankind

    Why should Dark Reapers be nerfed?

    • nope none

      strong shooting for cheap. when combined with ynnari, they can get double shooting. always hit on 3’s.

      • EmperorOfMankind

        god I hate this game sometimes.

        • Matthew Pomeroy

          40k 8th or BoLs forum posts, which game 😀

          • EmperorOfMankind

            Both.

    • Drpx

      Because we’re bored.

      • EmperorOfMankind

        at least you’re honest.

  • Legitimancer

    Why would GW have any interest in limiting soup lists? That’s more models they’re selling.

    • Aura1

      At first glance – true, but if they’re only selling HQs of one or two sorts and soupy troops of one or two box sets – it means they aren’t selling all those extra models from the Codex that nobody brings to tournaments. Limiting more to Codex specific armies means more sales of niche items.

    • The composition of soup lists is fine and fluffy. That’s not the issue.

      The issue is increasingly complex soup lists that are designed to cherrypick key strategems, faction rules, and relics into a single list – with cross detachment beneficial combos.

      It’s something that a lot of the smaller armies like Necrons, Tau or Orks with no allies to soup with can’t match.

  • Not sure an FAQ should address things that are overpowered. Just clear up confusing rules.

    Ex. the best solution for massed dark reapers should probably be a points increase and keep their rules exactly the same.

    I do like updates on Smite, massed characters, and would love to see something about stacking negative modifiers.

    RE negative modifiers as I’m playing orks right now there are units (ex. Carnifexes) that are literally impossible to shoot with my entire army. Definitely like the idea of 6’s always succeeding for a to hit / to wound roll.

  • Iggynous

    So basically just take away any powerhouse unit/stratagem/relic? Because if no one has any power, the game’s balanced?
    *sigh*
    This is what happens when a developer engages with a community; delusions of entitlement.

    • HeadHunter

      How fast does that straw man slide down your slippery slope?
      No one’s suggesting nerfing *everything*. We’re talking about proper usage. That’s not “entilement”, that’s proper game design.
      I’m sure that they didn’t have some of these ridiculous, abusive combos in mind when they made the rules – for instance, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell that an AM Commissar would ever be allowed to wield a sacred Astartes relic. So either these combos are intentional and broken, or unintentional and therefore need to be fixed.
      Imagine that – your opponent is “entitled” to a fair game where rules lawyers don’t abuse things. How bold.

      • Iggynous

        Nothing’s broken. People are just getting sad about loosing to the same thing.

        Don’t be sad. Just be better.

        • HeadHunter

          Oh, yes, “GIT GUD”… the rallying cry of the exploiters since gaming began.
          (We really need an eyeroll emote here)

          • Iggynous

            Exploiters eh? So you’re either a cry baby, whining about what you think is unfair, or you’re an exploiter?

            What about players that just deal with it? Adapt, improvise, overcome? What’s their rallying cry?

            What about players that change their lists, as oppose to just crying to big brother? What’s their rallying cry?

  • There’s a very simple fix to the army stratagem thing!

    1: An army wholly from 1 book gets to use the stratagems from that book otherwise they use the rule book stratagems
    2: Legion specific stratagems can only be used if the whole army is from that legion

    For example a csm mix army can use generic csm stratagems like votlw but to use tide of traitors all the units must be alpha legion,

    It won’t kill all shenanigans but it will do the job it’s intended to do which is reward fluffy armies and punish waac soup lists!

  • Matthew Manall

    Dark Reapers are fine. The problem is how Ynnari forces use them. Fix Ynnari.

    • Which is happening one way or another once they get their Codex. I expect it to happen sooner rather than later, possibly preparing for the Emperor’s Children release/campaign supplement.

    • Wayne Molina

      The problem is being able to spam dark Reapers .or anything, really

  • Manouel Tiger

    WOW so much hate and stupidity in this article !

    why do you want to nerf dark reapers !
    I play alder but i don’t spam them and that’s ok, I’m not responsible of the stupidity of several players.

    So stop compare LVO lists and fun list !
    That’s not the reality, we can play and have fun together without make broken list

  • BroxusMaximus

    We need a rule that allows non soup lists to become more competitive. I believe you should be able to gain an additional 3+ CP if you have all the same keywords. This would help level the playing field.