Big FAQ 2 discussion

[USNCenturion]

I didn’t see a topic dedicated to this yet, and since it dropped during the site shutdown, I thought I’d like to get everyone’s takes on the changes and such. What are the likes, dislikes, surprises, and disappointments and what’s the state of the game moving forward? Has anyone used the additions in a game yet? Etc.

 

Mods if this is already a thing somewhere please feel free to remove this as you see fit.

[Panzer]

My dislikes are the heavy handed reserves and FLY changes and that GW things soup is “still“ off the menue when it wasn't off the menue in the first place. AM still provides tons of CP to any other imperial army, they just don't regenerate as much anymore.

 

What I like is basically everything else but mainly that AM can't regenerate as many CP anymore and the 2CP fee cover Stratagem if you go second (tho I think that should be a default bonus without any costs attached).

[Brother Casman]

I've bumped this over to Amicus for now - given the laundry list of changes, I suspect that this topic will probably be better covered in multiple threads in the appropriate army fora.

[micahwc]

Agents of Vect only working if the Kabal of the Black Heart units are present is how it should have been interpreted to begin with so I'm glad they fixed that, although the 4 point cost is a little steep I think. Clarifying that it doesn't work on strategems before the game starts is a needed change to it as well.

 

The changes to fly don't really make sense and just got rid of a lot of offensive ability for melee armies (Blood Angels and others similar to them) I agree with getting rid of the 0 vertical distance for charges though.

 

I'd be a lot more forgiving of soup CP shenanigans if all the armies had ways to do it consistently. Imperium has guard, chaos has renegades (if renegades where actually as decent as guard which they are not), Tyranids could have Genestealer Cults, Aeldari don't really have anything to fill this role yet. Tau could have Kroot added in this capacity fairly easily.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m not a fan of the fly changes at all. If you’re worried about 0 inch charges just set a rule saying 3 inch is the minimum charge distance possible. This new rule stops units charging over screens which is exactly what things like assault marines should be able to do.

[BitsHammer]

So, because I've had time to digest the changes and listened/read some insights from others to round out my opinion, I have to say it's a good "soft touch" approach to adjusting the game. Be it that more changes are in CA (by points or rules or both), or GW not wanting to just slam the hammer on things too much, it's not bad.

 

Firstly there is the much maligned comment about "soup": they did fix soup. Maybe people have already forgotten the stuff people were trying to pull by basically just mashing up a bunch of Imperium stuff in a single detachment with no taxes. The change to allies, and then adding the Rule of 3 for matched play, has severely limited the soup as it was once was. Are allies still a thing? Dang straight. The problem is no longer "soup", and allies really aren't the issue as much as there is a need for the game to have a means of buffing single codex armies. The playing field is more even than it used to be, but it's as good as it could be. And no, I don't buy this complaint that an army with 3 subfactions is "soup". 

 

Fly basically needed to change due to how abused it was, and how it invalidated your opponent's choices in the game. I was rather hoping that they would get overwatched by any unit they charged over as well, but this is probably a good choice too. Namely because it helps prevent a unit like Jetbikes tri-pointing a model in consolidation and locking a unit in combat. Plus 0" charges were stupidly broken and they needed to go. Cinematic or not, it wasn't good for game balance and going back to how stuff used to work in past editions works just fine.

 

As for the reserve rules: good. Alpha strikes can go die in a fire. I don't care that it's cinematic or fluffy, it's stupid to play against and you either win because they fail their alpha strike somehow, or you lose because you're locked in your deployment zone and can't do anything. It was stupid, unfun and needed to go. Beta strikes are forever a thing and will forever be better for the game since you have a turn to prep for them. And no, I have no issue with people being able to launch a single unit across the field for a turn one charge because a single unsupported unit that forgoes shooting to only charge my screening units isn't going to break the game. 

 

Tactical Restraint is what most of us were asking for so it's great. No complaints here since 6 CP possible over a game is nowhere close to what we were dealing with before. It turned the CP Farm into a CP Garden and people have to look at what they're bringing stuff for since they can't support two big CP drains at the same time anymore. It's pretty good overall. List changes won't be drastic, but this reduces the current allies meta further and means we're taking weaker choices to replace the Slamcaptains, or taking just Guard and a Knight instead.

 

Lastly I really like the Prepared Positions stratagem. It makes tanks and transports better and promotes a change to the meta that we need. It helps hordes and MSU brigade armies the most, but there it even helps for the 40% of the time your list that should go first goes second. It's solid and probably the best thing GW has tried for balancing going second.

[Schlitzaf]

The new rules;

Deep Strike = Dumb. At best the problem was Scions and similar units. At worse you just annihilated reliable answers to super gunlines. Bluntly the rule should be deep strikers shooting take -1 to hit on the turn they drop.

Cover Strategem = I want to see it play. It’s somthing that is great for armies with mass drops. What is espacially nice is that for Marines, you will note vs small arms fire our casualties cut in half. Better explaination;

-a Marine Squad takes 12 Saves;

3+ = 4 Dead

2+ = 2 Dead (Cover)

 

Now that effectively increases our turn 1 durability by 100%. Versus Small Arm Fire it seems small but it’s important. It means that 30 Gaurdsman, don’t actually kill a Marine turn 1. And 10 Marines don’t either. You need 20 Marines and 40 Gaurdsman to do so. But in contrast a Gaurdsman Squad on the reception loses two models vs 10 Marines and 3 Gaurdsman vs 30 Gaurdsman. What also should be highlighted here, is that while Marines go from 3 Gaurdsman to 2 Gaurdsman, those 30 Gaurdsman go from 4 Gaurdsman to 3 Gaurdsman killed. You will note that is 33% vs 25% Gaurd favor! Something to stress, that is 3 squads doing one wound each vs 1 squad doing two wounds. This means that Marines better deal with the damage loss because on a squad basis we do more and better able to inflict damage via focus fire.

 

Secondly versus the bane of Marines everywhere, the Dreaded Plasma. You reduce the dead by 20% so to kill 10 Marines reliably, you need 15 Plasma wounds not 12. That is the difference of 1 Rapiding Plasma Gun.

 

So you need assuming hitting on 3+ rerolling 1, 24 Plasma Shots to kill 10 Marines. Previously you only needed 18. That is a 6 Models at long, 3 Models in Rapid. Valuing plasma at around 25 points a model. That is nearly 80 point increase in relative durability.

 

The Corsair change is welcome. I still wish smite was -1 because that make 1d6 denies relavent.

[BitsHammer]

The new rules;

Deep Strike = Dumb. At best the problem was Scions and similar units. At worse you just annihilated reliable answers to super gunlines. Bluntly the rule should be deep strikers shooting take -1 to hit on the turn they drop.

In tournaments like Nova the problem was Deep Striking and then assaulting over the defender's screen turn 1 to kill their knight or warlord or other key unit with a Slamcaptain before they could even move. It was more than just a shooting problem. Basically it was just bad for the game and considering we went several editions not having the ability to drop in turn one without very specific exceptions (which they could give back to Drop Pods again), I still think it's better this way.

[thewarriorhunter]

Did the changes to FLY occur because the rule book was errata'd to specify the MOVEMENT phase? So now you only ignore terrain/models when moving/advancing/falling back, but not charging, is that correct?

[BitsHammer]

Did the changes to FLY occur because the rule book was errata'd to specify the MOVEMENT phase? So now you only ignore terrain/models when moving/advancing/falling back, but not charging, is that correct?

That's pretty much it yeah. According to one screenshot from the Facebook team's posts they even said RAW it reads like it should be movement phase only and they were going to bring it up to the rules team, so this could be a situation where the studio team knew what they meant for it to do, but we didn't get the intent because we're outside their bubble.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The new rules;

Deep Strike = Dumb. At best the problem was Scions and similar units. At worse you just annihilated reliable answers to super gunlines. Bluntly the rule should be deep strikers shooting take -1 to hit on the turn they drop.

In tournaments like Nova the problem was Deep Striking and then assaulting over the defender's screen turn 1 to kill their knight or warlord or other key unit with a Slamcaptain before they could even move. It was more than just a shooting problem. Basically it was just bad for the game and considering we went several editions not having the ability to drop in turn one without very specific exceptions (which they could give back to Drop Pods again), I still think it's better this way.

The problem is though that now deep striking assault units still have to land 9 inches away meaning they’re unlikely to be in combat until the turn after they arrive which means turn 3 at best, bybwhich time most games have been decided. And now they can’t get past the screens in a charge anyway thanks to the change to fly.

 

Screens of cheap infantry are already too powerful this edition and the reserve change coupled with the fly change make deep striking assault units basically pointless. Needing 9 clear inches in every direction for the deep striking units means it is insanely easy to deny the space needed by the end of your first turn if you’re playing a horde army.

 

Now I’m happy to delay deep strikes until turn two if it was bought in with some relaxation of the other limits for deep striking assault units.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

The new rules;

Deep Strike = Dumb. At best the problem was Scions and similar units. At worse you just annihilated reliable answers to super gunlines. Bluntly the rule should be deep strikers shooting take -1 to hit on the turn they drop.

In tournaments like Nova the problem was Deep Striking and then assaulting over the defender's screen turn 1 to kill their knight or warlord or other key unit with a Slamcaptain before they could even move. It was more than just a shooting problem. Basically it was just bad for the game and considering we went several editions not having the ability to drop in turn one without very specific exceptions (which they could give back to Drop Pods again), I still think it's better this way.

The problem is though that now deep striking assault units still have to land 9 inches away meaning they’re unlikely to be in combat until the turn after they arrive which means turn 3 at best, bybwhich time most games have been decided. And now they can’t get past the screens in a charge anyway thanks to the change to fly.

 

Screens of cheap infantry are already too powerful this edition and the reserve change coupled with the fly change make deep striking assault units basically pointless. Needing 9 clear inches in every direction for the deep striking units means it is insanely easy to deny the space needed by the end of your first turn if you’re playing a horde army.

 

Now I’m happy to delay deep strikes until turn two if it was bought in with some relaxation of the other limits for deep striking assault units.

 

Games were largely decided by turn 3 due to the importance of turn 1 and the effect it had on the game. Since GW seems to want to extend how long the game goes so that it averages beyond turn 3 with these changes, it may not be set in stone by turn 3.

 

That said, the biggest thing is that the change encourages more balanced lists that don't just shove all their eggs in one basket and rely on deep striking en masse to win.

[USNCenturion]

I don’t understand why they didn’t just go back to the old night fight dynamic for turn one, and reinstitute searchlight equipment, as opposed to a CP centric stratagem for digging in. Semantics at this point I suppose.

 

The charge/screen thing is really wonky to me and I frankly can’t wait til it’s all streamlined in the next edition rule book lol.

 

I still think I’d rather a detachment only usage of CP as opposed to limited regeneration. At least they did something though.

[BitsHammer]

I don’t understand why they didn’t just go back to the old night fight dynamic for turn one, and reinstitute searchlight equipment, as opposed to a CP centric stratagem for digging in. Semantics at this point I suppose.

 

The charge/screen thing is really wonky to me and I frankly can’t wait til it’s all streamlined in the next edition rule book lol.

 

I still think I’d rather a detachment only usage of CP as opposed to limited regeneration. At least they did something though.

Because night fighting was a mess that people often chose to ignore (sadly because it wasn't a bad mechanic honestly). The CP centric tactic means you need to make actual choices on if you use it or how you use it instead of just relying on it being automatic and relying on it heavily. I like it better this way, it promotes more nuanced play.

[Panzer]

I don't see any choice there. As long as you aren't CP starved or play something like Daemons who don't really profit from a cover bonus you are just going to burn those 2CP every single time you go second because it would be dumb not to.

[BitsHammer]

I don't see any choice there. As long as you aren't CP starved or play something like Daemons who don't really profit from a cover bonus you are just going to burn those 2CP every single time you go second because it would be dumb not to.

Unless you're already in cover and don't need it. The choice really is if you want to risk deploying aggressively or not in your deployment zone and take advantage of it. Which is good. You pay for an advantage or can ignore it if you don't need it.

 

I await the first time that gets the Agents of Vect treatment on an aggressively deployed army that then gets tabled because they went all in when they shouldn't have btw.

[Panzer]

If you are already in cover it's not exactly a choice either...

 

Also you don't pay for an advantage. You go second. You pay so you don't have as big a disadvantage as you'd have otherwise.

[BitsHammer]

If you are already in cover it's not exactly a choice either...

 

Also you don't pay for an advantage. You go second. You pay so you don't have as big a disadvantage as you'd have otherwise.

You sometimes pay for it if you need it, but you can ignore it.

 

I mostly like it because it gives transports a needed buff since they're rather sad since they can't get cover very easily anymore.

[Panzer]

I didn't say I don't like it. I've been playing around a lot with the Dal'yth Sept tenet which gives all units cover if they don't move and it helped a LOT against alpha strikes. I'm saying that it's much less of a choice than you make it to be. Most cases you just pay for it without a second thought.

I also think it should be a free buff for going second since going second is already a huge disadvantage even with the cover bonus.

[Atrus]

I do t really have any problems with the latest faq. The addressing to the CP regen issue pleases me as i was tired of burning through my CP by turn 4 or 5 and my opponent having almost their starting amount despite spamming stratagems. Feel its a good change.

 

As for the fly change. I never realised that fly could move over units in the charge until someone tried to pull that manouvre on me a week before the faq came out. All this time ive been having celestine not jump over things in charge. Fortunately, this change just means i keep playing the way i have been, so theres no salt or need to adjust for me.

 

Very much looking forward to using the cover stratagem. Going to be my auto use most the time i think as i know i can count on always going second or my opponent siezing.

Survivable transports? Yes please.

[Redtoof]

I’m largely happy with it. Being unable to fly over stuff on the charge is a bit mean, but I’ll deal with it. The rest is fine. No deep strike turn one is basically what we already had as far as I was concerned.

 

The main disappointment is that they didn’t go far enough to curb soup, but I think I’d prefer the soft handed approach than the knee jerk removal of all allies or making them totally unviable.

[BitsHammer]

I’m largely happy with it. Being unable to fly over stuff on the charge is a bit mean, but I’ll deal with it. The rest is fine. No deep strike turn one is basically what we already had as far as I was concerned.

 

The main disappointment is that they didn’t go far enough to curb soup, but I think I’d prefer the soft handed approach than the knee jerk removal of all allies or making them totally unviable.

Soup was a specific thing that died when we paired the Rule of 3 and Battle Brothers up and couldn't take more than 3 factions. Allies is fine, the problem is that we have too many factions who lack real ally options, or that CP generation heavilly favors the loyal 32 over a more balanced build.

[Panzer]

 

I’m largely happy with it. Being unable to fly over stuff on the charge is a bit mean, but I’ll deal with it. The rest is fine. No deep strike turn one is basically what we already had as far as I was concerned.

 

The main disappointment is that they didn’t go far enough to curb soup, but I think I’d prefer the soft handed approach than the knee jerk removal of all allies or making them totally unviable.

Soup was a specific thing that died when we paired the Rule of 3 and Battle Brothers up and couldn't take more than 3 factions. Allies is fine, the problem is that we have too many factions who lack real ally options, or that CP generation heavilly favors the loyal 32 over a more balanced build.

 

 

I'm going to disagree there. That's only what GW understood as soup. Most of the community understands soup as what is still possible. Namely AM CP battery&board control with Knights and some Marine heavy hitter. And that's still possible to do. Maybe we'll see lists with less Blood Angel Captains in favour of an additional AM Brigade and more Knights now tho with these changes.

It's also not that people have something against allies. People like allies. What people don't like is that imperial mono-dex armies can't keep up with imperial soup armies on tournaments. And as long as AM can provide +5CP and +30 bodies for less than 200p and +9CP +who knows what for I don't know how cheap (actually didn't calculate a Brigade for AM yet) this problem will remain no matter how much Marines will get buffed since every Marine buff will also be a soup list buff which can utilize those buffs way better due having more CP available.

Now I don't want to turn this into yet another "how to fix ..." thread so I won't go more into detail on this topic. This is my opinion and it's shared by plenty others so I don't think I'm completely wrong with it.

[BlackTriton]

The Soup / allies semantic argument is getting old.

Soup as a term was coined to describe the mixing of faction in a detachment, and as that got removed from the game the term as evolved to describe min-maxing allies.

 

I like what the FAQ did, but im divided by the change to fly

I agree that fly in general was too strong, it was a step over anything that does not have it, be it for melee or for shooting. Now its most important for shooting.

I beleive this nerf to melee was unwaranted, but the nerf to fly is fair, if that makes sense.

 

The Deepstrike change make sense.

It now an exchange: the protection and mobility offered by reserve in exchange for not participating on turn 1.

[BitsHammer]

"Soup" keeps getting watered down from being the ultimate mix of ultimateness, to being 3 subfactions with FOC requirements. To make it worse I keep seeing "soup" being used to describe all allies, and equally frowned on despite there being people out there running a variant of the old Daemonhunters codex by taking Grey Knights with an Inquisitor, the Inquisitor's warband and an Assassin and yet it's shoved under the same "soup" label just because it takes a mix of forces.

 

"Soup" as a term needs to die if we're using it to describe a specific problem because as a term it's being used to describe all allying. Min-maxing (as described above) is a competitive issue every game has to deal with and I don't feel it's as much of a problem as it was namely because the way things work has limited how far that CP battery goes. Especially for Knights who have to pay more for all their cool tricks.