Next FAQ-? What do you want to see??

[DaemonReign]

Well 9 out of 10 things brought up in this thread are either already covered by the rules very clearly (like everybody knows Open Ground is Terrain and yet people ask for FAQ I don't get it), and then there's loads of these quite unprecedented 'balance-suggestions' which just seem off topic to be honest..
but of course one or two 'actual' candidates that would be good in the Errata/FAQ pop up too.

Being a Daemon Player I'm just gonna comment on the following:

DOC
- Gifts are magic weapons (cannot be duplicated)
- Specific line saying Keeper Doesnt regain wounds through Tstomp (makes her unkillable basically)

Right..
With regards to Gifts becoming 'Magic Weapons' (0-1 Choices) I assume the implicit consequence of your suggestion here is that Daemons also get access to BrB Items.
If 'No' = *facepalm* (well you came to the right place..)
If 'Yes' = There are tons of Magic Items that would be quite problematic if Daemons had access to them. I'm not sure you've thought this one through to be honest.

With regards to Spirit Swallower it absolutely does not 'interact' with ThunderStomp. This is already covered by the present Errata/FAQ.
Daemonic Gifts are Special Rules.
Special Rules never interact with Stomp.

So that one you can cross off your list.

[Makaber]

Have they ever changed the points cost for something in a FAQ/errata, though? Most of these are, in my eyes, far beyond the scope of a PDF document.

The big ones for me are Curse of Anraheir and open ground f(rankly I'm surprised it hasn't been looked at already) and The Standard of Discipline and the General's leadership. The Crown of Command I actually think is fairly okay. Steadfast is already very good, and I fear making the Crown prohibitively expensive would lead to an armsrace where units just got deeper and deeper. Rather like a furthening of the existing Skaven Slaves problem. The Crown allows you to field a small and relatively expensive regiment of mid-tier troops that you'd normally wouldn't take. For example, Bestigors would make no sense if all they'd play against were monstrously deep Steadfast regiments which they couldn't break, or Chaos Warrior analogues they'd have no chance of winning against. The Crown fixes that.

[The bearded one]

The crown of command doesn't help 'expensive regiments of mid-tier troops' to break steadfast units.

[The Low King]

Seems to me that what a few people here want is a rules overhaul rather than an FAQ

What i want answered is:

Do scouts count towards the +1 for deploying first?

And an Amendment removing Gyro partials, it being the only thing in the game that as them

[decker_cky]

Have they ever changed the points cost for something in a FAQ/errata, though? Most of these are, in my eyes, far beyond the scope of a PDF document.

Nothing recent, but there were a number of units completely rewritten (skaven war machines were significantly rewritten, steam tank essentially completely rewritten, flame cannon rewritten, ring of hotek was rewritten, power scroll was rewritten, etc..). Obvious balance issues for armybooks that won't be replaced within 6 months or so should definitely be within the scope of an FAQ, which seems like most of the listed balance issues are addressing.

Not too many wording issues left to be addressed aside from recent books. I think an 8.5 rebalance FAQ would add a lot to the game.

One more thing I don't think I've seen mentioned: Cannons should only hit one part of a multipart model. Pinball cannons really isn't needed for anything, and dragon riders already got balanced by 1 use breath weapons, steadfast, marching flying, etc...

Challenge rules should be fixed to allow all parts of a multipart model to attack/stomp too, allowing you to reasonably cause some overkill with a 500+ point character.

[decker_cky]

Do scouts count towards the +1 for deploying first?

Good one.

And an Amendment removing Gyro partials, it being the only thing in the game that as them

Some giants fall down and a few other things have partials still. This is no different than any of the other rebalance questions IMO.

[BorderKing]

I like how people are trying to make Hellheart changes but aren't trying to change the OK suck ass magic weapons. Maybe GW should try and make magic items that are unusable viable before making the ones people do use useless.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

Have they ever changed the points cost for something in a FAQ/errata, though? Most of these are, in my eyes, far beyond the scope of a PDF document.

They did in 40K for the DA and BT to bring their equipment more in line with other Space marines. Can't think of a time that they've done it in WFB though.

[decker_cky]

I like how people are trying to make Hellheart changes but aren't trying to change the OK suck ass magic weapons. Maybe GW should try and make magic items that are unusable viable before making the ones people do use useless.

Most important changes are to tone down things that are overpowered and unbalance games (which hellheart can do), and to fix things that are debilitatingly bad (something like beastmen monsters, which are essentially unusable). Every army has some bad magic items, but with common items, it's not even like ogres don't have a great selection of magic items. If you boost the bottom 5-10% and tone down the top 5-10%, you fix all the significant issues with the game.

One change that hasn't been mentioned but I think is worth adding: Skavenslaves do not count as core selections. Force skaven players to use some stormvermin or clanrats (both of which are still very good value).

edit: Also, I think the 6th ed DE errata is the last major fantasy change including points cost. Changed warrior and hydra costs among other things.

[Malorian]

I want to see things straight up changed as to fix them, like what they did with Thorek.

I want them to straight up change the 4+ ward/stubborn option from the EotG chart to something else, I want them to makes spells like dwellers allow a look out sir roll, and I want disrupting ranks to take away steadfast.

This is what GW really should be doing with their updates, not wasting their time with small RAI loopholes that 98% of gamers play correctly anyway.

[The Low King]

Some giants fall down and a few other things have partials still. This is no different than any of the other rebalance questions IMO.

Sorry, more what i meant was: A firm yes or no as to whether they actually intend Gyrocopters to keep partials.

RAW they have them but everywhere i go everyone just thinks im silly when i try to say they do.....i actually got a full 'what are you on' look from a Store manager once.



The problem with rules updates is that they require a lot of thought....the FAQ team atm seems to be one guy and his goldfish, if they tried to adjust the hellheart rules and pulled another flame cannon people would be even more unhappy.

[TsukeFox]

Amen doomsday spells should offer look out sir & dare I say instead of killing outright just do D3 wounds & D6 for powered up versions.
Skillrazer to allow armour saves not to be effected by new strength bonus (normal strength modifiers apply-I like this Ammendment as mentioned in early post.)

[The bearded one]

the FAQ team atm seems to be one guy and his goldfish

the goldfish at the moment appears to be giving most of the imput * glances at flamecannon errata *

Skillrazer to allow armour saves not to be effected by new strength bonus (normal strength modifiers apply-I like this Ammendment as mentioned in early post.)

sounds like it'd become flaming sword of rhuin on steroids, minus the flaming.

[Ghremdal]

Wait, I thought Mindrazor's boost to strength didn't affect armor saves...and looking through the errata I don't see anything that would change that. I mean its very clear from the description that S=LD applies only when rolling to wound.

[The bearded one]

Isn't the description just "unit uses ld as it's strength" ? That simply means the strength stat for all intents and purposes is equal to their ld.


wouldn't it be fun if the spell swaps your str and ld around? So if you manage to lose the round while mindrazored, or you're panicked or whatever, you are gonna have to test on ld3-4

[shakedown47]

I've seen several people mention Standard of Discipline now, as well as the 1" rule. In regards to the Standard, people seem to want a "reversal" of the FAQ, which I don't get; RAW there is only one way the Standard of Discipline works, it's silly that it was ever a Frequently Asked Question (I'm surprised is was asked even once!) If people don't like the cheap increased Ld bubble that's one thing, but the only way to remedy that would be through an errata; an FAQ should only be able to currently address in the way it already has. As far as "clarification" on the 1" rule, I'm confused about that also. What is unclear?

The two big things I would like to see is a clarification on Curse of Anreheir and lore attributes for older books. We currently play Curse of Anraheir RAW and get along happily enough, but it seems when we play out-of-towners or at tournaments it causes a big scene, and as already mentioned it does have a point of contention when you consider the case of fanatics. Lore attributes for older books are a must IMO, and on a lesser scale I don't see the major harm in adjusting casting costs to reflect the new magic system (Pandaemonium on 8+ and Remains in Play should probably be moved to 10+ for one round or 12+ Remains in Play, for example.)

[shakedown47]

Correct. I guess I can understand the confusion with people that haven't fully absorbed the spell description and just took the short version away from it that Ld=Str, but it seems to me that should a dispute arise a cursory reading of Okkam's would clear up any doubt. Armor saves taken against wounds caused by Okkam's-augmented troops will only have a negative modifier if they would have normally (i.e. base Str of attacking models plus whatever Str bonuses their weapons may give.) So armor saves against Okkam's-augmented Dark Elf warriors are taken at a -0 armor modifier, unless they for some reason had the armor piercing banner.

Edit: Sorry this should have included a quote from Ghremdal's last post.

[Lord Shadowheart]

Isn't the description just "unit uses ld as it's strength" ? That simply means the strength stat for all intents and purposes is equal to their ld.


wouldn't it be fun if the spell swaps your str and ld around? So if you manage to lose the round while mindrazored, or you're panicked or whatever, you are gonna have to test on ld3-4

God would I love that

Ironcurse Icon to work against skaven weapons teams/ doomrocket, etc.

Do something about stubborn ld10 skavenslaves, maybe something like not allowing them to use general's ld.

[Gazak Blacktoof]

sounds like it'd become flaming sword of rhuin on steroids, minus the flaming.

A better option might be to have mindrazor count strength as leadership, but also wound against the target's leadership. Armour saves would then be modified by the leadership value used as strength.

It then becomes something different to flaming sword and is worse than its current rules depending on the circumstances.

[Kudzu]

A better option might be to have mindrazor count strength as leadership, but also wound against the target's leadership. Armour saves would then be modified by the leadership value used as strength.

It then becomes something different to flaming sword and is worse than its current rules depending on the circumstances.

LD vs Ld, no armor saves but MR can be used-- make it more like a psychic attack that the fluff implies.