40k FAQ 2018 is out now

[blackcherry]

So this is up now;

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/?utm_source=GamesWorkshop.com&utm_campaign=8acf70c533-GW_19th_April_Warhammer_Fest_ENG&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c6e14e39d2-8acf70c533-113217593

What are people's thoughts on the changes? I can't see many of them being game breaking (which is good) and is just tweaking rules so they are now RAI instead of RAW or taking overpowered stuff down a peg (I mean, as a Chaos player even I had issues with Tide of Traitors).

What are other people's thoughts though?

[murgel2006]

I'm happy to see a restriction on unit spam in tournaments, maybe now the netlists will become more interesting for a narrative player like me. As might be the case for watching a tournament.

[Necrontyr]

SPAM restrictions, change to battle brothers, and no more first turn Deep strike shenanigans has me very excited. Love the way GW is handling 8th.

[Lord Damocles]

If having four Predators is a problem, how come three Predators, three Baal Predators, and three relic Predators aren't? [insert other similar but not quite the same datasheet units to taste]

If only allowing a max of three of each unit balances things, how come Tau are stuck with max one Commander?

If I make an army using points, why are Power Levels used to determine how much stuff can deep strike?

Low cost hoards benefit more from detachments giving more Command Points since they are better able to fill out multiple detachments. Isn't that the opposite of the intended effect?

Units are spammed because they are unbalanced [towards being too good/cheap]. Wouldn't fixing the problem units be a better solution than the one which makes Deathwing armies unplayable?

Why does the Forgeworld Imperial Armour FAQ alter the rules for the Stormraven?

Why is GW trying to have a living rulebook system when you need a £35 rulebook to play? At this point the game in the rulebook is borderline unplayable by somebody not using the FAQs vs someone who is up to date.

Isn't the effective inability to deep strike first turn just moving back to the system we had before the current system was brought in and improved it?

Why does GW still insist that spamming units results in armies which 'don't match the narrative of the setting'? There's literally a Black Library novel which features an army made up entirely of Dark Reapers!

[dragonbreath]

These are all excellent questions, Lord Damocles. I might add a few of my own...like why increase the cost of Guilliman when there are cheesier primarchs, good players can negate the BG gunline, and marines have taken a beating with all the new codices?

Don't get me started on paper thin marine tanks and invulnerable saves on xenos heavy armor, but why is Bobby G chasing a line of flying gunships or razorbacks or guard units a marine list?

You might also ask that, given the cost of their models, why doesn't GW at least make a pretense of balancing the game and, no, fielding 7 flyrants or 7 razorbacks or 7 gunships or hordes of dark reapers is not a sign of balance, nor is a marine army with token infantry, but keep those pricey rulebooks and codices coming...

Heck, why do the forums seem to have less posters? That's a good question for you...

Or simply...why did GW blow up the Old World?

Citing full disclosure, I admittedly am a cantankerous, perverse old coot who runs 8k armies of Ultramarines, Tyrannids and Old World Warriors of Chaos. So take my answer with a grain of salt...

Well, (pause to apply palm to face and *SIGH*)...you could blame the decline of the West, an abundance of gullible young men with too much disposable income (although you have to admire the persistence of a meta player willing to build 7 flying hive tyrants BEFORE the first FAQ just to win a local tournament), or you could blame the Brits, the Europeans, or any player in the world willing to spend to keep up with the tournament meta. Human foolishness aside, however, this has GW's fingerprints all over it. To have such a great game, so many willing customers, a great story, a virtual empire built of plastic and glue, and treat it so shabbily seems a shame. Still 40k (and Warhammer still) are great games, especially when played with friends and people who realize it is just a game, meant to be enjoyed by all players. I suppose there is a logic to the way GW tortures rules, but I can't imagine the rules shenanigans haven't driven away more than a few customers, when a simpler more streamlined game marked by balanced armies and infrequent FAQs might actually lead to growth of the hobby, which seems to be very scattered these days...

[Commissar von Toussaint]

What I'm hearing is that this isn't actually a list of Frequently Asked Questions (which provide clarity) but rather rules amendments done on the down-low.

Or am I totally off base?

[Lord Damocles]

They did update most of the FAQs (they initially updated Index Imperium 2's FAQ to be about Index Chaos...), but the majority of the significant material is errata.

Claiming that it's an FAQ in the title sounds better than saying that it's errata, but I'm willing to believe that GW is just using sloppy terminology in this case.


To make matters significantly more confusing, GW have been clarifying points of the FAQ errata on Facebook. So now to know how deepstrike works you need the rulebook, which is largely invalidated by the update, and then you need access to a Facebook post to know what they were intending because the wording of the beta rule is bad.
But don't worry - you can just pay for Chapter Approved to fix the FAQ which is supposed to be fixing the rulebook which you've already paid for.


I'm not sure what important lessons GW took from Adepticon which necessitated the FAQ being over two weeks late, but if it was 'flying Hive Tyrants are a problem when spammed', then... welcome to the last several editions..?
There was definitely an issue of Standard Bearer where Jervis stated that they didn't impose caps on unit numbers in order to improve the game. How times change.

[Zingbaby]

The FAQ still doesn't fix any of the core issues of the game. Soup is alive as ever. Top gun-line armies made stronger than ever. Command Points have become a meaningless mechanic without need for choice now. Grey Knights still suck.

[Zingbaby]

This is pretty funny given that they announced who the playtesters were
235233

[dragonbreath]

Perhaps one of the most endearing things about wargaming are the friendships you build. I met an old friend I hadn't seen for years and he crushed my balanced Ultramarine army with Necrons (still getting the hang of 8th after a long hiatus), but it mattered little I was so glad to see an old friend. We both drove an hour to meet up and he graciously helped me with my army and we...talked. Amazing.

Looking at the 40k gunline ascendant meta and the new FAQ thingamajigger, the GW reasoning for rule changes continues to baffle me, as does the seeming inability to produce balanced rulesets and codices. Before I am assaulted by tournament meta wonks, you have my blessing to play whatever game you want using existing rulesets, as long as you are not obnoxious cheating scum, because being obnoxious cheating scum is bad for your soul.

I think I understand all the logical (or cynical) reasons for jacking the rulesets about as they do (GW, thy name is profit) but it also seems remarkably short sighted. Still, you can't argue with success, but GW seems to have a lot of competition these days, what with companies like Mantic and Mierce, not to mention all the kickstarteres. GW, you hold the keys to a magical kingdom, still, I think, even after all these years. You managed to suck a skeptic like me back in after all these years, so you are capable of doing some good things. Take care of those keys, though. It would be a shame to drop 'em.

[Lord Damocles]

There was definitely an issue of Standard Bearer where Jervis stated that they didn't impose caps on unit numbers in order to improve the game. How times change.
'Jervis Johnson' in White Dwarf October 2012 (UK), pgs.58-9, by the way; in which Jervis argues that GW used to have lots of army list restrictions, but now they don't because restrictions are bad and stop people buying stuff, but they still have restrictions because they increase enjoyment and verisimilitude, but you should ignore those restrictions because house rules, but you shouldn't use house rules to add other restrictions in order to increase enjoyment and verisimilitude because that would stop people using stuff they've bought.

[dragonbreath]

"There was definitely an issue of Standard Bearer where Jervis stated that they didn't impose caps on unit numbers in order to improve the game. How times change."

Verisimilitude has never been tortured in such a careless fashion. The quality of seeming real...boy howdy.

I remember folks telling me early on how the new game was more balanced and I still hear that from time to time now. Then I remember long ago the one tournament I took 2 hive tyrants to, and all the guff I got even though I had painted hordes of expendable gaunts to run alongside them. I am not sure how I would feel about looking across the table at 7 flyrants or flying gunship hordes or dark reaper spam infinitum, but I am pretty sure I know how I feel about GW "balance". The new rules seem an effort to mitigate some of this nonsense, but at the expense of melee oriented armies (a little baffling), but how a company that has been doing this for so long didn't see the power unit spamming coming after they lifted core unit restrictions unless...could they be so cynical...it was a heartless ploy to sell models they knew they would have to restrict one day?

[MrPieChee]

I get the impression that 8th is more balanced than previous editions, but that doesn't mean it's balanced... (I only played 5th Ed, skipped 6 and 7).

I do feel that a limit of three of each data sheet is a cop out to actually balancing the units, but at the rate they have released books, there is no way they have the man power to fix it all in one go. Would have been nice if they tried though!

A better team fix might have been to force the use of different data sheets - i.e. you must use at least three different hq's in a supreme command detachment. And/or for each duplication of a datasheet you must have another another sheet.

I also feel that most of the problem stems from the hq/elite/fast attack battleground allowing spamming of special units. Making these -1 cp would have been a better fix than increasing the core groups cp.

Finally, if gw were just bring lazy they could have just taken all of the units that were spammed in the big tournaments and increased their cost by 5-10%. Then, in the next round of big tournaments do the same. Would fix the game pretty quickly!

[dragonbreath]

Yes. Remembering the days of the rhino rush and SW scouts deploying behind basilisks with a meltagun, I have to admit my perspective is antiquated relative to newer players and metas. But looking at what GW has done is fascinating, but I doubt it can ever be truly understood without grasping GW's motive. And that is a tricky business at best.

If their sole objective is to sell models, the advent of expensive flying gunships and titanic models seems proof to a skeptic like me. If I needed further proof, a year of allowing the spamming of power units and allowing the running of patently unpleasant and unbalanced armies really appeals to the GW cynic in me, if I am looking at motive. If their goal was to speed up the game, the endless rerolls and bigger tournament armies pointwise did not seem like a good path. But they accounted for this by creating a gunline meta and an alpha strike meta for a few melee armies that pretty well guaranteed half of one army would vanish by the end of turn one or two. Then perhaps melee combats seemed too slow for GW magi, so they decided to effectively nerf the alpha strike for melee armies, but make gunlines even more of a thing. With the exception of certain armies, the FAQ didn't totally destroy melee, but it didn't help it much either. The success of gunlines in the first year of 8th demonstrates, that AP changes and increased shooting was more than enough for gunline armies. Add in endless rerolls and you get the gunline meta. You guys figure out why GW did this. It's beyond me. If I think too deeply on their motives it makes like GW even less than before, and again I have a good bit of their stuff. Even the most dedicated GW apologist, though, ought to wonder at tournament meta that encourages bringing 7 hive tyrants, gunships, etc. to a game that is supposed to be fun. Save the lecture about tournament meta is different. I get that. But should it really be that different for a power player? Isn't an enjoyable, strategic game a worthy goal?

Again, play the game you want, but how many of you really enjoy destroying half of your opponent's army before turn 2 is even over, as your opponent looks on in dismay and thinks about switching to Mantic games? And spare me the nonsense about effective use of terrain...

So if balance is the REAL goal, not selling models or faster games or feeding the crazed meta wonks their fix how about this?

1) Do whatever you can to reduce the role of list building in determining battle outcomes. Yes, severely limit power spamming by bring back core unit requirements and elite and heavy unit restrictions...you would have to be mental to want to face three flyrants much less seven.

2} Toss out the power levels or point system. I would say stick to the point system that everyone knows, but it looks like that ship is sailing in GW's mind anyway. And actually make an effort to balance out the codexes so you're not constantly pushing gullible consumers into the next big thing before you yank the rug out from under them again.

3) if you really care about your customers, loosen up the melee rules and perhaps allow Overwatch hits on a 5+ to be fair. Really, the object is BATTLE, not hiding behind buildings.

4} If you really, really care about your customers, and you want them have fun, institute alternate activation rules and initiative rolls for at least the first two or three turns. I cannot see how an the Alpha Strike meta has made the game better except for the handful of crazed individuals who don't grasp that it is just a game, not life or death and the person you are playing with should have fun. Besides, in what world do you get to shoot at your opponent without getting return fire? Gun free zones, I suppose. And just think of the fun trying to decide how to respond to incoming fire? Do you take it and send in the deepstrike unit or expose your heavy to eliminate the threat? This mechanic works quite well in the game of Infinity (a skirmish game) and should help GW introduce a measure of balance, fairness and fun to the game that is lacking in the current list building meta. I admit I am not sure how this would work under the time constraints of a tournament, but people are already talking about chess clocks anyway, so...

Call me an apostate, but there it is. Flame away, if you must, and certainly play the game you want. I plan on still dragging out my Ultramarines and Tyrannids when time permits, but you know somewhere deep inside GW could do better with the rulesets. But, by all means, buy all the models you want. I am a strong believer in capitalism.

[MrPieChee]

I'm very mixed on the idea of alternate activation - it slows the game down, and 40k really does not need to be any slower! I've always wanted to see combat as the first phase in the game - its always seemed weird that winning a combat can allow you to move over double your normal move. If combat was followed by the moment phase then you could remove the post combat consolidation since you're about to move anyway.

Solving the getting shot and and not being able to shoot back could also be solved by moving the turn order. Models killed in your opponents shooting phase stay on the board until your shooting phase. As long as the shoot phase is before moving then you can shoot back with your dead models (since both player turns are in theory happening at once anyway). This solves half of the gunline problem - if you have a melee army you're still going to suffer, but that should be fixed with points and terrain. If armies know they are going to get shot back at by the full force of their opponent then they will try moving a lot more of their units, which will make the game more dynamic and interesting.

So, reordering the phases to:
1) shooting/psykic
2) melee
3) movment

I might try playing like this at some point, but convincing people to change things around is often tough.

[edit: the melee and movement thing seemed like a great idea when I've thought about it before, but just saving that 3" isn't much. Its the move stat +2d6+ 3" pile in that's the problem.]

[dragonbreath]

I admit alternate activation could definitely have an impact on speed of play, like so many things in 40k past and present, like buckets of dice with rerolls, e.g.

Perhaps rolling back to 1500 point lists, allowing players to bring two different lists from the same faction, rolling off to cut a foot off the table at random in length or width to speed along the inevitable contact. IDK, but a variation on your idea would be to allow units to move and shoot, OR shoot and move in the alternate unit activation scheme, perhaps limit or penalize the ways units can pull out of combat as they used to, perhaps resolve ongoing combats as the first activation(s) of each turn including Overwatch.

I hate the thought of chess clocks in friendly wargames but they almost seem inevitable in tournaments, especially large ones. If players are reasonable and organized (I know,I know), the alternate activation would work nicely in 1500 point friendly games for sure...eliminating the ability for Alpha Strike gunlines and assault groups to savage their opponents with impunity, and adding a new dimension to the game where the first turns are both critical and fun for BOTH players.

[Lord Damocles]

I hate the thought of chess clocks in friendly wargames but they almost seem inevitable in tournaments, especially large ones.
The problem of people being unable (/unwilling) to complete a significant proportion of tournament games within the allotted time is easily solvable by lowering to points level to something more sensible for the time limit, and actually [publicly/visibly] punishing slow play. The recent debacle at the LVO and GW's feeble response to it do/did nothing to address the actual problem(s).

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Yes. Remembering the days of the rhino rush and SW scouts deploying behind basilisks with a meltagun, I have to admit my perspective is antiquated relative to newer players and metas. But looking at what GW has done is fascinating, but I doubt it can ever be truly understood without grasping GW's motive. And that is a tricky business at best.

Not really. Their motive is pure profit. They get this by selling miniatures at the highest possible price. Their corporate statements have confirmed this again and again.

There was a time when GW was actually in the rules business. This was when they created all the "Specialist" games as well as one-off designs. There was a ton of creativity back then and it showed. Didn't 40k itself start as a goofy variant of WHFB?

But those days are long gone. It's been 20 years since management has made creativity or rules a priority.

So we know the motive, and we know what we're going to get.

As an obscure game designer, I find this all fascinating because even limited playtesting would show these flaws. If you tell your playtesters to try to break the points system, or optimize various combinations, they will do it - and then the designer makes corrections.

Now maybe "new GW" is trying a little harder to fix stuff and I suppose it's possible that they have such an institutional culture of game design incompetence that they really are veering from one extreme to the next, but a simpler explanation is that they don't care as long as the sales are there.

The interesting thing is that I finally started visiting the local gaming scene and I have to admit that while the figures are hideously expensive, a lot of the sculpts are pretty sharp. This is clearly where GW is focusing its effort.

The rules are just an afterthought.

[dragonbreath]

"Now maybe "new GW" is trying a little harder to fix stuff and I suppose it's possible that they have such an institutional culture of game design incompetence that they really are veering from one extreme to the next, but a simpler explanation is that they don't care as long as the sales are there.

The interesting thing is that I finally started visiting the local gaming scene and I have to admit that while the figures are hideously expensive, a lot of the sculpts are pretty sharp. This is clearly where GW is focusing its effort.

The rules are just an afterthought."

The miniatures ARE good. While I am not a big fan of resin or metal, though, I have to say the fantasy sculpts at Mierce are also pretty great. Great enough that if there were Darklands players within 200 miles I might just look them up.

But GW...boy howdy. When you consider some of the descriptions of the tournaments at Las Vegas and Adepticon and look closely at the winning lists at tournaments over the last year or so. you have to wonder if the rules are an afterthought or a well designed ploy to sell razorbacks and hive tyrants by the pallet to gullible gamers. There can be no doubt that gamers are a different breed, and usually a fairly bright bunch...but people develop a blind spot for the things they love, I suppose. Being human is not a crime, but taking advantage of that humanness is a little unkind, to say the least. Forum folks talk about the meta a lot, and how it shifts about with each new codex or FAQ. The real GW meta is and has been list building, because that sells miniatures. If the rules are just an afterthought then really GW is only guilty of a kind of criminal negligence. But when I think of the money and effort people put into building a well designed and painted army, only to have GW rules designers gut it with the next codex or FAQ, I have to scratch my head and marvel at GW success in creating and promoting the Warhammer universe...

[Commissar von Toussaint]

The real GW meta is and has been list building, because that sells miniatures. If the rules are just an afterthought then really GW is only guilty of a kind of criminal negligence. But when I think of the money and effort people put into building a well designed and painted army, only to have GW rules designers gut it with the next codex or FAQ, I have to scratch my head and marvel at GW success in creating and promoting the Warhammer universe...

There's a quote that comes to mind about how it's sometimes really difficult to see what is plain in front of your face. Can't be bothered to look it up, though.

In this case, it's true. The proof is obvious and has been for years.

If you go back to the "golden age" of GW, its games were very affordable. Their figures weren't as good as they are now, but they were quite competitive with other fantasy lines. (There wasn't much sci-fi out there, so I leave that out.)

Consider the 2nd ed boxed set. You got tons of figures in it. Like many people, I went in with a friend and we each bought a box, and traded the figures. We each got 1,000 points of figures for something like $50. We then bought some blister packs, a couple of vehicles and boom! A balanced army for less than $100. With another $50 we were pushing 2,000 points with different configurations on tap. It was a tremendous value.

You can't do that today. It's not even close. The figures look a lot better, but the rules are still deeply flawed. You can't tell me that after 30 years they still can't figure out an equilibrium point for army balance or the "true" points value of a space marine.

Can people be that stupid? Yes. Can they be that stupid and stay in business for decades? No.

They're at least honest about it to the shareholders (though this may be a legal requirement, I don't know UK business law).

And to be clear, while I may sound like I'm condemning them, I understand both their zeal for profit (I want to be rich, too) and I also get that their players seem to enjoy the exchange.

Long ago I wrote a post about how "acquisitive" people are the ones who really love GW. By that, I mean people who like to buy things. I have a friend who is like that. This guy is never happier than when he is building up a collection. When I first met him, he was hugely into naval miniatures. I mean really into them. He actually owned the complete Pacific fleets of both the US and Japan during WWII. In fact, his 'navy' was bigger because he had models for early war and late war versions of the same ship.

It was really impressive. And having collected every imaginable ship he could of that era, he found it no longer brought him joy, so he sold it off. :wtf:

He didn't like the having, he liked the getting.

A lot of GW players are like that. Those that aren't, rage-quit when their army gets gutted and sell their stuff on ebay cheap. And then I buy it. :D

[dragonbreath]

Well, heck. Do you ever feel like we might be like two old geezers sitting on their front porch yelling at passing kids to keep off the grass?

As you have so ably pointed out, the WHY of people's behavior might be more interesting than WHAT they are doing. Human motives are fascinating and even after a few trips around the block, still baffling.

235468

Separated by a thousand miles from my friends and 6000 miles from my son (my wargaming buddies), I have always been a bit of a loner by nature and necessity because of the type of work I do. Still, over the last decade I have managed to drag these 8th ed.
Chaos warriors and their buddies along with me, even if their only activity in that time has been two Kings of War matches.

For me, the social aspect of the game is the best part. I have no interest in playing a game with a high strung man-child who is screeching at me because I managed to kill two of the seven flying hive tyrants he is throwing at my Ultramarines, who were dead when I placed them on the tabletop. That just doesn't seem fun OR relaxing...but again, motives. It is amazing how GW's motives has drawn so many into GW's clever web. The whole Warhammer-Black Library nexus is clever beyond belief, but then GW counts on human nature, such as it is, to respond to the whole "next great thing list building meta" to keep the ball rolling. And they seem to do it better than any of the other multitude who produce wargames. In my case, it is at least an hour to a game of 40k or Warmachine (which really doesn't interest me that much), so I am kind of a captive audience. But not that captive. Even if I have a better chance of finding a pack of wolves in my back yard than a historical or fantasy wargamer, I still manage to get the (very) occasional game in, and life takes care of the rest.


I have enjoyed your posts and insights, even bought your book (I have grandkids coming) so my best to you, and all wargamers. Life is hard sometimes, and if history is any indicator, will probably get harder at some point. Good fortune and great fun to you all.

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Well, heck. Do you ever feel like we might be like two old geezers sitting on their front porch yelling at passing kids to keep off the grass?

Oh, I'm absolutely that guy. Some kids cut across my lawn and I was livid.


As you have so ably pointed out, the WHY of people's behavior might be more interesting than WHAT they are doing. Human motives are fascinating and even after a few trips around the block, still baffling.

I don't know. The older I get, the clearer people become to me. It's like a veil has been withdrawn.



I have enjoyed your posts and insights, even bought your book (I have grandkids coming) so my best to you, and all wargamers. Life is hard sometimes, and if history is any indicator, will probably get harder at some point. Good fortune and great fun to you all.

Very cool to hear. :cool:

Best wishes to you as well. :)