Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts

Friday, November 1, 2019

Allies of Inconvenience- Episode 23: Space Marines Post Iron Hands FAQ & Psychic Awakening


Join us this month and Evan, Chris and Jason actually manage to stay largely on topic and discuss their recent hobby progress and games played, cover the major changes that came with Iron Hands and their FAQ, and discuss the new psychic awakening campaign and the first release wave for it: Phoenix Rising.

Special apologies for Evan's audio this episode. The microphone malfunctioned and no one was aware until after we had recorded the episode.

00:00 Intro
04:59 Hobby Progress & Games Played
35:45 Iron Hand Supplement and FAQ review
1:04:07 Psychic Awakening Pheonix Rising Discussion

Songs and Soundclips
Blue Mark- Atlan Urtag
Kaap mere- Bugotak
Clip 1- Iron Man 3
Clip 2- Conan the Barbarian
Clip 3- Conan the Barbarian

Friday, May 17, 2019

Allies of Inconvenience: Episode 19- The Big FAQ 3 Discussion and Review

Apologies for the delay on this one, but after having to completely re-edit the episode it is ready!
Enjoy!

Join us for our review of the Big FAQ 3 (or rather April FAQ 2019). We start out with some brief hobby progress but then launch into our thoughts on the errata and FAQs and when they all mean for the game,. This is followed by some talk on faction specific FAQs covering interesting items of note in them.

00:00 Intro
02:14 Hobby Progress
15:12 The Big FAQ
48:54 Codex Specific FAQs

Songs and Soundclips
Blue Mark- Atlan Urtag
Kaap mere- Bugotak
Clip 1- Ghostbusters
Clip 2- Robot Chicken
Clip 3- Robot Chicken

Friday, October 5, 2018

Allies of Inconvenience: Episode 14- The Big FAQ 2 Discussion & Review


This Episode the Allies of Inconvenience Crew goes over what they like and what they feel missed the mark on the Big FAQ and the implications of these changes, as well as some alternative fixes that we would have liked to see instead.

WE ALSO HAVE NEW METHODS OF SUBSCRIBING AND LISTENING! You can now follow us on all the services linked below! Can't stop the signal Mal!



00:00 Intro
02:03 Hobby Progress
14:15 FAQ Discussion

Songs and Soundclips
Blue Mark- Atlan Urtag
Kaap mere- Bugotak
Clip 1 - The Princess Bride

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

BIG FAQ 2 Review- The Five Things That Missed The Mark

Well BIG FAQ 2 is here, and where do I begin? First Impression: Underwhelming. It does a lot without really fixing the root of some of the real problems while heavily nerfing some things that were not really a problem.

I never got around to fully putting down into a post what I thought about BIG FAQ 1. Just the rule of three. We do talk about it on the podcast quite a bit (Episode 9: The Big FAQ Discussion and Review).  If you are reading this on the day it is posted, we are recording tonight to talk about Big FAQ 2, so stay tuned for that (lucky Episode 13)!

But what to say about this FAQ in the meantime...

I guess I will just walk through my thoughts on some of the biggest (and most egregious) changes and disappointments of the BIG FAQ 2.

1- CP Farm Nerf: To sum up- you can only regenerate one CP per battle round now (Game Turn), though stratagems like Agents of Vect that can save you from spending the CP to begin with still work as normal.While welcome, I think it is ultimately rather ineffective at correcting the FAQ farm problem. Just slightly curtails it, and mostly damages the low CP armies that relied on some regen to even the playing field.

For one, the fix did nothing to fix SOUP. What GW thinks SOUP is and what SOUP really is are two different things. GW thinks SOUP is just having a detachment of multiple different factions. And it kinda was in the begging, but that wass before you had pure detachment bonuses too, which now tend to be reason enough to not make that style of SOUP. A veritable gumbo if you will.
What GW fails to realize is SOUP is now is having 3 detachments of 3 factions that feed each other and eliminate each factions respective weakness. The pinnacle of this in 8th thus far is Astra-Militarum + House Raven Imperial Knights + Blood Angels Smash captain and scouts. It works by using the CP and high regen rate of Astra Militarum to feed the high octane Knights and Smash Captain. And while this SOUP combo has been slightly curtailed, it is still effective IMO. The issue is you can just start the game with a metric buttload of CP (like 15 or more). And the FAQ only changed it to regen 1 PER BATTLEROUND. Not 1 ATTEMPT PER BATTLE ROUND. Eventually, you WILL regen that CP. Enough attempts and it is guaranteed. So it effectively went from 15+infinite CP to 15+6 CP. And if you still can't get the job done with 21 CP, feeding it to those monster units, you have other problems as a player.
What needed to happen IMO is that CP should be faction locked. Basically, guard could only spend CP on guard, Marines on Marines, Custodes on Custodes etc. etc. It just doesn't make sense that an Imperial Guard company commander and his band of 30 merry men are giving "Command Presence" to battle hardened marines and knight seneschals.

Also you should never be allowed have more than you started turn 1 with (so if you burnt 6 of your 15 on pre-game stratagems, these 6 are gone, and you can never regen past the 9 you started turn 1 with).

Along with this nerf, there is the price increase of several Stratagems. All this really does is hurt the people who weren't farming to begin with, because as I pointed out, those armies that were farming are still bringing like 20+ CP to a game. Spending ONE more on a few select no-brainier stratagems doesn't really burden them like it does to the guy who only had 8. It just feels like all fixes are only hurting the things they were not intended to hurt.

2- Change to FLY. Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh. Worst change IMO. For those not in the know, they nerfed FLY from being allowed to pass over models while moving to pass over models moving in the movement phase ONLY.
 What does this mean? Well you can no longer charge OVER models or terrain if you have fly. The reasoning behind this is the old interpretation allowed for a loop hole exploitation, especially when combined with the last FAQ, that essentially gave people a 0" charge if they were under an enemy unit, ignoring the vertical distance. 
And I think we can all agree that THAT is broken and wrong. CLEARLY there should be no 0" charge, especially when model MUST maintain a 1" separation outside of combat AND there is still physical distance between them. The easy fix would have been this: "Models with FLY measure direct distance when charging a unit." Essentially, they MOVE up the diagonal. THE VERY ONE YOU HAD TO ESTABLISH TO CHARGE TO BEGIN WITH!

But instead, GW roamed into the realm of gross over reach with unintended (I hope) consequences.

First of all, in the Tactical Reserves ruling (which I will get to) they explained they changed it because it didn't feel like it fit the narrative aspects of battle to have the rule work the way it did. They claim it felt like there was no realistic reason for the rule to work the way it did. Why would reserves arbitrarily stay out of the enemy zone turn 1? Then by the same logic, why can't a unit with FLY charge OVER an infantry screen? I mean, here is how your officially licensed media displays Jump Packs working.
There is just no believable reason why something that can zoom/arc/glide/swoop through the air just wouldn't fly over unimportant units and attack the more important ones.
Me gusta indeed
Or why going from one building to the next with wings/a jetpack/a flying motorcycle requires you to land, go down a few flights of stairs, walk across the street, go up the stairs, and then take back off to fight... especially since you can then later fall back in a flying type motion?
"Obviously we can't have a Neo vs Agent Smith DBZ style fight in the air or anything. There is infantry after all and we need to walk through them first.
Then there is the case of something with FLY charging another unit with FLY. NOW if there is Infantry between them, they can't charge! I mean we already have to deal with FLAME WEAPONS being the BEST ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPONS IN THE GAME. BUT NOW we also have to deal with infantry being the most effective defense FOR A FLYING JET. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LICK OF SENSE!
Definitely can't take our super advanced flying bikes that can deepstrike if we want and zoom up to that plane. Infantry clearly would stop us.
The real kicker here is the inequity of screens. Super cheap infantry screens are now some of the ultimate powers in the game (as if they weren't abused before). You can stick 40 x 4 point models in front of a knight, and that super flying squad of death is just going to get caught in their tar pit.

Combine this with the continued nerfs to Deep Strike, and assault armies keep having a rougher and rougher time this edition IMO.

3- Tactical Reserves. New rule- no reserves first turn. At all.

Don't get me too wrong, I kinda like rolling back when DS can happen. BUT this edition it just seems to help all the already powerful things the most.

Were first turn assaults really this big of a problem? I just never saw it myself. 9" seemed more than enough to make it HARD to get the assault off (I've failed plenty of them). The real issue was DS and shooting probably. But I have yet to see an alpha strike ASSAULT build that wasn't GSC. All alphastrike really seem to bank on heavy amounts of shooting. And so GW is intensifying that? Just seems like the days of leafblower lists are at risk of coming back to me.

IMO the AP system in 8th compared to previous editions benefits shooting more than it does assault and in general makes it all more preferable. Look how many people don't opt for power weapons (unless they get an S boost or -3/-4 AP), but will take AP -1 guns all day. Because it all comes down to weight of saves it seems. Quantity over quality.
Yes, we now have the prepared positions stratagem, but it only applies to units not in cover already. It also does nothing versus armies like Imperial Fists or Iron Warriors who ignore cover. So overall pretty meh...
Oh... and how in response to the very ruling you made for "Narrative Reasons" do you justify allowing Flyers to have "Prepared Positions"? Do all 40k planes now come standard with cloud bank generators?

4- Failure of Forgeworld to address... well... anything.

I know I have submitted feedback. I am sure I am not alone... yet NOTHING? There are almost no changes or fixes to anything in the FW indices. Everything is still MASSIVELY over costed. Tanks that should have equivalent rules to the codex (All the Super Heavies, anything based on the Leman Russ like the Thunderer Siege Tank) still DON'T have equivalent special rules.

Then they went through and did arbitrary nerfs. Like taking away the Chaplain Dreadnought's ability to hold a Relic! WHAT? I'll use BA as an example here- there was ONE relic he could use- the Veritas Vitae- a CP regen relic. Why couldn't that be on a dread? Oh wait, IT STILL CAN BE ON A LIBRARIAN DREAD. So there is really no REAL reason other than "fluff" reasons someplace, which as we saw earlier, if that is why you are going to change rules, then it needs to be CONSISTENT and not done arbitrarily.
Unrelated but I wanted to post this.
At this point I am beginning to think FW needs to turn over the writing of their 40k rules to the GW team. Keep making AMAZING MODELS. Keep making Horus Heresy and Specialist games rules. BUT if you are going to make a model for 40k or make it cross game compatible, let the guys in 8th handle the rules. Maybe coordinate, but at the end of the day we need effective rules in 8th edition, and FW is losing my confidence in them to do that.

5- Double down on the pointlessness of the rule of 3. Go read this post I did in the past if you have the time. If not, I essentially argue while I understand the spirit of the rule of 3, its execution was flawed. And this FAQ doubled down on that. Daemon Princes from every source are their own Datasheet, so you can field 3 of all of them. Vehicle Squadrons are completely fine. So what is a rule of 3 becomes a rule of 9 or 12. What's the point? If GW wanted to stop 7 flyrants, then they should do what they did to the Tau Commander (AND STILL HAVEN'T UNDONE AFTER IMPLEMENTING THE RULE OF 3) and limit SPECIFIC UNITS to 0-1 per detachment.  I know this is just rehashing the past, but I am still of the opinion that the rule of three disproportionately effects fluffy armies and once again HAS NO NARRATIVE BASIS, WHICH IS WHAT GW IS APPARENTLY MAKING DECISIONS ON. So where is the consistency!!!

Friday, April 20, 2018

BIG FAQ Review Part One: The Rule of 3, How it fails us and made 4 ways to play 40k.

This is the first of my BIG FAQ reviews (or Rants). Today I am going to cover "The rule of three." I am seeing a lot of praise for it. People claiming it fixed abusive spam. Etc. etc.

I will concede there are benefits to it. No one wanted to face 7 Flyrants or 10 plagueburst crawlers.

But just like the Tau Commander limit, I think it was a ham-handed attempt at fixing something that could have been handled in several other ways and really didn't address the problem.

In case you aren't aware the Rule of 3 as its being called is actually just a nick name for the following table
This table is used for Organized play. As you can see, at the most common points levels, between 1k and 2k, it recommends allowing no more than 3 of the same datasheet IN AN ARMY. Not a detachment. The whole army.

"But isn't that a good thing?" you say, "I can't imagine spamming anything more than 3 times is FUN for you OR your opponent."

To your first point I answer "Maybe". To your second, whole heardetly "Patently Untrue."

Case in Point- My all Death Rider Army. See list list here. There is 80 cavalry all told.
While this MAY be a fringe example there has to be other fun thematic lists people were running at this level that had 4 of a unit and DIDN'T break the game. Saim Hann Windrider host comes to mind. Iyanden Wraith Army. White Scars and Ravenwing. Ork Kommandos or Stormboy lists. IG Steel Legion Armoured Fist Veterans. SM 8th, 9th or 10th Company builds. All Death Company. etc. etc. There are ways to do some of these still, but it is now likely by watering down the list. By this I mean taking larger blobs instead of multiple units, combat squading units where possible, or by selecting sub-optimal but still thematic choices (eg. instead of 4 jetbike squads and 2 vyper squadrons for Saim Hann, stacking it out to be 3 and 3. Or 4 Wraith Guard 2 Wraith blades to be 3 and 3. Etc.)

Furthermore, alot of these types of lists RELIED on things like the Outrider or Spearhead detachments. With Battalions and Brigades getting HUGE boots to CP, these detachments are even weeker in comparison with their measely +1 CP. So IF you spammed in one of these dets, you were already starting off WORSE than your competition. There were downsides to doing so already baked into the game. Were they not enough, even with the boost for "normal" detachments?
Lastly it just flat out damages a few of the smaller codicies. Harlequins and Deathwatch come to mind. I know they are both INDEX books right now, but they are not likely to get any new units added. Harlequins ONLY have 1 fast attack and 1 heavy support. They have 2 elites... one of which is limited to 1 per army. They don't have the ability to deal with the rule of 3. Some mono-build deamons lists deal with this same issue, albeit to a lesser extent.

 "Okay, okay, but isn't this all JUST for organized play. You can still do ALL of what you mentioned in matched play right?" I hear you say.

Correct. Which is how this rule fails us the most. The two are no longer synonymous. Granted you never HAD to play competetively or in tournaments before, but the two were essentially the same meta and game type, with possibly the exception of specific tournament missions instead of BRB ones.
BUT NOW you can have people playing matched in a style specifically for tournaments and others in a style specifically PROHIBITED by them. And people likely will not want to cross the streams. Furthermore, you are more likely than not just going to see groups outright adopt the stricter of the two. Why? There will be a handfull of people really pushing for it, playing more than others, championing the game, because they are the regular event atendees and practice more than more casual players.

BUT for those groups NOT playing Organized- Well THE SPAM STILL EXISTS. NOTHING WAS FIXED! That guy with 7 Flyrants or 10 Plague Burst Crawlers CAN STILL BE THAT GUY! The core of the system is still FLAWED. And they even have a better argument to stand on then people telling them NOT to play that way. The Table says IT IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED FOR ORGANIZED PLAY. Not that it recommended for matched play. JUST ORGANIZED. So if they are not playing in a Tournament, WHY SHOULD THEY LIMIT THEIR SPAM? Fairness and fun yes, but if that was their MO, they wouldn't have 7 Flyrants to begin with TBH.
This is what I mean by 4 ways to play. Open. Narrative. Matched. Organized.

Additionally, there are so MANY LOOP HOLES TO THE INTENT OF THE RULE OR THINGS IT DID NOT APPLY TOO
-Multiple Datasheets for practically the same unit: Want 18 Hellhounds? You can do that. 2 Datasheets- GW & FW - squadrons of 3 each. 9 Regular and 9 Artemia Pattern. Dreadnoughts? There are like 45 different datasheets for them in the game. Easy. Leman Russ. Battle Tank, Demolisher, Command Tank.
-Combat Squads: 3 squads of something not good enough. Just make it twice as big and then split it if you can. So effectively, GW only managed to cap Sarges and Special Weapons, and not actual units
-Really expensive units: So online I was using Death Wing as another example of a unit HURT from a fluff persepective by the rule of 3 and had several people point out to me that no DW armies uses more than 3 terminator squads any way because of cost. Same goes for things like Custodes Jetbikes, etc. etc. They just get too expensive. So capping them at what their natural cap seemed to be anyway DOES NOTHING.
-Vehicle Squadrons: Mentioned above, but seriously, so many vehicles SQUADRON. The rule of 3 just becomes the rule of 9. Which from a cost perspective is probably around where a player maxing them at anyway.
-Troops are expempt: Yup, doesn't even apply to troops, one of the most spammed categories in the game. Cultists, Fire Warriors, Scouts, Horrors, Conscripts. All of these are still POSSIBLE
-A LOT OF SPAM WAS ALREADY FIXED: Boots on the ground killed flyer spam. Tau commanders get limited. Certain other adjustments killed things like Razorwing spam. There wasn't alot left to deal with.
Still completely legal..
Too me all of the above just further shows how thematic lists are disproportionately effected as compared to competitive lists. Things like my Death Riders CAN'T benefit from any of the above. And I guarantee you its more fun to face than Cultist Spam or Leman Russ Spam. Or even lists that fit the rule, like 3 Custodes Shield Captains and 3 Jetbike squads.

So really, this just leaves us with a few spammable units, MOSTLY in the HQ Slot. So here are some what I feel would have been better SHORT TERM (8th edition) solutions
-Handle each unit on a case by case basis. Determine if it needs a limit OR is it just UNDERCOSTED. If it is being taken more than 6 times... its probably too cheap. Now when we see a competitive unit is will be in groups of three no mater what, and it becomes harder to say is that fair and reasonable from a cost perspective. Could be all it needs to go from the world of SPAM SPAM SPAM to "I guess I'll just take some of this" is something like 50 points a squad. And if the cost just isn't a solution, well Tau commanders got hit with a 0-3 bat. Period. No Beta. Either do this whenever needed or not at all.
-Limit HQs 0-3 per datasheet/HQ Type. All HQs EVERYWHERE. If it makes sense for Tau Commanders it makes sense for them too. And cuts down on the abusiveness of things like Flyrants or Custodes Bike Captains. By doing it by unit type instead of just datasheet you could capture things like "SM Captain, Camptain w/ Jump Pack/Captain w/ Terminator armour etc. etc. so you have no more than 3 captains.
-Keep the 3 limit in place but allow certain HQs to UNLOCK thematic choices from the limit. A Death Rider Officer- You can take more than 3 units of Death Rider Squadrons. White Scars Captain on a bike, more than 3 units of White Scars bikers. Etc. etc. Or go back to certain things making certain units TROOPS. Same concept really, though it would invalidate the point of an Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead det.
BUT LONG TERM SOLUTIONS by which I mean 9th edition and beyond
-Get rid of the detachments. Bring back the old Force Organization Chart. Keep the current separate Dedicated Transports.
-Add to the chart a new "Character" slot for things not HQ, but shouldn't be elites in their own right. Stuff like banner bearers, enginseers, assassins. Support/buffing singular models.
-Have NO MANDATORY SLOTS. Instead just a minimum of 3 units total. May only take 1 HQ for 1 of every other unit (so to have 2 HQ you need 4 units in the Detachment)
-Have the chart be base 3 CP. Take 2 troops, thats +1 CP. Take 3, +2. 4 is +3 and so on.
-Fill the fast attack- +1. Fill the elites- +1. Fill the HS- +1.
-Tie any other CP specifically to characters. Creed and Calgar would give alot where things like Kharn or Lucius wouldn't. Breaks out combat characters versus Leaders.
-Allow characters to CHANGE the unit type of certain units. Someone like Belial of the DA should have the ability to take Terminator Troops. And he should get adequate CP for that. Thats what he commands and has experience with.
-Warlords can only be HQ.

To me this would allow for thematic armies to be playable WITHOUT having the worst things get spammed. You just DON'T allow those things to change force org type.

"But this isn't simple and that is what 8th is supposed to do"

Well playing and army construction are different. The game can be simple still. But anyway, look at all the FAQs, your stack of books and indices. And the 45 different traps cards... I mean strategems you need to memorize. It isn't simplified. It failed to be so. Lets stop pretending.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Allies of Inconvenience: Episode 9- The Big FAQ Discussion and Review


The BIG FAQ for Warhammer 40,000 has dropped, and there are A LOT of changes. Join us as we ramble and rant about anything and everything released, from the "rule of 3" to reserve and deep strike limitations, and every little change in between (including all the comical ones!).

Kept this one down to right around an hour as well.



Songs and Soundclips
Blue Mark- Atlan Urtag
Kaap mere- Bugotak
Clip 1 - Iron Man