How the 40k FAQ chaps my hide

  Okay, so my last post saw me making fun of the internet's nerd-rage over the FAQ released a few days ago.  I find the reactions absolutely entertaining, even more than my own kids' birthdays.  But I do have to admit that there are some things that actually affected me.  Now I'm not going to decry the FAQ as the end of my favorite game or some kind of effort by GW to make me join the exodus to other systems (I wonder how Heroclix is doing these days...), but even I have to show that there's some things that made me exclaim in frustration.  Just like in politics, it's not wise or rational to be so partisan, and I'm here to show that I'm a gamer like anyone else and I hate change.

  The rules changes that I showed in the last post were the 'big ones'.  There were many smaller changes that were dropped into each of the individual forces that are easy to miss.  That is, of course, unless you're playing one of those armies and suddenly those smaller changes become a bit bigger.  I have been working on my Word Bearers of late and there's some things that definitely got me.  I'll get into that in a bit.  But first, I want to talk about a rules clarification or two that affects everyone and actually don't make a lot of sense to me.

  The most impactful one, and the change that has the internet aflame, is the clarification about units charging units on platforms (or in ruins and such).  Here's how the FAQ reads:
"Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail? A: Yes."

  Remember that completing a charge involves being able to finish with the base (or model in the case of vehicles that hover or fly) within 1" of the enemy.  But if there's not enough room on the ruined floor or platform, then the charge is failed and basically impossible.  I wouldn't normally have a problem with this except for two things- that most people build their ruins with very narrow floors (mostly because that's how GW sells the ruins) that can be stuffed with models, and that monsters and vehicles already cannot get to the upper levels of ruins (previously FAQ'd).  This means that my five-story-tall Wraithknight can't reach the guys on the top of the ruins, staring him right in the face, and it means that large-base models like Terminators can make themselves unreachable simply by taking position and filling up the upper floor(s) of the ruins.  This makes no sense to me...

  Next, in dealing with Reserves (already the biggest contention in the FAQs), we find that effects such as the Auspex for the Space Marines can't be used against transported units.  Here's how it reads: "Q: If the unit arriving as reinforcements has another unit embarked inside it which must disembark after it has been set up (such as units embarked within a Drop Pod, or a Tyrannocyte), can the firing unit shoot at the unit as it disembarks? A: No – though the unit can shoot at the Drop Pod/ Tyrannocyte before the units inside disembark."

  This is contrary to the way it used to be, where the Drop Pod (the specific example that I'm going with here) would spit out the troops and then the shooting unit would obliterate them.  While this doesn't really hurt my feelings, it just feels a bit 'cheezy' and rather defeats the purpose of that rule.  On the plus side, people who complain that Drop Pods are no longer useful have obviously missed this new ruling.  This protects those embarked troops from the one counter in the game and guarantees that they'll be able to spend a turn being safe (and getting into combat).  I know what I'd do if I were on the battlefield and I know what the enemies would do in WWII (anti-tank fire to force the bail-out and then spray the evacuees with machine gun fire).  But 40k moves too fast for that, apparently.


  Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't toss this oldie out there:

  Yes, I mean that in both reference to the Drop Pod immunity and the general feelings about this FAQ.  Now that it's out of my system, let's continue.

  The single biggest change, and one that has me a bit butt-hurt, is found in both the main rulebook FAQ and the Chaos Space Marines codex FAQ.  It chaps my hide because I literally spent this week working on some new models for my Word Bearers, expecting to take advantage of a specific tactic and a unit that I've never used before.  I had no idea that something that had already been FAQ'd was going to get changed.  I didn't see this one coming at all.

  As you can see, I converted my Terminator Sorcerer back to being a Terminator Sorcerer and I finally built my Warp Talons that have been waiting for their claws for about seven years.  If you can't figure out my plan by now, I was going to deep strike with both units, and then cast Warp Time on them and guarantee my charge.  I wasn't terribly worried about doing it on Turn 1, so the major FAQ affecting that doesn't really apply.  But now it turns out that I can't do this little tactic at all!


  Here's the FAQ change that does this to me: "The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.). Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex: Tyranids, etc.? A: No."

  Well dammit!  For once I was planning on doing something that some may consider to be a good tactic and GW stole it from me!  Like, stole it from me AS SOON as I got it!  I feel like a kid who just opened his lollipop around my older brother's friends on Halloween night.  That hurt.  I'm actually considering writing some whiny posts on gaming forums to express my displeasure because I'm so mad.

  Oh, another rule to mention is that the Reserves rule (while I'm on that) has been changed so that only half the POWER LEVEL in units in the army may be held off the table rather than half the COUNT of units.  This affects those Terminator players, which I was also considering.  But I didn't have to hobby on any of those, so I don't feel quite so robbed.  But losing my Warp Time on deep striking Warp Talons?  Really, GW?!?!?  Grrr...

  Okay, I've expressed my displeasure with the FAQs as well.  Nobody can blame me for being a "GW Apologist" or just plain partisanship.  I, too, have my problems.  But overall, I wasn't effected by the FAQs and I don't think they were anywhere near as bad as people are making them out to be.  I love 40k.  I'll keep playing it.  I just won't get to threaten people with my clawed daemonic bat-win crazy guys like I wanted.  Maybe I'll build some bikes...

I like 40k!

  Let me know if there's any tiny changes that you think people are missing and that may have affected you UNIQUELY below.  I don't want to hear about your Blood Angels or Grey Knights, but I do want to hear about those little things that may have slipped through the cracks of the blogosphere.  The gamesmanship involved in this FAQ is almost more interesting than the game itself.  Happy Rules-lawyering!

40k Is Dead, Long Live 40k!

  If you play the grimdark game, then you've probably heard that the new FAQ has been released.  While I love the game (and I really do), I love the drama even more.  The blowback from this FAQ has been as intriguing as a Mexican soap opera (telenovelas, for those that don't get six Mexican channels like I do) and I've loved every minute of it.  In fact, me and my tournament buddy have spent more time laughing at the comments about it than actually talking about the game.  He, being bored as possible after work, even made up a bunch of memes to represent this.  His memes will be smattered throughout this rant- all credit to him.

  Now if you're living under a rock and don't know that the FAQ was released, you can find it here.  There are some changes that actually do matter a bit, and I'll discuss them for this post.  You can find everyone and their mothers making comments about how they feel about these FAQs all over the blogosphere, but I'm hoping to be the rational, no-so-Chicken-Little voice in there.  So let's get started!

  Where to begin...  Oh, I know!  Let's go with the old 'beta rules' that have been floating around for a few months.  The first is the 'targeting characters' rule.  In the original version of the game, we saw players hiding that precocious assassin in the ruins somewhere and then claiming that it kept you from being able to target that captain standing in the open just a bit further away.  One character that can't be seen stopping the enemy from being able to shoot at the only target possible.  It wasn't terrible, but it was a ridiculous tactic.  Now, well, characters simply can't block other characters (as long as they have less than ten wounds, of course).  This doesn't stop the gun drone from pulling the same trick, but it definitely cuts down on the reason that people took assassins (other than to, you know, assassinate stuff).

  The other beta rule that was made official was the escalating Smite difficulty level.  There are many armies out there that were filled with cheap psykers (thanks FW!) or just set up to lay out the unstoppable mind-bullet strategy.  It's now official that every subsequent attempt to cast that power adds one to the warp charge value.  This means that the third time you cast the power requires a '7' to cast rather than a '5'.  Keep in mind that this makes the warp charge higher, it does NOT apply a modifier to the roll.  I only mention this because it's separate from modifiers to the roll, which certain other armies enjoy (like the Eldar).  Otherwise, this rule is meant to slow down the Smite-spam a bit and get back to the bullets and blades that make the grimdark so... grim and dark.

  Now those rules shouldn't surprise anyone as they've been 'in play' for many months now.  I hear some complaints about it (especially the character targeting rules), but most people were already prepared for this.  Now to the rest...

  The biggest problem with 8th edition, for tournaments specifically, has been 'spam'.  For those that live under that rock (it's surprising how densely-populated that under-stone is), that describes the wash-and-repeat of players taking a single powerful unit from the codex and including in their army list about a gazillion times.  We've seen it in previous editions, but this edition had made spamming almost a requirement in the competitive sphere.  We even saw the winner of the latest huge tourney do it with seven (that's right- SEVEN!) flying Hive Tyrants.  Not to disparage these choices (after all, it is a tournament and winning really is the point), but it doesn't make the more casual gamer very happy.  No worries- GW loves to appease the fluff-bunnies in us all, so they added the 'Rule of Three' to a game with a bunch of Rules of One already.

  In the Rule of Three, no unit may be included in an army more than three times.  This does NOT apply to troops (Orks appreciate that) or transports (Eldar appreciate that more).  Now, here's the deal- so many people are upset about this one because they only have a limited number of HQ options, which means that they are now limited on how big an army they can bring.  This applies to the newest army, Drukhari (Dark Eldar), but it also applies even more to the more esoteric armies like Adeptus Sororitas (Sisters of Battle), Harlequins, and even Imperial Knights.  Oh darn.  Because how dare GW make strike force style armies not be able to bring massive Epic-level lists!?!  Oh, the anger.  I laugh because, well, I play by the fluff.  For example, did you know that a company of 100  marines is led by a single Captain, supported by a single Chaplain, and is often joined by a single Librarian?  I know, crazy talk!

Actually, this is still legal...

  The next change in that is the Battle Brothers rule.  Keep in mind that both of these are effectively the new 'beta rules', which means they're not actually hard-and-fast rules yet, or they only apply to 'organized play', meaning it only affects tournament players.  In this rule, all it means is that no detachment may include units that share no faction keywords beyond 'Imperial, Chaos', etc.  So no more Vanguard detachments with Saint Celestine and three Assassins.  No more Spearhead detachments with Cawl and three Assassins.  Luckily, those crazy assassin-lovers are rather immune as they are now allowed to take a Vanguard without the required HQ choice.  But the rage seems to be simple misinterpretation.  To adhere to this rule, all a player has to do is take detachments to make the 'soup'.  So how about an IG battalion, a Custodes supreme command, and a AM spearhead?  Apparently, that requires too much thought and loses the whole point of the 'soup' list.  It doesn't.  But who am I to stand in the way of the poor reading comprehension skills?

  Speaking of the 'beta rules', the last one that has people going crazy is the First Turn Deep Strike rule.  According to this little change (and I use the word 'little' cheekily), units must deploy wholly in their own deployment zone if arriving from reserves (or arriving from special effects like 'Da Jump') IN THE FIRST TURN.  What 40k had started seeing was the so-called Alpha Strike, but with assault units.  To offset this, GW decided to nerf that a bit and make it to where the player would have to wait until Turn 2 to pull this tactic off.  Here's where my buddy's meme-making skills really came to shine:
 

  So according the entire blogosphere of overly-vociferous 40k players, this just RUINED any hope that assault-based armies will ever win again.  Blood Angels suffer the worst, because players forgot that there's other tactics than the 'gold-bomb' or 'death-company-strike'.  All those other units in the codex were summarily ignored, almost like Blood Angels don't know how to brush their teeth without Jump Packs.  Of course, waiting a whole turn to drop the 'gold-bomb' or using Jump Packs to actually move around the table is too much to ask of people.  Just.  Too.  Much.  Grey Knights also suck, because apparently they only own Terminator Armour to teleport with.  The most elite of the Space Marines but they can't remember how to walk...  And let's not even mention how those gunlines are now completely unstoppable! 

  Now these rule changes aren't the only things that came from the FAQ.  There were also some points adjustments, like Dark Reapers going up by seven points each.  Because that'll stop Reaper-spam...  More relevant to me, my Daemon Prince, er, Primarch, went up another 15 points to 400!  Oh no, now I'm angry!!!  How dare GW make me pay for the ultimate army-buffing character in the game!  I'm so mad.  I think I'll quit the game now!   

  Oh, maybe not.  Because I'm rational.  I don't actually think the problem is Bobby G, I think the problem is how cheap Assault Cannons are.  After all, I have yet to see an army list with the blue guy that didn't have him surrounded with Ass-backs.  Because that's what he does- buff transports with Twin Assault Cannons rather than the very marines he's supposed to lead.  Like Devastator Squads.  Or Terminators.  Or even, wait for it, the Primaris marines that he ordered to be created!  But whatever- fifteen more points isn't that much.

You should only pay 150 points for me because I'm awesome!

  I love this game.  I wasn't effected by this FAQ in any meaningful way.  I don't play in tournaments, I don't spam powerful units or Smite-casters.  I play mono-dex armies.  And I actually deploy almost everything I have on the table to shoot down my opponent in Turn 1 (and usually fail spectacularly).  So unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what all the anger is about.  The tournament players that initiated the need for these changes will find ways to adjust and break the game in other ways.  The casual gamers will... well, they'll just keep playing the way they always have.  I will.

  As I'm talking to my tournament-oriented buddy, we commiserate about how ridiculous the reaction to the FAQ has been.  Many of the ITC players (the big names that everyone knows) aren't worried about it and I don't think anyone else should be if they're not.  After all, those tourney players of the highest level are the ones that this FAQ was aimed at.  All while the lesser players are freaking out.  It's insane!  And I'm loving it.  I actually wish there was an FAQ every day now.  I find the reaction and drama more interesting than the game itself.  And remember, I'm a former servant of the Emprah, so I have a special connection to this community.  My goodness has it been a fun (read: hilarious) couple of days...

  With all this negativity, I can only come to the conclusion that 40k 8th edition is now a dead system.  Gamers will flee the game and once again pull out their X-Wing minatures.  They will write their own fan-made rules that look a lot like 7th edition.  Because Emprah-forbid that the company try to make the game a little less one-dimensional.  Oh well, I guess I'm playing a dead game now.  Like so many others... (anyone remember Star Fleet Battles?)

 40k is dead!  Long Live 40k!