FAQ is here

Point changes have been related to chapter approved so talos will most likely be covered there.

Also with tactical restraint limiting cp regen to 1cp per battle round, what do people think of lowering the required roll for cp regen traits/relics?

Personally I feel the high required roll was a balance to try and prevent too much cp regen, but with the restraint covering this now needing 6's feels a bit high

I thought that at first, but after thinking about it, you roll a D6 for every point your opponent spends and every point YOU spend each battle turn until you roll a "6". Chances are pretty decent you will get at least 1 six.

To me it means that Cunning went from "auto-take" to "Good". Other warlord traits may be considered now.

Skulnbonz wrote:

I thought that at first, but after thinking about it, you roll a D6 for every point your opponent spends and every point YOU spend each battle turn until you roll a "6". Chances are pretty decent you will get at least 1 six.

Not really. Most of the CP are expended on turns 1 and 2, so after battle round 3 is practically irrelevant.

This solution is a bad solution to the use of some factions like a battery of CP, but if this will be the definitive solution at least GW should faq traits and relics to garant 1 CP automatic per turn.

The true solution to the problem of the abuse of CP and AoV was the same, limit the use of the CP to the faccion that generate it.

Mikoneo wrote:

Point changes have been related to chapter approved so talos will most likely be covered there.

Also with tactical restraint limiting cp regen to 1cp per battle round, what do people think of lowering the required roll for cp regen traits/relics?

Personally I feel the high required roll was a balance to try and prevent too much cp regen, but with the restraint covering this now needing 6's feels a bit high

Surely the whole point is that, even needing high numbers, people are still able to regenerate far too many CPs.

If you reduce the result needed to regenerate them, you might as well just scrap that aspect of the FAQ entirely.

Elfric wrote:

I really do think Black Heart is preventing players from realising how good the other Kabals are. 42 inch disintergrators/dark lances are no joke if you take Obsidian Rose for instance.

The biggest selling point for a BH Spearhead aren't the Ravagers. It is access to Agents of Vect and Labyrinthine Cunning. But since Ravagers are a good choice to begin with, you only benefit further from the combination of Writ and the 6+++.

Anyway, I am not exactly happy with this hard limit of "1 CP per round" but I can see why they did this. I just would have preferred a more elegant solution. I suppose the same goes for AoV costing 4 CP.

I fear Harlequins have taken quite a pounding in this FAQ. That fly rule has been applied to their flip belts. In their Errata they also cannot charge over models/terrain, only move. Their mobility has massively been stunted.

Even Riddle Smiths were nerfed. They had a nice ability at the beginning of the fight phase, you rolled two dice and discarded the highest. The number left over were misses for the opponent in the fight phase for that turn. Rolling 4-6's were golden. It also meant if you were lucky to roll two 6's, your opponent was missing on 6's which meant extra hit attacks missed. That's changed so 6's still generate an extra attack.

Elfric wrote:

I fear Harlequins have taken quite a pounding in this FAQ. That fly rule has been applied to their flip belts. In their Errata they also cannot charge over models/terrain, only move. Their mobility has massively been stunted.

What bugs me about this is that their most competitive build was basically nothing but Haywire Skyweaver spam, and that change did nothing to it while damaging more diverse lists quite a lot.

I'm suspecting that this FAQ is going to put Aeldari soup firmly back at the top of the meta again, but we'll see how things shake out.

I'm really disappointed (though, admittedly, not surprised) that absolutely nothing was done to address Soup.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I'm really disappointed (though, admittedly, not surprised) that absolutely nothing was done to address Soup.

At this point I think most will agree GW doesn't want to address the soup problem mostly because they think it make them sell more models. Otherwise they would have done something like :

Battallion are worth 3CPs (or 5 CPs if all units in your army are from the same book)

I'm disappointed by the AoV change, short of something game-altering the use of 4CP to stop a stratagem is tactical sabotage.

Of course GW likes soup to sell models. That's been the case since 6th edition. They will never address soup.

The changes to fly are kind of dumb. They're using an axe to solve a problem meant for a scalpel. Mostly I feel for Harlequins players since their army was already riding a razor thin line of viability. Now they're just an outrider detachment of haywire.


CP farm is dead so... yay?

I don't even understand what problem GW were trying to solve with the change to Fly.

I remember an article mentioning 0" charges and vertical shennanigans in regards to fly

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I don't even understand what problem GW were trying to solve with the change to Fly.

Say a unit was on the top level of a set of ruins.

A unit with Fly deep strikes onto the bottom level, directly beneath the initial unit, and is more than 9" away vertically.

They charge the unit, and before the change they ignored the vertical distance because of Fly, so need a 0" charge. Now they have a chance to fail the charge.

I'm a little disappointed with how little substance was actually in this FAQ. I prefer this lighter touch as opposed to the normal GW method of swinging a metaphorical chainsaw randomly in all directions every six months, but the hype that's been built up fell flat.

What's really changed with this FAQ? Regen tactics are less effective and charging with flying models requires some more positioning. The top tables will still be dominated by soup of three varieties. Seems like they spent a whole lot of time to come up with two changes per book, and about five to the overall rules.

Any significant nerfs to smash captains or other Imperial stuff?

Their strats had a lot of CP hikes I think.

Kantalla wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I don't even understand what problem GW were trying to solve with the change to Fly.

Say a unit was on the top level of a set of ruins.

A unit with Fly deep strikes onto the bottom level, directly beneath the initial unit, and is more than 9" away vertically.

They charge the unit, and before the change they ignored the vertical distance because of Fly, so need a 0" charge. Now they have a chance to fail the charge.

But what does that have to do with Fly models now not being able to charge over intervening models? Or not being able to fall back over intervening models?

If this was the problem, surely 'Models with Fly do not ignore vertical distance when charging.' would have been a better solution?

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Kantalla wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I don't even understand what problem GW were trying to solve with the change to Fly.

Say a unit was on the top level of a set of ruins.

A unit with Fly deep strikes onto the bottom level, directly beneath the initial unit, and is more than 9" away vertically.

They charge the unit, and before the change they ignored the vertical distance because of Fly, so need a 0" charge. Now they have a chance to fail the charge.

But what does that have to do with Fly models now not being able to charge over intervening models? Or not being able to fall back over intervening models?

If this was the problem, surely 'Models with Fly do not ignore vertical distance when charging.' would have been a better solution?

I think it was primarily trying to limit the effectiveness of Smash Captains and Jetbike Custodes - being able to completely ignore screens made them much stronger.

That a few other units got caught in the crossfire just feels like collateral damage.

I think I might change my blackheart spearhead into a poison tongue one. The redeploy stratagem is now more useful and cheaper on cp. The relic pistol is also good. Agents of vect is also too expensive now. I might bring a blackheart airwing and not use it, but losing over a third of your cp on a single stratagem is too much. I think the community complaints about AoV being op was unfounded, anyway.

AoV is probably the best stratagem in the game, no way anyones complaints were unfounded. I would have restricted it to one use only in the game rather than go 4pts.

Time to go Obsidian Rose now.

Agents of Vect was so powerful because it shut down enemy "strategies" that completely resolved around a single stratagem. If you found yourself complaining about AoV, you probably should overthink your choices.

If anything more factions should have gotten access to a strategem similar to AoV.
Who thinks AoV wouldn't have been nerfed if the Imperial had access to it too?

With the change to regen, they need to just get rid of the rolls entirely. Just make the abilities generate a CP once per round.

withershadow wrote:

With the change to regen, they need to just get rid of the rolls entirely. Just make the abilities generate a CP once per round.

To be honest, I'd rather they removed* the CP regeneration abilities altogether and just made this a basic rule for all armies (or maybe all mono-armies).



*By 'remove' I mean 'change them to something unrelated to CP regeneration'.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

withershadow wrote:

With the change to regen, they need to just get rid of the rolls entirely. Just make the abilities generate a CP once per round.

To be honest, I'd rather they removed* the CP regeneration abilities altogether and just made this a basic rule for all armies (or maybe all mono-armies).



*By 'remove' I mean 'change them to something unrelated to CP regeneration'.

i would have liked it if only small model count armies that usually dont get that many cp have these abilities or warlord traits

AzraeI wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

withershadow wrote:

With the change to regen, they need to just get rid of the rolls entirely. Just make the abilities generate a CP once per round.

To be honest, I'd rather they removed* the CP regeneration abilities altogether and just made this a basic rule for all armies (or maybe all mono-armies).



*By 'remove' I mean 'change them to something unrelated to CP regeneration'.

i would have liked it if only small model count armies that usually dont get that many cp have these abilities or warlord traits

And sadly.. its the armies that can have the most CP got the CP farm abilities......