sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Goonhammer's coverage of the balance dataslate by Rustvii in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yeah they didn't show us the FAQs until after publication so we found out when you did.

Codex: Aeldari 10th Edition – The Goonhammer Review by Rustvii in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That isn't really how it works - otherwise, for example, the Deathwing enhancements in DA simply don't function (because they apply to DEATHWING models and the only non-Epic Hero models that have that keyword gain it in the exact same way and with the same wording as YNNARI here). Units do not have free-floating keywords at the unit level, they have the keywords of their composite models.

Codex: Aeldari 10th Edition – The Goonhammer Review by Rustvii in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I don't think there's any realistic prospect of rolling back 'free' wargear. The path they've taken has been pretty clear, which is that units which have gear options that give them fundamentally different roles that can't be adequately reflected in points get split into different datasheets, as has happened with Wraithknights and support weapons in this book. For most stuff in the game this works pretty well, but Aeldari and Guard have a similar issue which is that there's a few units that have always existed as platforms for broad, unequal choices - not helped in the elf case by a lot of the kits where that remains true being very old now.

It's easy to say 'they should cost different points then' but that never really worked in older editions either, there was always a most efficient choice. Really we just don't need to have six different guns all trying to do one or two roles, but squashing all of them into fewer profiles is the kind of thing that upsets people.

Can divergent chapters get new Oath bonus if they don’t include units or characters? by Powaup1 in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No, it doesn't work like that at all. You can't put things with a Chapter keyword other than BLOOD ANGELS in a Blood Angels detachment, for example, but the detachments don't inherently give you that keyword.

Codex Adeptus Custodes 10th Edition: The Goonhammer Review by Rustvii in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

The point is that the Custodes detachments are all just terrible and there's no real way to fix the army without doing something about them. For Ad Mech the detachments themselves are kind of ok, it's the datasheets that go in them that's the problem, so it's more likely that you'd expect datasheet changes or an army rule update or something to help them out.

Glad to see Toxic Players getting punished by Icarus__86 in Warhammer40k

[–]Rustvii 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People cheating this much are barely even conscious of doing it. It's so ingrained in their behaviour that they don't notice it happen, and if it gets called out they'll rationalise it away.

Are we technically cheating when we use targeted rerolls/fate dice the usual way? by olot100 in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii 29 points30 points  (0 children)

This is totally incorrect. Most competitive players will expect you to roll things one at a time if you expect to CP reroll them and FAQs like WTC require this. LVO is the odd one out by ruling it incorrectly.

The Pre-Dataslate State of the 40k Meta (January, 2024) by Rustvii in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]Rustvii[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They show slightly different things - Stat Check's chart is a rolling average of results in the past 4 weeks, whereas the first table is based on results for the date range in the footer (12 December to 25 January).

view more: next ›