Poll 7: What is your opinion of the new errata and restrictions in FAQ 2.0?

All right, everyone has had a couple of days to think about the many changes FAQ 2.0 brought. Hopefully you’ve even been able to play with adjusted decks. So, what do you think? Obviously we won’t ask about every individual change (not until we run out of poll ideas), but we’d like to know your general view of all the changes and their consequences on the game.

Please let us know what you think, and leave a comment to tell us why you think that way. Do you like all the changes? Do you like some and dislike others? Is there anything in particular you’re absolutely happy to see – or not happy at all? Is there anything missing you think should have been in there?

6 thoughts on “Poll 7: What is your opinion of the new errata and restrictions in FAQ 2.0?

  1. Wilk

    I am happy with what the faq has brought, but I would like to see something done with pleasure cults. Moreover convocation of eagles could get on list of restrictions and snotling invasion should get a flag. All in all that was good faq and it refreshed the game in my opinion.

  2. Hotbutton

    I love the changes FFG implemented in the latest FAQ. Everything I wanted from FAQ 2.0 came true: Infinite loops not possible anymore, heavy restrictions of warpstone excavation and muster for war, some of the strongest chaos cards restricted, “towers” finally playable. I think it boosts slower decks/will make the game “slower” again, less luck dependent and we will also see more real fighting again. That factor was one of the reasons why I fell in love with the game in the first place, so I’m glad it’s taking this direction. I’m really excited about the development of the meta now (which should change a lot without warpstones, loops and muster) and hope the game is in a very balanced state again.

  3. Ellyrik

    Our local champion made ​​an analysis of each change in the faq and although he finds it necessary it looks awkward. Especially Warpstone and Muster that simply could be banned because right now the rulings are complicated. Also why make Hekarti unique rather than restrict it instead of Sacrifice to Khaine? Why not also restrict Lobber crew for that matter?

    He also understands that FFG wanted to break all the strong combos. But he would have preferred that they only slow them because combo-decks could have helped with balance and variety of play by beating control-decks while being beaten by aggro-decks.

    Overall this faq looks a little hurried or amateur.

  4. Hotbutton

    It’s ridiculous to call the latest FAQ “hurried or amateur”, just because one person (your local champion) claims that he thinks some changes are awkward or that he would rather have changed this or that… I’d even call that a bit insulting, as surely the developers have worked hard and obviously taken their time to compile this new set of rules. Also, keep in mind that you can never be everybody’s darling and satisfy all players – but a lot of people seem to be very happy about FAQ 2.0 and especially about the fact that infinite loops are out of the game now. I’ve yet to hear anyone really complaining about it. Slight differences in opinion are normal, but calling it “hurried or amateur” and suggesting such a number of other cards you’d rather have restricted sounds hurried to me, or do you really think you have playtested more than the devs?

  5. Ellyrik

    Our opinion was asked so it’s sad that you judge my buddy. I’m also glad of this FAQ because I don’t like combo decks too. My friend is also satisfied that some abominations have been weakened but he doesn’t understand why so much complicated rules. That’s why he thinks this work hasn’t been thought enough.
    Moreover infinite loops aren’t dead and he told me he’s found another so this trace of combos isn’t over.
    Finaly, I personnaly think that weekly gamers test more than FFG but I may be wrong.

  6. Kirath

    There is a infinite mill loop with Bannerman of the Crag, Crypt Ghouls and Secret Crypts, but I have no clue if that combo is viable.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *