Gadzilla666 wrote: If the App doesn't include points, it won't sell. What would be the point of it if it doesn't have points? What would anyone use it for?
quick looking up datasheets. It's amazingly faster than thumbing through the book for AoS.
Also, sell? Sell for what? The AoS app is free.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?
If you want points and the list builder yeah. $1 something.
That's what I thought. Does it work well on android devices? I've heard that the gw ebooks are optimized for iOS and don't work well with android. Is the AoS app the same?
It all depends on the quality of the app. if I can just click on the unit in my list and pull up an up to date dataslate for that unit. That convenience is well worth using the GW app. And battkescribe can’t legally do that.
But we honestly got nothing to go on and GW more to come later preview of it never came... sooo
yukishiro1 wrote: I think a lot of people are going to be subscribing for a month then dropping it once Battlescribe gets updated.
Digital copies of the rules with updates for FAQs would be a good reason to keep it. Especially with the "free digital copy with hardcopy purcharse" thing they said they'll be doing for 9th.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think a lot of people are going to be subscribing for a month then dropping it once Battlescribe gets updated.
Digital copies of the rules with updates for FAQs would be a good reason to keep it. Especially with the "free digital copy with hardcopy purcharse" thing they said they'll be doing for 9th.
As far as I'm aware, you don't need the subscription for that though. Isn't the subscription is just for the list builder?
yukishiro1 wrote: I think a lot of people are going to be subscribing for a month then dropping it once Battlescribe gets updated.
Digital copies of the rules with updates for FAQs would be a good reason to keep it. Especially with the "free digital copy with hardcopy purcharse" thing they said they'll be doing for 9th.
As far as I'm aware, you don't need the subscription for that though. Isn't the subscription is just for the list builder?
It might be, and if it's easier to use than Battlescribe I'll gladly pay a buck a month.
I tried using BattleScribe on my phone a couple times but couldn’t figure out how it worked. Tend to pen and paper my lists instead. I’m looking forward to the 40k app because I do quite like the AoS one.
-Loki- wrote: I’ve been using Battlescribe without issue on my phone.
I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm saying I don't enjoy using it. It feels clunky on a mobile device.
Exactly this. Trying to make a list from scratch on my phone is an exercise in tedium and frustration - so many clicks and sub-menus to sort out equipment and all the various options, many of which are really counter-intuitively set up. It's great once you have your list as you can easily reference everything you need, and modifying lists is pretty simple but the initial set up is a huge hassle. It'll be interesting to see if GW manage to create a useable app. My gut says no.
Duskweaver wrote: I don't own a smartphone / tablet and have no use for one. An app I can't use on my laptop might as well not exist.
That would make you a niche that is not worth developing an app for. In this age not having a phone or tablet is the exception, and tends to be ignored by most companies, as every additional platform to support with an app costs tons of money.
Platuan4th wrote: AoS app runs perfectly fine on Android. The only difference is I've heard the list builder sub is $.50 USD cheaper through Apple.
Prices might not be same though. 40k is gw's cash cow. Seeing they mention buying codex gives digital codex expect to have to pay codex price to unlock one army. Then wouldn't surprise army builder to be 5 pounds as minimum per month.
Well if app is good could still be worth it. We'll see. As long as you don't need app to play fine.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Is it possible to use the app in a normal web browser? Trying to build army lists on my phone sounds like a hassle.
There are things like BlueStacks for PCs that will emulate a phone.
I have not tried to run the AoS app through that yet, but it might get the phone app onto your PC.
The AoS app gives you everything the GW store page gives you, namely the unit cards. To get the points, you sign up to Ayr, which is 99p through Google.
I have whinged at GW a few times about having to buy their books 3 times. Once is hardback (I wanted paperback), ePub for the PC, and also on the app. The app purchase unlocks sections of the contents, like scenarios and such from the battletome. None of the answers have been of any use.
But, if a physical book unlocks digital access, we'll see how that goes.
I expect the 40k app gets you the unit datacards, but not the points, until you buy the Chapter Approved.
tneva82 wrote: As long as you don't need app to play fine.
FFG messed up with X-Wing by doing that. They have trouble keeping the app updated, and left out huge ships and epic play when they arrived. Also, it is online-only, with no offline mode. Not good in a tourament location with no phone signal or Wifi.
I have fairly good hopes for the 40k app. It just need to be as good as the AoS one. I doubt it’ll cost more, it’d already Make more just from having a larger player base. Definitely hype for details though.
I can see people sticking with the app due to the fact that it'll update at the same time as the books. Battlescribe usually has some lag, espcially around big releases like chapter approved. Sure, it's usually only a few days but for people for whom the cost is negligiable it may be good.
I usually just memorise the points after like a month of list building though, and use paper and pen.
kodos wrote: if you by a Codex:
full unit Datasheets with Powerlevel, maybe with Codex Matched Play Points (if they are there), for the pruchased factions
if you buy CA:
latest Matched Play Points for all factions
I think having the wrong points if you don't get CA would be a mistake, and lead to confusion. I don't know how you would avoid it though.
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
I have no idea why this would cause any problem. Except maybe if the app requires internet access and everyone is on the venue's wifi and that wifi is bad. But that's a lot of "if".
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
I have no idea why this would cause any problem. Except maybe if the app requires internet access and everyone is on the venue's wifi and that wifi is bad. But that's a lot of "if".
It's likely that it would need to access the internet to at least check your subscription. When having many mobile devices in one place, they tend to cause problems with limited access points. Unless a location is specifically set up to handle a large number of devices at once like a convention center or assembly hall, you will be having problems.
Of course, a good design could mitigate this, but GW wouldn't be the first ones to fail at this. Especially if they hired a contractor (likely) and didn't specifically define this use case.
kodos wrote: if you by a Codex:
full unit Datasheets with Powerlevel, maybe with Codex Matched Play Points (if they are there), for the pruchased factions
if you buy CA:
latest Matched Play Points for all factions
I think having the wrong points if you don't get CA would be a mistake, and lead to confusion. I don't know how you would avoid it though.
it is the same if you just buy the printed Codex
only chance to avoid it would be if CA-Points are a free online pdf that is updated on a regular bases and there re no Matched Play Points in the Codex at all
than they are free for all, could be free with the App as well and are always up to date after a new Codex is sold and no misleading or outdated information
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
I have no idea why this would cause any problem. Except maybe if the app requires internet access and everyone is on the venue's wifi and that wifi is bad. But that's a lot of "if".
It's likely that it would need to access the internet to at least check your subscription. When having many mobile devices in one place, they tend to cause problems with limited access points. Unless a location is specifically set up to handle a large number of devices at once like a convention center or assembly hall, you will be having problems.
Of course, a good design could mitigate this, but GW wouldn't be the first ones to fail at this. Especially if they hired a contractor (likely) and didn't specifically define this use case.
Des the AOS one have this issue ? Did AOS events experience such issues with the AOS app ? If not, then no need to worry about the 40k one right ? Same specs for the contractor (likely the same contractor used for the AOS app)
Jidmah wrote: It's likely that it would need to access the internet to at least check your subscription. When having many mobile devices in one place, they tend to cause problems with limited access points. Unless a location is specifically set up to handle a large number of devices at once like a convention center or assembly hall, you will be having problems.
Doesn't 4G/5G mobile network nullifies this kind of worries? Sure, the wifi may not be able to handle all the traffic, but the mobile network should do it just fine, no?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Is it possible to use the app in a normal web browser? Trying to build army lists on my phone sounds like a hassle.
If its not on a web browser usable by a standard PC its no use to me - at all.
Looks forward for yet more time wasted as people try to peer at a tiny screen and can't find gak.
By contrast I find having to carry a desktop, monitor, mouse, keyboard and multi-socket to every gaming table even harder work.
If only someone could condense that all down into a format that would fit on top of your lap.
Oh I know, bare minimum you'd need wifi for it, probably require a charge over the course of the day, and is not a "standard pc" never mind finding room for it on the table.
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
I have no idea why this would cause any problem. Except maybe if the app requires internet access and everyone is on the venue's wifi and that wifi is bad. But that's a lot of "if".
It's likely that it would need to access the internet to at least check your subscription. When having many mobile devices in one place, they tend to cause problems with limited access points. Unless a location is specifically set up to handle a large number of devices at once like a convention center or assembly hall, you will be having problems.
Of course, a good design could mitigate this, but GW wouldn't be the first ones to fail at this. Especially if they hired a contractor (likely) and didn't specifically define this use case.
Des the AOS one have this issue ? Did AOS events experience such issues with the AOS app ? If not, then no need to worry about the 40k one right ? Same specs for the contractor (likely the same contractor used for the AOS app)
No, 200 people use it at adepticon at the same time and it doesn't even slow down.
Mr Morden wrote: If its on a PC I can print off a overview page which people can actually read and check it, along with the Codex I bring.
I don't own or want a non work phone.
I assume you'd be taking chapter approved as well + any other expansion books to ensure the points etc. were up to date?
Yes - why would I not? plus the printed FAQs - had enough bad expereinces with people claiming BS or misreading things on phones - and yeah its on here somewhere. I sometimes bring the codex for my opponents army as well.
Mr Morden wrote: If its on a PC I can print off a overview page which people can actually read and check it, along with the Codex I bring.
I don't own or want a non work phone, or wish to wait around as people mess about with it and try to show you stuff on a tiny screen.
That's stupid. You'd rather faff about with a bunch of random sheets of paper with information scattered about haphazardly, flapping in the wind than just look it up on a screen designed for you to look stuff up on? It's not technology that's the problem. It's you, guy who still prints off his mapquests for some reason
Mr Morden wrote: If its on a PC I can print off a overview page which people can actually read and check it, along with the Codex I bring.
I don't own or want a non work phone, or wish to wait around as people mess about with it and try to show you stuff on a tiny screen.
That's stupid. You'd rather faff about with a bunch of random sheets of paper with information scattered about haphazardly, flapping in the wind than just look it up on a screen designed for you to look stuff up on? It's not technology that's the problem. It's you, guy who still prints off his mapquests for some reason
Odd - its always the guy at our games pissing about with his phone who can't find gak
Thats my local FLGS informing us that after the stuff he has ordered for his shop that will go on pre order on saturday morning, he can add no more to the order.
All third party stockists are now completely closed to any further allocations of the Indomitus box.
This is going to be scalpers paradise all over again. What is GW's hard on for FOMO style ltd runs of what is essentialy the starter set everyone wants and no news about what the ACTUAL starter set is going to be for 9th.
So its sat at my PC 9:50 am and spam F5 and hope my 8 month old doesnt have a meltdown and needs both me and my wifes attention at that exact moment.
Mapquest is a pre-Google maps website where you'd put in a departure and destination, and it would give you a list of directions to print out for you to reach that destination. "Go 400 yards then turn left. Take the I45 for 4 miles", etc.
One problem with the app: no way would I hand my phone over to a random opponent to look at something. Small problem I know, but I have no problem giving books to people.
lord_blackfang wrote: Yeaaa people who think scrolling through endless 4" screens is faster than flipping paper pages have never timed it.
Yeah when I first got back into Warhammer in 7th edition, I decided I’d get the digital codexes to save carrying books everywhere. But the amount of time it took to find a rule in one book, close it, open another, find a relevant unit etc was ridiculous. If the app manages to speed this up I will be tempted by it though, simply to save on lugging books everywhere.
For useful things in a given book, I can use sticky labels to create semi-permanent bookmarks, annotated for each section.
That’s not to say there anything wrong with digital rules, they’re just not really for little old me.
FAQs and stuff? Well, they’re typically only a few pages, so happy to have digital copies of those on my iPad. And if/when I get to the level where I wouldn’t be a drag to play in a tournament? I can actually go and download the very latest FAQ there and then, for both my opponent and I’s convenience.
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
It shouldnt pose any problem. For their servers were the connections come from doesnt make any difference. The only thing is the broadband of where the event is taking place, and GW can do zilch about that.
Thats why I make my lists on battlescribe and then print them with all of the rules. I have also a printed paper with all my relevant stratagems. So I have all the information I need at hand.
Been mulling it over and decided to hold off on getting too wound up on Black Templars right now. Mainly because with everything GW has going on with Marines I'd rather wait and see what they do with the codex update than build the army and find out that points are going up a second time or something.
GSC are another army I'm waiting to see the final results on so I know how it'll work in the new edition, so it looks like I'll be staeting this edition either working on Chaos Knights to serve as vassals to a Chaos Reaver that I still need to assemble, or Iyanden (probably the latter as my FLGS still has an Eldar Apoc box in stock).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: The aos app is baller. If the 40k one is done as well ill never need anything other than my phone to pkay. Which is huge.
It has something over the AoS app already: buy hard copies of 9th ed books gets you a free digital copy.
I find myself sitting on the fence here a little. Its most certainly quicker to add little sticky bookmarks to a physical book for speed of looking up rules. But generally, I know the rules and looking them up is a very marginal rare occasion that the convenience of having them all on my phone and not lugging 20kg of books around to every table far outstrips the need to have it available within 6.3 seconds.
Writing things lists down though, yeah no BS and other list builders are invaluable for just fiddling with points and wargear without having to rub, scribble and keep track of paper.
All the stratagems I use are kept in a trading card folder for ease of access and anything I need dead quick I keep on little index cards. Carrying books around just to look up rules is an absurdity to me.
If the new App could improve on the way BS presents the info that would be awesome, something along the lines of Buutscribe would be great. Also the fact that it re-generates the list and puts you at the top whenever you return to it is dead annoying.
But the convenience of having all the rules summary in one place for everything I have is great.
Mapquest is a pre-Google maps website where you'd put in a departure and destination, and it would give you a list of directions to print out for you to reach that destination. "Go 400 yards then turn left. Take the I45 for 4 miles", etc.
Ah right thanks - I am pre Google but not come across - was it an American thing?
I also find its alot easier to discuss a rule in a book with a several people rather than someone trying to show it a number of people on a tiny screen with very small writing.
Jidmah wrote: That app is going to be so much fun when 60+ phones and tablets are trying to access it at a single event
It shouldnt pose any problem. For their servers were the connections come from doesnt make any difference. The only thing is the broadband of where the event is taking place, and GW can do zilch about that.
Yet the tournament app has funny habit of working like junk comes the big tournament. Hopefully gw has bothered with better servers rather than be cheapskate
It's strictly Astra Militarum Files now, as IGR isn't compatible with Imperial Word anymore.
I recently switched to using Tempestus Scion files because it takes up less space on my device while also deploying 10x faster...
Actually related to Indomitus, but did anyone else start noticing the web queueing reappear? Maybe it's only local to me but it had completely gone away a week after GW reopened and just started appearing again yesterday.
It could be GWs next level marketing ploy to drive sales, but the increasingly level of anxiety they seem to have about the quantity of the Indomitus release is starting to worry me.
It could be GWs next level marketing ploy to drive sales, but the increasingly level of anxiety they seem to have about the quantity of the Indomitus release is starting to worry me.
You don't need to worry. Queuing is appropriate as the site crashes all the time with big releases as people needlessly spam F5.
My store still has pre-order slots available. For all the anecdotes of stores pumping out large numbers of boxes there will be just as many not hitting their allocation.
It's strictly Astra Militarum Files now, as IGR isn't compatible with Imperial Word anymore.
I recently switched to using Tempestus Scion files because it takes up less space on my device while also deploying 10x faster...
Actually related to Indomitus, but did anyone else start noticing the web queueing reappear? Maybe it's only local to me but it had completely gone away a week after GW reopened and just started appearing again yesterday.
It could be GWs next level marketing ploy to drive sales, but the increasingly level of anxiety they seem to have about the quantity of the Indomitus release is starting to worry me.
I think it's more to ensure the site can handle the traffic come Saturday. I got the "I am not a Robot" captcha test earlier today.
yukishiro1 wrote: Reducing the max preorder to 3 per person is a pretty clear sign that they're afraid of scalpers.
I am glad I have zero interest in either faction so I can just sit on the sidelines and giggle if it's a fiasco.
I'm very interested in both sides, but Marines are taking a backseat until I know what they're doing with them, and Necrons are more of a novelty for me. This edition looks like it'll be one of a lot of army building for me though, especially since I'm working on reworking my hobby space so I can stream while I hobby like the dirty casual I am.
It could be GWs next level marketing ploy to drive sales, but the increasingly level of anxiety they seem to have about the quantity of the Indomitus release is starting to worry me.
You don't need to worry. Queuing is appropriate as the site crashes all the time with big releases as people needlessly spam F5.
My store still has pre-order slots available. For all the anecdotes of stores pumping out large numbers of boxes there will be just as many not hitting their allocation.
Yeah, I guess to clarify what I meant, I think enabling the queue makes sense, but it really just makes we wonder what sort of demands they're predicting vs stock.
Though them using the queue at all probably has more to do with them investing in it post lockdown than it does with them being any more concerned about website stress compared to previous releases.
It could be GWs next level marketing ploy to drive sales, but the increasingly level of anxiety they seem to have about the quantity of the Indomitus release is starting to worry me.
You don't need to worry. Queuing is appropriate as the site crashes all the time with big releases as people needlessly spam F5.
My store still has pre-order slots available. For all the anecdotes of stores pumping out large numbers of boxes there will be just as many not hitting their allocation.
Yeah, I guess to clarify what I meant, I think enabling the queue makes sense, but it really just makes we wonder what sort of demands they're predicting vs stock.
Though them using the queue at all probably has more to do with them investing in it post lockdown than it does with them being any more concerned about website stress compared to previous releases.
I mean they already bought the ability to do it so might as well use it for stuff like this.
Huh. Reading that preview, i thought GW had done a clever thing with the "execution force" rule, making it change the cost of a vanguard detachment to 0 - a fun little bonus for if you want to bring multiple assassins.
But nope, in fact, it changes the command BENEFITS to "none."
From "none."
What a very excellent, "designed for 9th edition" rule you've got there, GW. Very good rule to preview since a lot of assassin players will need to keep that in mind!
How the hell do you take a patrol detachment for the inquisition when they have no troops choice?
If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.
yukishiro1 wrote: If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.
Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.
And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:
Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules? Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.
As someone who edited the Warmahorde FAQ pdf to make them more printer-friendly, I take great offense at the "trivially". It required quite a bit of work on my part, and I'm earning a living with computer stuff!!
Hell, we had a guy edit the Army Builder software/printout so that it didn’t charge him for transports. His list would show all the correct point values, but if you manually added it all up it would be more than what it said his army was running.
As someone who edited the Warmahorde FAQ pdf to make them more printer-friendly, I take great offense at the "trivially". It required quite a bit of work on my part, and I'm earning a living with computer stuff!!
If you're totally re-tooling the layout, sure. But to edit one or two words? Trivial.
AduroT wrote: Hell, we had a guy edit the Army Builder software/printout so that it didn’t charge him for transports. His list would show all the correct point values, but if you manually added it all up it would be more than what it said his army was running.
the_scotsman wrote: Huh. Reading that preview, i thought GW had done a clever thing with the "execution force" rule, making it change the cost of a vanguard detachment to 0 - a fun little bonus for if you want to bring multiple assassins.
But nope, in fact, it changes the command BENEFITS to "none."
From "none."
What a very excellent, "designed for 9th edition" rule you've got there, GW. Very good rule to preview since a lot of assassin players will need to keep that in mind!
Could be future proofing, or just listing the rule as it currently exists for 8th edition. GW has been pretty cagey about what changes they'll be making to armies in the FAQ.
yukishiro1 wrote: If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.
Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.
And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:
Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.
So, do with that what you will.
You asked the community guys about rules. That's basically like asking the guy who runs your local GW what the rules team meant to do.
What was the issue with targeting models with different weapons and removing them in a certain order, or having to shoot something till it is dead before the next model.
Whatever it was that people were annoyed about (or liked the change).
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
Danny76 wrote: What was the issue with targeting models with different weapons and removing them in a certain order, or having to shoot something till it is dead before the next model.
Whatever it was that people were annoyed about (or liked the change).
Particular units (Custodian Guard, Bullgryns, Crisis Suits, Deathwatch Vets, etc.) rely on selectively taking saves on particular models within units to maximize their survivability. That is no longer possible in 9th, once a model has been used to take a save for a unit it has to continue making saves for that unit until its either dead or there are no more saves to make.
And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
If a model is out of coherencey at the end of the turn, it dies.
Danny76 wrote: And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
When you pull your first casualty that unit will crumble thanks to no longer maintaining coherency.
Listening to the Vanguard Tactics guys they described it pretty well: GW wanted units to look like units, which beats the soup line look of the congalines.
Something that crossed my mind (after looking at Iyanden's rules) was how GW may change the "never lose more than 1 model to leadership tests" abilities. I suspect it may be something like "this unit never counts as half strength for attrition tests" but that's just a thought.
It'll be really interesting to see if ATSKNF changes, assuming it does at all.
Particular units (Custodian Guard, Bullgryns, Crisis Suits, Deathwatch Vets, etc.) rely on selectively taking saves on particular models within units to maximize their survivability. That is no longer possible in 9th, once a model has been used to take a save for a unit it has to continue making saves for that unit until its either dead or there are no more saves to make.
Happened to me a lot vs Deathwatch. Storm Shield tanks plasma. Terminator tanks bolters. Though that is a minor quibble overall.
Danny76 wrote: And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models? (Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step. You need a 2-1-2 congaline which lowers the area they can cover pretty dramatically.
Danny76 wrote: And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step.
Danny76 wrote: And also In what Way did this stop a conga line from having just two models together at the ends of the unit, as they would then all be within 2 models?
(Basically I guess what happens to a unit that can’t get back into coherency?)
Well, as soon as one of those two end-cap models dies, or a single middle string model dies, it causes a resonance cascade that wipes out the large bulk of the unit in the coherency check step.
Such narrative! Much versimilitude!
Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.
I’ve been trying to explain to someone why it stops them from being possible anymore as they couldn’t find the line in rules to say that the way I wanted. This will do nicely!
it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before
You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.
But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.
But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.
It also stops the infuriating nonsence of a single buffed to the nines unit spread to the 5 winds being on 3 objectives and you having to kill every last model to stop them claiming them all.
kodos wrote: it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before
Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.
in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?
Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: You know, given that coherency range is 2", you can still form a single line if everyone's base-to-base. The line won't be as long, but you can still do it.
But really I think GW is tired of people trying to screen a whole army with a single unit of Poxwalkers/Guardsmen/what-have-you.
You don't even need to be base-to-base- you can form a single-file line of 25mm bases, with a full half-inch between each base, and that's still valid coherency (2" gets you to the next model in the line).
This seems like it's being blown way out of proportion.
Edit: Also, if someone's going to complain about this rule making infantry units not look like modern formations, I want to hear an explanation for why a 2" maximum coherency (about 12ft when translated to real life) is realistic to begin with. All the better if they can explain, in their own words, what squad column and squad wedge look like, and why exactly they need to deploy their models in a stretched single-file line at maximum spacing to replicate those standard, modern formations.
In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.
Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.
I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.
Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.
mightymconeshot wrote: Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.
Skyweaver jetbikes have a unit limit of 6, so as soon as they lose a model they no longer have to abide by the 2 model coherency rule.
Is there any major advantage to taking 6 jetbikes? It drastically limits your spacing and enables blast weapons. Is there anything that they get to offset that, other than the inherent +1 model?
yukishiro1 wrote: If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.
Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.
And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:
Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.
So, do with that what you will.
That's not the issue. The issue is they claimed you can bring non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces in other Imperium detachments, which you can't. E.g. Jokaeros. These can only be taken in Inquisition detachments, despite their rules preview clearly saying the opposite.
This is by definition false advertising. False advertising doesn't have to be intentional, it just has to be false. If you advertise something as being $50 and then when someone goes to buy it say "oops, that's at typo, it's actually $500" that is false advertising.
I emailed them over the weekend and haven't got anything back yet, which doesn't surprise me - they always respond to inquiries about sales within 24 hours, but other stuff they often take much longer. If I get any response, I'll post it in the thread about Pariah.
yukishiro1 wrote: If nothing else though, it does confirm the false advertising in the Pariah rules preview: they clearly intended to make it impossible to field non-Inquisitor Inquisition in other Imperium detachments, just like the actual rules do, and completely at odds with what the rules preview said.
Again, not false advertising, just a lack of understanding of their own game.
And, for your sake, I actually asked them on FB about this:
Me: Was it intentional that bringing an Assassin and an Inquisitor in the same detachment results in the army losing its detachment rules?
Them: We can't speak on behalf of the rules team but you can send question in to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for consideration in future updates.
So, do with that what you will.
That's not the issue. The issue is they claimed you can bring non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces in other Imperium detachments, which you can't. E.g. Jokaeros. These can only be taken in Inquisition detachments, despite their rules preview clearly saying the opposite.
This is by definition false advertising. False advertising doesn't have to be intentional, it just has to be false. If you advertise something as being $50 and then when someone goes to buy it say "oops, that's at typo, it's actually $500" that is false advertising.
I emailed them over the weekend and haven't got anything back yet, which doesn't surprise me - they always respond to inquiries about sales within 24 hours, but other stuff they often take much longer. If I get any response, I'll post it in the thread about Pariah.
Iv been fighting with GW for over a week due to a shipment of my SoB fortification that iv been waiting on for 3+ months, and they have ignored every email iv sent them asking if they were going to reship a replacement order or what they were going to do, the only responce iv gotten from them was take it up with fedex and fedex telling me to take it up with GW. i am 100% convinced the fedex driver stole my package sicne he pulled up drove away and marked it as delivered without ever getting out of his truck.
ClockworkZion wrote: In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.
Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.
I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.
Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.
ClockworkZion wrote: In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.
Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.
I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.
Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.
I would be shocked if any tabletop war game actually simulates anything outside of the basic premise of tactical exercise. They are overwhelmingly just games with little toy soldiers.
gorgon wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote: In modern warfare spreading out (often even further than 12' since a lot of explosive weapons have a kill radius of 15+ feetl is actually encouraged to reduce the effects of indirect fire on patrols, but we're also talking about a patrol. During combat it becomes a disjointed move to taking cover (or concealment if cover isn't available) so you can use suppressing fire to allow a portion of ths unit to outflank the enemy and engage them from an exposed side.
Basically nothing about moder squad tactics translates to how 40k works, or really has ever worked.
I mean we're talking a setting where individuals call out challenges and their foes agree instead of just shooting them on the spot.
Yeah, there's very little left in the game that tries to simulate warfare like most traditional wargames. Was just talking to a friend recently about that.
Tyran wrote:Modern warfare at the infantry level is mostly suppressive fire while the actual killing is done by artillery or aircraft.
Yeppers, the infantry rifle doesn't do much more than corral enemies into the machine gun or hold enemy for indirect fire. That would make for a pretty dull board game probably.
kodos wrote: it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before
Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.
in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?
Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.
Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MSU All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.
Unless there is something in the rules we haven't seen, no there isn't any advantage beside having a spare model for casualties (and the gun/attack that comes with the 6 model). But it is still stupid that the core rules punish base to base models on anything on a 60 mm base or bigger that are touching each other but don't count as in coherency.
kodos wrote: it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before
Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.
in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?
Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.
Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MEQ All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.
I was talking thematics elements which GW has traditionally leaned on for the source of the rules and how the game "should" play and look.
And MSU Marines aren't effected, but anyone who takes full sized units or hordes (Crusader squads or large groups of CSM which are more viable thanks to morale changes) are effected.
And let's be honest: even Guard, who are the closest to "modern military" in the setting are still far out of date in their tactics with such things such a ranked firing.
yukishiro1 wrote: It wouldn't be modern 40k without a bunch of rule that everybody else is affected by but that space marines just get to ignore.
True, but in past editions the Marines still sucked despite ignoring all the rules.
It's come up before but it's hard to write rules that benefit large units that don't benefit MSU units more.
We still need to see the FAQs, but I honestly hope GW has done -something- to the horde factions to make them feel better as a hordes (say, Nids getting +1 to their save for every 10 models (to represent their endless hordes), or Orks getting +1 attack for every 10 models, ect, ect)
mightymconeshot wrote: Actually any unit on 60mm bases such as harlequin bikes can no longer be in base to base in a single line. You now have to have a staggered unit of some sort to not lose models at the end of the first turn. So it is a change in that regards.
Skyweaver jetbikes have a unit limit of 6, so as soon as they lose a model they no longer have to abide by the 2 model coherency rule.
Skyweavers have a unit size of 5, not 6.
Yes, go look in the codex.
You think you are seeing 6, but you're not......, you're seeing 5. Your 8th edition eyes are deceiving you, you need the new 9th edition glasses (GW will be selling them shortly)
kodos wrote: it is still possible, but the longer conga line will be more risky while the save line will be shorter
and units with 5 models can still do it like before
Units looking like units and not soup kitchen lines.
in what century?
units should look like medieval blocks and less like WW1 fireing lines and of course not like WW2 or modern tactical groups?
Considering 40k is fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE (imagine the reverb if you want) and Space Marines are literally cursading knights in space midevil block warfare fits the setting more than modern warfare patrol formations.
Kind of funny that those "crusading knights in space" will be one of the factions least affected by the new coherencey rules. Loyalists can just go All MSU All the Time. So another new rule that barely touches them.
Yeah, totally untouched. They never ever wanted to field 10 men intercessor units. Not at all. They weren't one of the scariest thing in the SM arsenal and one of the boogeymans of this board.
The infamous "40 S4 AP-2 shots at range 30"" were indeed never mentioned as an issue in any thread ever. Halving the potential of that combination clearly doesn't impact SM in the least.
And Transhuman Physiology? Who ever thought of using that? Surely it's not a problem if now you are spending 2 CP to protect a 5 man unit.
I mean, here we are, talking like SM have any good stratagems/chants/powers that they may want applied to something bigger than a minimum unit. Or like they have any auras that they would like to conga line to.
You oppoent has blast? That 10 man squad can combat squad into 2 5 man squads.
They don't have blast? Rock those 10 strong bods.
Ok yes, I know the original discussion was about coherency, but it still shouldn't be too hard on 10 strong Intercessors. "Barely touches them" sounds pretty apt in the scheme of things.
In the scheme of things, a unit of 30 on 25mm bases loses out more than a unit of 10 on 32mm bases in terms of chaining distance lost due to the new coherency rules.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: You oppoent has blast? That 10 man squad can combat squad into 2 5 man squads.
They don't have blast? Rock those 10 strong bods.
Ok yes, I know the original discussion was about coherency, but it still shouldn't be too hard on 10 strong Intercessors. "Barely touches them" sounds pretty apt in the scheme of things.
In the scheme of things, a unit of 30 on 25mm bases loses out more than a unit of 10 on 32mm bases in terms of chaining distance lost due to the new coherency rules.
Dudeface wrote: Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.
I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.
It's still only a minimum 3 shots, when the average was 3.5 anywhere it shuffles it up to about 4, it's not that much worse for the marines and you'd plan for taking the same number of hits, it just smooths the curve out.
BrotherGecko wrote:
Yeppers, the infantry rifle doesn't do much more than corral enemies into the machine gun or hold enemy for indirect fire. That would make for a pretty dull board game probably.
a lot of games that are based on modern combat and not just Fantasy in Space use such mechanics and they are al but dull
but things like moral or training level actually being a tactical component of the game is too much to ask from GW anyway and people expecting such mechanics (like pinning or supression) to be dull also explains why GW not even tries
I was talking thematics elements which GW has traditionally leaned on for the source of the rules and how the game "should" play and look.
And MSU Marines aren't effected, but anyone who takes full sized units or hordes (Crusader squads or large groups of CSM which are more viable thanks to morale changes) are effected.
And let's be honest: even Guard, who are the closest to "modern military" in the setting are still far out of date in their tactics with such things such a ranked firing.
The rules have nothing to do with any formations used in real live, not matter if you talk about Crusading Knights or WW1 combat
and no, Marines although being Knight themed, are the ones coming close to the possibilities of modern military, they just don't use these options for the game
Guard is more like pre-WW1 with tanks
GW wants a specific look for the game and the units played from an aesthetic point of view as public games that look good are the best advertising while those look bad are turning people off
this has nothing to do with anything from real live
Dudeface wrote: Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.
I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.
for sure, it's just that the bump from 5-10 is only about 15% while the bump from 10-11 is about 40%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shooty squads whose primary job isn't "be a screen" will not care about new coherency at all. They probably packed pretty tight to keep in aura ranges anyway. Melee squads will be the other units affected, who will struggle to achieve multicharges even harder and won't be able to get everyone in combat.
Plus, for good measure, I'm betting that the point cost for Cultists and Servitors is not an outlier but a trend, and GW will have decided that every sub-10ppm unit needed a 40-50% point hike while every 15-20ppm unit needed a 10-20% hike unless they mount a blast weapon.
You know, because we can't JUST make a ruleset that massively favors elites. We also need to pair it with hugely disproportionate point nerfs to hordes.
and you'd also need plenty of targetable civilians which might be worth victory points if you save them or kill them, but you'd only find out after the battle once public opinion had had a chance to
roll 2D6 for each group
2 evidence shows they were really terrorists/enemy combatants +2VP
3-6 the public believes they were terrorists/enemy combatants +1VP
7-11 the public believes they were innocent civilians you should have protected -1VP
12 the slaughter of the civilians demands a public sacrifice and your warlord is demoted, -2VP
With the way the game leans heavily into objectives that are spread around the table, I question how many units we'd really need to be multi-charging since it feels like the armies are going to be operating more in pockets across the table rather than large blocks or castles.
As for points hikes, I've mulled over it and currently 12 units of 30 Cultists is 1,440 points. That gets you 360 bodies in a double battalion list with 560 points left for characters. In an edition that prioritizes objectives and not killing that becomes a damn hard list for most armies to deal with, even with buffs to blast allow for more shots against them.
I think the hordes just needed the points hike to offset just how much they can bend the new mission structure.
I still feel armies like Marines needed a larger one (I was hoping to see 25ppm Intercessors for example) but hordes definitely needed to have some models taken off the table for game balance.
ClockworkZion wrote: With the way the game leans heavily into objectives that are spread around the table, I question how many units we'd really need to be multi-charging since it feels like the armies are going to be operating more in pockets across the table rather than large blocks or castles.
As for points hikes, I've mulled over it and currently 12 units of 30 Cultists is 1,440 points. That gets you 360 bodies in a double battalion list with 560 points left for characters. In an edition that prioritizes objectives and not killing that becomes a damn hard list for most armies to deal with, even with buffs to blast allow for more shots against them.
I think the hordes just needed the points hike to offset just how much they can bend the new mission structure.
I still feel armies like Marines needed a larger one (I was hoping to see 25ppm Intercessors for example) but hordes definitely needed to have some models taken off the table for game balance.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for the point differential between a lighter unit and a heavier unit to go down.
But to have that not just be "Why would you ever take the lighter unit, then?" you need to have a system that allows them to be...you know...good at something.
Like, take Rubrics and Tzaangors. At the release of the two of them, Tzaangors, clearly the better option. Codex goatmans. That basically went away with the turn 1 deep strike changes, and now, optimal thousand sons list if you take a pure thousand sons list is 5-man rubric squads spamming smite and one big rubric squad to use strats and powers on.
That's what's currently by far the most durable, by far the strongest offense (and they can do it from 24" away instead of melee range) by far the most efficient in terms of CPs (for 2CP you can give Tzaangors fight twice, or you can give Rubrics shoot twice and a 2+/4++ save)
That's where we're currently at with 17ppm rubrics and I believe 7ppm tzaangors? If Rubrics stay at the same value as Intercessors (since you gotta pay that Spike Tax!) and Tzaangors go up the same amount as Cultists (it'd be fairly silly if they didn't since they're WAY better than cultists and in the same book filling the same role) you'll have 20ppm rubrics and 11ppm Tzaangors.
9 points for a 3+ armor save, a psyker sergeant, a S4 AP-2 boltgun, the All is Dust rule, move and fire heavy weapons, and access to a 1cp +1sv/+1invuln sv and a 1cp shoot twice stratagem?
Why would you ever not? Even if you got two tzaangors for the price of 1 rubric, rubrics will basically ALWAYS be more durable for the points, AND you dont' need to invest in separate models to give them the psychic buff that they both want - their sergeant can cast that buff on them himself.
This is the issue. I do not see the rules for the new missions having wider spread objectives than the CA missions, mostly, they seem almost exactly the same. And an elite unit like rubrics is MORE likely to be able to hold that objective for a full turn than a cheapo unit like tzaangors, not less.I want a world where I can have 10ppm tzaangors, but this rule system is not one where we can have that and not just have tzaangors be unusable. They'd have to be where they are right now, or even cheaper, and that's what I'm worried we're going to have throughout 9th unless Gw is willing to balance the other way and nerf a bunch of elite stuff - which I doubt they'll have the balls to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the old missions were ENTIRELY about objectives and had NO killing. We went from 100% board control to now, where you have killing secondaries available.
And a smaller board, meaning objectives if anything will be less spread out.
ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.
And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.
And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.
Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csmbetter. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.
ClockworkZion wrote: ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.
And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
.
A set of tournament houserules is irrelevant when talking about the changes from Games Workshop. GW very self-evidently did not balance around ITC, it's why ITC was demonstrably less faction and unit diverse in their events than events that cleaved more closely to the GW official mission packs, and units like tau drones, basilisks and TFCs had ridiculously outsized impact in ITC events where you could do stuff that I'm sure GW definitely balanced them around like making them COMPLETELY INVULNERABLE TO RANGED ATTACK.
We are moving away from a mission set where 100% of the points were held through objectives, and in most missions objectives could be placed anywhere over 6" away from board edges - several of the most recent CA eternal war mission sets you could place objectives where there is no longer any more board in the current min board size.
ClockworkZion wrote: And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.
We had that problem until we no longer did, because GW made marines the better option in all codexes where marines appear, BEFORE handing out the marine buffs to 9th edition and the corresponding points buffs with the 9th edition CA. Ever since marines 2.0 - optimal marine troop, intercessors by a country mile. Optimal CSM troop, Red Corsairs CSM. Optimal Tsons troop, MSU rubrics.
We were already at the point where people were taking marines over the alternatives. And now we're getting a half dozen odd nerfs to those cheap chaff units and a hefty round of points nerfing.
All that's going to happen to the meta with 9th is that you'll see a bunch more vehicles without Fly in lists, and factions like GSC, Nids and Orks currently sitting at the bottom of the bowl will just be flushed down into nonexistence, until the inevitable point drops that put them right back where they were in 8th, with horde army players being forced to spend 4x-6x as much $ to field a full army as someone who can buy a couple starter boxes and have themselves a darn near tournament competitive list.
ClockworkZion wrote: ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.
And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.
Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csmbetter. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.
assuming they keep the same piddly 1ppm discount over loyalists, you're looking at 6ppm cultists and 14ppm CSMs.
Does anyone really think a 10-man CSM squad is easier to remove than a 20-man cultist squad?
Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.
Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.
We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.
Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.
ClockworkZion wrote: ITC and many similar formats had killing primaries as well.
And regardless of how big the board is, the objectives have a set distance apart.
And let's be honest, we've had a problem for a long time where Marines were the less good option than whatever cheaper chaff the book had. The fact that we can even make the argument for Marines is an improvement to the game.
Yes, but in the case of csm they haven't done that by making csmbetter. They've done it by making cultists worse. The basic csm isn't any better, they're just looking to be better from a points efficiency standpoint compared to cultists. Making units more desirable by making other options worse isn't a good way to go when both are already lackluster compared to their competitors in other factions.
assuming they keep the same piddly 1ppm discount over loyalists, you're looking at 6ppm cultists and 14ppm CSMs.
Does anyone really think a 10-man CSM squad is easier to remove than a 20-man cultist squad?
No, csm are better than cultists, it was only points efficiency that made cultists a better option than csmin their codex. But csm are still no better compared to their counterparts in other codexes. They are still just the inferior, cheaper option compared to loyalists. I consider that a problem.
Dudeface wrote: Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.
I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.
for sure, it's just that the bump from 5-10 is only about 15% while the bump from 10-11 is about 40%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shooty squads whose primary job isn't "be a screen" will not care about new coherency at all. They probably packed pretty tight to keep in aura ranges anyway. Melee squads will be the other units affected, who will struggle to achieve multicharges even harder and won't be able to get everyone in combat.
Plus, for good measure, I'm betting that the point cost for Cultists and Servitors is not an outlier but a trend, and GW will have decided that every sub-10ppm unit needed a 40-50% point hike while every 15-20ppm unit needed a 10-20% hike unless they mount a blast weapon.
You know, because we can't JUST make a ruleset that massively favors elites. We also need to pair it with hugely disproportionate point nerfs to hordes.
You are making a big assumption on very few data points here. Wait for it to actually start raining before declaring the sky is falling.
The primary objectives are all about board control and the easiest secondary ones are also about board control. And the limit to 5 turns helps strong early scoring armies a lot.
I believe MSU horde in which you have a lot of 10 man light infantry units just everywhere for scoring purposes will be quite viable.
People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?
Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?
I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.
There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.
Galas wrote: People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?
Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?
I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.
There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.
I think it's more just the knee jerk reaction to the change, especially since GW hasn't done much to convey the "why" of the change. I've mulled it over and given my own thoughts, but I could just as easily be off the mark myself.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.
Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.
We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.
Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.
You will have an infinitely easier time stopping a guard army from performing actions (with their, remember, MAX SIZED squads of 10 guardsmen) than you will ANY space marine army, whether classic marines or primaris. 5 MEQs sitting on cover with their 2+ saves that say "ok, I'm gonna perform an action now" is going to be much harder to deal with than 10 little t3 5+ mookers.
even the most extreme cases, like 30 ork boyz, it's going to be a lot easier to remove that unit of ork boyz than an equivalent points value of intercessors.
Cultists max at 20-man squads, right? I can't recall if it's 20 or 30, let's say 30 since the math is nice and clean. You've got 30 cultists on one side, and 9 intercessors on the other at their new points values, and they are each going to perform an action.
Assume you're going to shoot them at BS4+. To remove the cultists, you'll need:
90 lasguns (45 if youve got FRFSRF)
36 heavy bolters
4 wyverns
43 autocannons
6 LR battlecannons
3 LR Punishers
To remove the marines, you'll need:
321 lasguns (161 with FRFSRF)
55 heavy bolters
20 wyverns
41 autocannons
7 LR battlecannons
8 LR Punishers
To get to a weapon that actually more efficiently removes intercessors, you have to get into gak like plasma guns - and even then, oldmarines are nearly as durable vs non-overcharged plasma as cultists at their new points value. A heavy cannon with flat damage 2 is almost identically able to take out piddly little cultos as the target it is seemingly designed to efficiently remove.
Galas wrote: People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?
Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?
I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.
There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.
I agree it's probably a bit of a kneejerk reaction overall, the root of the problem stems in that they've not made the rubrics better, they just make a blob of tzaangors worse. If you got 2nd to last in a race of 100 people, the guy who got 50th position being disqualified doesn't make you any more likely to be on the podium.
Galas wrote: People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?
Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?
I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.
There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.
Because I do not enjoy a game state where for a unit to be cheap enough to be usable, it needs to be less than 1 point per USD spent. What you get when you make a space marine army cost 300$ and any GEQ army cost 2500$ is yet another edition where everyone just plays marines.
Obviously GW could just drop the points back down below where they are in 8th and every GEQ unit would be fine in 9th. My problem is, that still sucks. That sucks now. I'd much prefer, and was hoping for, a 9th edition where a cultist was 6ppm and an intercessor was 20ppm and that made actual goddamn sense.
Kanluwen wrote: The "why" of the change is because people whined, and now that they got their wish they'll whine again.
It's an endless cycle of whining.
In the grim darkness of the far future there is only salt.
When your logic is bad, just accuse your opponent of whining! In future, please just save everyone time and start the argument with "ur just salty". Don't pretend to make arguments first and make people take the time to disprove you.
I agree it's probably a bit of a kneejerk reaction overall, the root of the problem stems in that they've not made the rubrics better, they just make a blob of tzaangors worse. If you got 2nd to last in a race of 100 people, the guy who got 50th position being disqualified doesn't make you any more likely to be on the podium.
No, the root of the problem is that people insist upon copy/pasting netlists and riding the coattails of people that are deemed as "good" because of tournament performances and crap like that. They insist upon getting things in one initial swoop for starting an army, rather than playing slowgrows and building things up while experimenting with what they like.
Kanluwen wrote: The "why" of the change is because people whined, and now that they got their wish they'll whine again.
It's an endless cycle of whining.
In the grim darkness of the far future there is only salt.
When your logic is bad, just accuse your opponent of whining!
"Conscripts are overpowered!"
--Conscripts and Commissars get nerfed into the ground
"Guard are overpowered!"
--Guard get nerfed with a points bump to BS3+ unit weapons
all the while people are outright explaining that the issue is the Command Point generation being handed out to other factions via Guard and that a simple fix is forbidding Guard from granting CPs to other factions...whole thing is ignored.
So yeah, you can keep saying "when your logic is bad, just accuse your opponent of whining!"...but it is not necessarily wrong.
Galas wrote: People spent all of 8th complaining about elite units not being worth it because cheap was better... now cheap is not better and we complaint?
Like. Didn't thousand sons players wanted to play rubrics instead of Tzaangors?
I understand. All units should have a place. But I believe people is overeacting. And even if they aren't, who cares? In tops 4-5 months things will change and the "meta" will shake again just like in 8th.
There was a time were it was worth the shoot to buy the most OP stuff because it would be OP 4-6 years. Now it is at most 8 months before it gets nerfed. Is much more productive to try and improve your skill as a player, and not care that much about the power spikes of certain units.
Because I do not enjoy a game state where for a unit to be cheap enough to be usable, it needs to be less than 1 point per USD spent. What you get when you make a space marine army cost 300$ and any GEQ army cost 2500$ is yet another edition where everyone just plays marines.
Obviously GW could just drop the points back down below where they are in 8th and every GEQ unit would be fine in 9th. My problem is, that still sucks. That sucks now. I'd much prefer, and was hoping for, a 9th edition where a cultist was 6ppm and an intercessor was 20ppm and that made actual goddamn sense.
I have always proposed to make everythign more expensive and more powerfull. And I always wanted changes to units rules and stats instead of making everything better by making them cheaper, like in 8th.
The truth is, thats not what people wants. People wants to have as many models on the table as possible. And if you give it better rules but make it more expensive they won't like it. So I can totally understand why GW does what it does even if I don't like it. At the end of the day we are on the minority, the internet vocal one. At least in my store most people is like that: They hate when their units become more expensive even if it was a deserved nerf because they fell like they are being punishet, they love when things become cheaper because they can have more and more toys on the table, etc... and not many people is willing to have a broader perspective of whats healthy for the game even if is detrimental to how they play or like to play.
I agree it's probably a bit of a kneejerk reaction overall, the root of the problem stems in that they've not made the rubrics better, they just make a blob of tzaangors worse. If you got 2nd to last in a race of 100 people, the guy who got 50th position being disqualified doesn't make you any more likely to be on the podium.
No, the root of the problem is that people insist upon copy/pasting netlists and riding the coattails of people that are deemed as "good" because of tournament performances and crap like that. They insist upon getting things in one initial swoop for starting an army, rather than playing slowgrows and building things up while experimenting with what they like.
A skewed game state that heavily penalizes one type of unit (infantry) and heavily rewards another type of unit (heavy tanks) does not advantage people who slow-grew to 2,000pts and got a mixture of different stuff.
It advantages people who have competitive copy/pasted competitive netlists.
Come on, you think the guys with the Intercessors+Chaplain Dreadnoughts+Leviathan lists are UNHAPPY with 9th? Really?
Kanluwen wrote: The "why" of the change is because people whined, and now that they got their wish they'll whine again.
It's an endless cycle of whining.
In the grim darkness of the far future there is only salt.
When your logic is bad, just accuse your opponent of whining!
Or maybe don't take things so seriously? I freely admit why my thought on why the change was done could be wrong, but the arguements against it haven't been very sound. Everyone keeps circling back to a single unit versus unit basis. I never said a single unit of anything was strong, I was saying that with current points costs hordes could really mess with the new missions if taken in very large numbers.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.
Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.
We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.
Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.
You will have an infinitely easier time stopping a guard army from performing actions (with their, remember, MAX SIZED squads of 10 guardsmen) than you will ANY space marine army, whether classic marines or primaris. 5 MEQs sitting on cover with their 2+ saves that say "ok, I'm gonna perform an action now" is going to be much harder to deal with than 10 little t3 5+ mookers.
even the most extreme cases, like 30 ork boyz, it's going to be a lot easier to remove that unit of ork boyz than an equivalent points value of intercessors.
Cultists max at 20-man squads, right? I can't recall if it's 20 or 30, let's say 30 since the math is nice and clean. You've got 30 cultists on one side, and 9 intercessors on the other at their new points values, and they are each going to perform an action.
Assume you're going to shoot them at BS4+. To remove the cultists, you'll need:
90 lasguns (45 if youve got FRFSRF)
36 heavy bolters
4 wyverns
43 autocannons
6 LR battlecannons
3 LR Punishers
To remove the marines, you'll need:
321 lasguns (161 with FRFSRF)
55 heavy bolters
20 wyverns
41 autocannons
7 LR battlecannons
8 LR Punishers
To get to a weapon that actually more efficiently removes intercessors, you have to get into gak like plasma guns - and even then, oldmarines are nearly as durable vs non-overcharged plasma as cultists at their new points value. A heavy cannon with flat damage 2 is almost identically able to take out piddly little cultos as the target it is seemingly designed to efficiently remove.
30 cultists need 140 lasgun shots to kill (that's 180 points worth of cultists), 9 intercessors (also 180) need 324 lasgun shots.
However those same marines kill a mighty 8 cultists a turn outside of 15"
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.
Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.
We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.
Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.
You will have an infinitely easier time stopping a guard army from performing actions (with their, remember, MAX SIZED squads of 10 guardsmen) than you will ANY space marine army, whether classic marines or primaris. 5 MEQs sitting on cover with their 2+ saves that say "ok, I'm gonna perform an action now" is going to be much harder to deal with than 10 little t3 5+ mookers.
even the most extreme cases, like 30 ork boyz, it's going to be a lot easier to remove that unit of ork boyz than an equivalent points value of intercessors.
Cultists max at 20-man squads, right? I can't recall if it's 20 or 30, let's say 30 since the math is nice and clean. You've got 30 cultists on one side, and 9 intercessors on the other at their new points values, and they are each going to perform an action.
Assume you're going to shoot them at BS4+. To remove the cultists, you'll need:
90 lasguns (45 if youve got FRFSRF)
36 heavy bolters
4 wyverns
43 autocannons
6 LR battlecannons
3 LR Punishers
To remove the marines, you'll need:
321 lasguns (161 with FRFSRF)
55 heavy bolters
20 wyverns
41 autocannons
7 LR battlecannons
8 LR Punishers
To get to a weapon that actually more efficiently removes intercessors, you have to get into gak like plasma guns - and even then, oldmarines are nearly as durable vs non-overcharged plasma as cultists at their new points value. A heavy cannon with flat damage 2 is almost identically able to take out piddly little cultos as the target it is seemingly designed to efficiently remove.
30 cultists need 140 lasgun shots to kill (that's 180 points worth of cultists), 9 intercessors (also 180) need 324 lasgun shots.
However those same marines kill a mighty 8 cultists a turn outside of 15"
This is one of those moments online where I'm not sure, but I think you're either misunderstanding the argument, or agreeing with me?
The argument, to be clear, was "horde units will be fine, because they will be harder to remove from Objectives when performing actions, the basis of the new missions with the score at the beginning of the turn thing"
I was showing that many elite units, in general, are HARDER to remove from objectives at equivalent points. We can run the same numbers for like, custodes, or CSMs vs cultists, or whatever if you want. Cheap units in 9th are easier to kill with weapons that require less investment to get, weapons that generally are the ones that come by default on your Troops choice units.
Edit: I'm also not sure where 140 lasguns is coming from. I'm using BS4+, and cultists are in cover. 2 shots, 1 hit, 0.5 wounds, 0.333 failed saves from one lasgun. 30 wounds on the unit of cultists/0.333 failed saves per lasgun = 90 lasguns needed on average.
Come on, you think the guys with the Intercessors+Chaplain Dreadnoughts+Leviathan lists are UNHAPPY with 9th? Really?
Hopefully they will be when Chaplain Dreads go Legends.
And then those become lascannon vendreads, which now move and shoot without penalty and got a nice little points drop in the new edition while everything else got more expensive.
People who have top-tier tournament netlists, by and large, are still going to have top-tier tournament netlists after 9th. There is no "aha, you get what you deserve" going on here. Slow-grow collectors' armies are not getting a buff and competitive netlist-buyers are not getting a nerf.
They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
Tyran wrote: They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
The exact reason I used 9 was to compare them to a 30-man cultist unit. They cost the exact same.
Again, the argument was that because of the "Action" scoring system, and the fact that command points will be easier to deny by killing the units holding the objectives, cheap units will still be superior because they are harder to remove when spammed.
That is the particular claim I was demonstrating to be untrue.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that a unit of intercessors sitting in your backfield on an objective...is playing optimally, intercessors have 30" range guns that rapid fires at full range if they remain stationary. This is like saying "aha, the Tau are sitting at range and doing nothing but scoring objectives while we engage in a stationary firefight - they've fallen right into my trap!!!"
ClockworkZion wrote: The largest advantage of the slow grow approach is your tend to end with a larger collection that weathers meta shifts more easily.
The trade off is how long it takes to do so, which is a downside when you want to get your wins in really fast, but the perk is still a perk.
Cool, coolcoolcool, so I've got a really large, slow-grow collection of GSC, maybe you can tell me what I can do to build a successful list for 9th. I've got, let's see:
-40 Acolytes with various melee weapon options
-40 neophytes with various heavy and special weapon options
-40 Purestrain Genestealers
-2 goliath trucks
-1 goliath rockgrinder
-1 Achilles
-10 jackal bikers
-1 of each of basically every character
-30 brood brothers infantry squads
-2 scout sentinels with heavy flamers
-10 aberrants
but darn, wouldn't you know it, it sure seems like nearly all my units ended up light infantry hordes, probably because that's the only kind of troop my army has. it sure does seem like pretty much everything in my army besides the goliaths and rockgrinders gets penalized by those new rules in some significant way. If having a variety of stuff is the solution that would keep me from getting hosed by the edition change, it's weird that having access to every single unit in the codex barring one or two characters I don't have still leaves me feeling like I have eaten a nerf on basically every model I own for the army, and GW seems to have handed out my army's one big advantage to every other faction in the game as a core strat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Intercessors sitting on your backfield shooting is good strategy. Intercessors sitting on your backfield hoisting the banner? Less so.
So then how is a large spammed unit of cultists sitting in your backfield ENTIRELY OUT OF THE RANGE OF THEIR GUNS hoisting the banner somehow a good strategy, according to you?
Why is that a potential balance problem that needs to be addressed by an insane number of nerfs?
Tyran wrote: They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
The exact reason I used 9 was to compare them to a 30-man cultist unit. They cost the exact same.
Again, the argument was that because of the "Action" scoring system, and the fact that command points will be easier to deny by killing the units holding the objectives, cheap units will still be superior because they are harder to remove when spammed.
That is the particular claim I was demonstrating to be untrue.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that a unit of intercessors sitting in your backfield on an objective...is playing optimally, intercessors have 30" range guns that rapid fires at full range if they remain stationary. This is like saying "aha, the Tau are sitting at range and doing nothing but scoring objectives while we engage in a stationary firefight - they've fallen right into my trap!!!"
Speaking of points parity, I'll note that Zion's scenario of 360 cultists is 2160 points with 9e points. You only get 240 for 1440 in 9th; still a lot, but eminently more killable. Maybe I'm just mathhammering badly in my head but I think these arguments for mass Cultist swarms really underestimate the sheer volume Aggressors can put out.
Tyran wrote: They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
The exact reason I used 9 was to compare them to a 30-man cultist unit. They cost the exact same.
Again, the argument was that because of the "Action" scoring system, and the fact that command points will be easier to deny by killing the units holding the objectives, cheap units will still be superior because they are harder to remove when spammed.
That is the particular claim I was demonstrating to be untrue.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that a unit of intercessors sitting in your backfield on an objective...is playing optimally, intercessors have 30" range guns that rapid fires at full range if they remain stationary. This is like saying "aha, the Tau are sitting at range and doing nothing but scoring objectives while we engage in a stationary firefight - they've fallen right into my trap!!!"
Don't take the cultists as one 30 man unit but as 3 10 man units, now for the same cost you can score 3 different objectives and is far less vulnerable to blast. Moreover units making actions cannot do anything else.
Tyran wrote: They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
The exact reason I used 9 was to compare them to a 30-man cultist unit. They cost the exact same.
Again, the argument was that because of the "Action" scoring system, and the fact that command points will be easier to deny by killing the units holding the objectives, cheap units will still be superior because they are harder to remove when spammed.
That is the particular claim I was demonstrating to be untrue.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that a unit of intercessors sitting in your backfield on an objective...is playing optimally, intercessors have 30" range guns that rapid fires at full range if they remain stationary. This is like saying "aha, the Tau are sitting at range and doing nothing but scoring objectives while we engage in a stationary firefight - they've fallen right into my trap!!!"
Speaking of points parity, I'll note that Zion's scenario of 360 cultists is 2160 points with 9e points. You only get 240 for 1440 in 9th; still a lot, but eminently more killable. Maybe I'm just mathhammering badly in my head but I think these arguments for mass Cultist swarms really underestimate the sheer volume Aggressors can put out.
Or heck, any dedicated anti-horde weapon. A GEQ-spam army with 9th ed point values would seem to be insanely easy to table given 5 turns with the new blasts rule or some move-and-fire-heavy antiinfantry shooting vehicles like punisher russes.
What the heck are you going to do with a 300-cultist list? Those things chew up 14 cultists per turn, plus whatever you lose from morale, each.
ClockworkZion wrote: Intercessors sitting on your backfield shooting is good strategy. Intercessors sitting on your backfield hoisting the banner? Less so.
So we're back to the argument that units that are useless for anything besides scoring are good because they're useless for anything but scoring? Because why would I want a unit that can score and kill my opponent's scoring units when I'm not using it to score.
Tyran wrote: They are also more expensive. No one is going to have 9 intercessors sitting in their backfield doing nothing but scoring when a cheap unit can do the same.
The exact reason I used 9 was to compare them to a 30-man cultist unit. They cost the exact same.
Again, the argument was that because of the "Action" scoring system, and the fact that command points will be easier to deny by killing the units holding the objectives, cheap units will still be superior because they are harder to remove when spammed.
That is the particular claim I was demonstrating to be untrue.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that a unit of intercessors sitting in your backfield on an objective...is playing optimally, intercessors have 30" range guns that rapid fires at full range if they remain stationary. This is like saying "aha, the Tau are sitting at range and doing nothing but scoring objectives while we engage in a stationary firefight - they've fallen right into my trap!!!"
Don't take the cultists as one 30 man unit but as 3 10 man units, now for the same cost you can score 3 different objectives and is far less vulnerable to blast. Moreover units making actions cannot do anything else.
Great, and to stop me from scoring, my opponent has to target the units I've decided are going to perform the Action.
That seems ridiculously easy to do given min squads and 9th ed ranged firepower. Realistically, if you're playing for board control, you'll probably have 4 units trying to perform actions on a given turn? If those units are min cultist squads, min grot squads, or whatever, you're signing yourself up for your opponent denying you any primaries ridiculously easily.
ClockworkZion wrote: Most arguments for the massed chaff were because they were more points efficient, not because of durability or killing power. Any buffs they had there were just bonuses.
I'm sorry, is there a definition of "points efficiency" that I haven't heard of that doesn't have to do with durability *for the points* or killing power *for the points?*
Or wait, was it because they generated CP so much more efficiently? Certainly I don't think it could have been so common a phenomenon that people would take the absolute bare minimum number of cheap chaff infantry units to generate themselves CPs such that we'd have a half dozen cute little names for those minimum detachments.
If only one of the baseline changes in 9th ed solved that issue before ever needing to hand down any other nerfs.
CP for the cost was the big argument in 8th.
Actions for the cost would be more the argument for 9th since cheap units who take up board space fill that role in an army well.
We'll see once we start getting games in how the army shapes up of course, but my point was more about why GW might have needed to do a points rejiggering to hordes, even when it doesn't seem immediately obvious.
Heck, it only takes 3 rounds to max our your primary. In a 5 round game, how many armies can kill 360 of anything fast enough to ensure they don't max their primary, and possibly some of their secondaries? Being tabled doesn't matter in 9th after all, points do.
You will have an infinitely easier time stopping a guard army from performing actions (with their, remember, MAX SIZED squads of 10 guardsmen) than you will ANY space marine army, whether classic marines or primaris. 5 MEQs sitting on cover with their 2+ saves that say "ok, I'm gonna perform an action now" is going to be much harder to deal with than 10 little t3 5+ mookers.
even the most extreme cases, like 30 ork boyz, it's going to be a lot easier to remove that unit of ork boyz than an equivalent points value of intercessors.
Cultists max at 20-man squads, right? I can't recall if it's 20 or 30, let's say 30 since the math is nice and clean. You've got 30 cultists on one side, and 9 intercessors on the other at their new points values, and they are each going to perform an action.
Assume you're going to shoot them at BS4+. To remove the cultists, you'll need:
90 lasguns (45 if youve got FRFSRF)
36 heavy bolters
4 wyverns
43 autocannons
6 LR battlecannons
3 LR Punishers
To remove the marines, you'll need:
321 lasguns (161 with FRFSRF)
55 heavy bolters
20 wyverns
41 autocannons
7 LR battlecannons
8 LR Punishers
To get to a weapon that actually more efficiently removes intercessors, you have to get into gak like plasma guns - and even then, oldmarines are nearly as durable vs non-overcharged plasma as cultists at their new points value. A heavy cannon with flat damage 2 is almost identically able to take out piddly little cultos as the target it is seemingly designed to efficiently remove.
30 cultists need 140 lasgun shots to kill (that's 180 points worth of cultists), 9 intercessors (also 180) need 324 lasgun shots.
However those same marines kill a mighty 8 cultists a turn outside of 15"
This is one of those moments online where I'm not sure, but I think you're either misunderstanding the argument, or agreeing with me?
The argument, to be clear, was "horde units will be fine, because they will be harder to remove from Objectives when performing actions, the basis of the new missions with the score at the beginning of the turn thing"
I was showing that many elite units, in general, are HARDER to remove from objectives at equivalent points. We can run the same numbers for like, custodes, or CSMs vs cultists, or whatever if you want. Cheap units in 9th are easier to kill with weapons that require less investment to get, weapons that generally are the ones that come by default on your Troops choice units.
Edit: I'm also not sure where 140 lasguns is coming from. I'm using BS4+, and cultists are in cover. 2 shots, 1 hit, 0.5 wounds, 0.333 failed saves from one lasgun. 30 wounds on the unit of cultists/0.333 failed saves per lasgun = 90 lasguns needed on average.
Come on, you think the guys with the Intercessors+Chaplain Dreadnoughts+Leviathan lists are UNHAPPY with 9th? Really?
Hopefully they will be when Chaplain Dreads go Legends.
And then those become lascannon vendreads, which now move and shoot without penalty and got a nice little points drop in the new edition while everything else got more expensive.
People who have top-tier tournament netlists, by and large, are still going to have top-tier tournament netlists after 9th. There is no "aha, you get what you deserve" going on here. Slow-grow collectors' armies are not getting a buff and competitive netlist-buyers are not getting a nerf.
I missed the part about being in cover, but I'd count that at 180 shots, it's easier to apply it because the query as to whether they're in rapid fire range etc becomes easier to answer. I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing really though, but both the cultists and marines wear each other down to attrition about the same rate as well, I get it's easier to kill cultists with guardsmen but as you say why kill intercessors with flash lights when you can have warpflame bolters or w/e they're called.
Tyran wrote: And if you have large expensive units doing actions then those units don't get to do anything else.
And this only applies to actions and scoring that requires a battle round, plenty of objectives and actions only require a turn.
Nearly all objectives require you to be on the objective at the start of your turn, however. Having units that are harder to remove from objectives is going to become much more vital when those units can get shot off and you don't get to score.
This makes more expensive units more valuable by default, and cheap scorers a liability, since they provide your opponent with a means to deny points that otherwise would have been guaranteed.
If you have a pair of min grot squads holding a backline objective and your opponent yeets them with a wyvern or a stormhawk, you'll be giving up two points you would not have otherwise given up by having your own more durable backline shooting unit on that ojbective.
When they get their new codex, assault intercessor death company will surely be an option... Though, if GW have their marketing minds on, they will include this unit on the day 1 FAQ.
Tyran wrote: And if you have large expensive units doing actions then those units don't get to do anything else.
And this only applies to actions and scoring that requires a battle round, plenty of objectives and actions only require a turn.
Nearly all objectives require you to be on the objective at the start of your turn, however. Having units that are harder to remove from objectives is going to become much more vital when those units can get shot off and you don't get to score.
This makes more expensive units more valuable by default, and cheap scorers a liability, since they provide your opponent with a means to deny points that otherwise would have been guaranteed.
If you have a pair of min grot squads holding a backline objective and your opponent yeets them with a wyvern or a stormhawk, you'll be giving up two points you would not have otherwise given up by having your own more durable backline shooting unit on that ojbective.
I've watched a fair few 9th edition bat reps. Durable units performing actions isn't always required, units have been raising banners from behind LOS terrain.
Set your board up correctly and it won't matter how durable the unit is if you do the actions early and keep them protected from flanking units.
As if the current competitive army isn't built around the idea of dropping a Knight a turn. Expensive units are also going to be deleted from objectives.
So to perform a Heroic Intervention, you must be outside of Engagement Range, but within 3” horizontally, and 5” vertically. Except isn’t the vertical Engagement range 5”?
Tiberius501 wrote: So to perform a Heroic Intervention, you must be outside of Engagement Range, but within 3” horizontally, and 5” vertically. Except isn’t the vertical Engagement range 5”?
But if you're outside of the 1" horizontal, you should be fine.
Dudeface wrote: Blast will barely bother them at 10 man tbh.
I would be shooting things like battlecannons and demolishers first at any 10 man marine squads that were around.
for sure, it's just that the bump from 5-10 is only about 15% while the bump from 10-11 is about 40%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Shooty squads whose primary job isn't "be a screen" will not care about new coherency at all. They probably packed pretty tight to keep in aura ranges anyway. Melee squads will be the other units affected, who will struggle to achieve multicharges even harder and won't be able to get everyone in combat.
Plus, for good measure, I'm betting that the point cost for Cultists and Servitors is not an outlier but a trend, and GW will have decided that every sub-10ppm unit needed a 40-50% point hike while every 15-20ppm unit needed a 10-20% hike unless they mount a blast weapon.
You know, because we can't JUST make a ruleset that massively favors elites. We also need to pair it with hugely disproportionate point nerfs to hordes.
Meanwhile the WW took a 56% increase and the TFC 52%. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
Tiberius501 wrote: So to perform a Heroic Intervention, you must be outside of Engagement Range, but within 3” horizontally, and 5” vertically. Except isn’t the vertical Engagement range 5”?
But if you're outside of the 1" horizontal, you should be fine.
It seems unintended. Not sure why they couldn’t have just say you can’t heroically intervene vertically.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
It is pretty friggin' expensive. All the 8th books is ok. The army builder not being ready is expected...but are we still going to have access to points? Grrr.
Almost no one will jump off battlescribe for this.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
Looks like the core rules and any codes you get from buying Codexes are available in the free version. So still useful to have to keep all your 40k stuff together.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
It does contain all the 8th edition codexes in the price for the time being. So paying for the app for that while it lasts is nice, but will be removed as soon as 9th edition codexes get updates so I wonder how they will entice subscribers to continue.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
It’s also useless without one-use codes from buying codexes, meaning it’s only a particularly useful tool for people who collect those.
I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
If they offer an in-app version of the codex that costs me 3.99 toodlepip doubloons less I might be down. I'd pay...very close to full price to have codexes I actually want in a form that does not require me to own a book + a nicer version of battlescribe.
ziggurattt wrote: I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
That just means that over time it loses content and you have to pay to update it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doubt there will be digital only versions.
ziggurattt wrote: I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
That just means that over time it loses content and you have to pay to update it.
you figure they're going to get rid of them? Don't they have them now?
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
It is pretty friggin' expensive. All the 8th books is ok. The army builder not being ready is expected...but are we still going to have access to points? Grrr.
Almost no one will jump off battlescribe for this.
If you think they won't try really really hard to shut down battlescribe the instant this launches with the added legal ammo of it being an illegal 'stolen' version of a product they offer, then I don't think you've paid attention to anything any corporation has ever done.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
ClockworkZion wrote: The largest advantage of the slow grow approach is your tend to end with a larger collection that weathers meta shifts more easily.
The trade off is how long it takes to do so, which is a downside when you want to get your wins in really fast, but the perk is still a perk.
Cool, coolcoolcool, so I've got a really large, slow-grow collection of GSC, maybe you can tell me what I can do to build a successful list for 9th. I've got, let's see:
-40 Acolytes with various melee weapon options
-40 neophytes with various heavy and special weapon options
-40 Purestrain Genestealers
-2 goliath trucks
-1 goliath rockgrinder
-1 Achilles
-10 jackal bikers
-1 of each of basically every character
-30 brood brothers infantry squads
-2 scout sentinels with heavy flamers
-10 aberrants
but darn, wouldn't you know it, it sure seems like nearly all my units ended up light infantry hordes, probably because that's the only kind of troop my army has. it sure does seem like pretty much everything in my army besides the goliaths and rockgrinders gets penalized by those new rules in some significant way. If having a variety of stuff is the solution that would keep me from getting hosed by the edition change, it's weird that having access to every single unit in the codex barring one or two characters I don't have still leaves me feeling like I have eaten a nerf on basically every model I own for the army, and GW seems to have handed out my army's one big advantage to every other faction in the game as a core strat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Intercessors sitting on your backfield shooting is good strategy. Intercessors sitting on your backfield hoisting the banner? Less so.
So then how is a large spammed unit of cultists sitting in your backfield ENTIRELY OUT OF THE RANGE OF THEIR GUNS hoisting the banner somehow a good strategy, according to you?
Why is that a potential balance problem that needs to be addressed by an insane number of nerfs?
Maybe chill the hell out, wait for the FAQs and quit trying to ride me like the Pony Express just because you don't agree with me? Thanks.
I mean, aren't we (if you are concerned about updated rules and points) basically paying a subscription now anyway?
Your codex drops. Cost xxx to play.
Points and rules get updated, cost xxx to play with updated rules and points.
Points and rules get updated again, cost xxx to play with updated rules and points.
And then I have to lug around 17 different books to play a soup army.
I'd rather all the info just get consolidated in one place, where I know it's legit. I don't mind the monthly subscription and having to buy books to unlock the rules. Having it all in one place and automagically updated it worth is to me.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all for 4€ per month i will gladly pay it.
No it won't. You'll have the 8th ed version and as soon as it is replaced by a 9th ed equivalent, you'll lose the 8th ed variant and will have to buy the physical book to update your app...
With full 8th edition rules and the core book, it seems worth it... at the beginning. But yeah as new codexes drop it loses value.
I'm likely going to use it immediately after the new edition and immediately after CAs but aside of that I'm going to use Battlescribe.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
Did you not read the article? You don't get anything for £4 a month, you only get the ability to read the rules from the codexes you bought. £4 doesn't let you read every single codex, you still need to buy the codexes.
Well, rumours about the app being delayed obviously turned out to be right. So much for the army builder being available on the 11th as they originally promised - now there's not even a release date for it, it's just going to be a "future update." But of course they're happy to sell you the incomplete version in the meantime, that can't actually do anything but show you the core rules and the old codexes...
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
So, it's battlescribe with a link to =][= REDACTED =][= in it?
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
Did you not read the article? You don't get anything for £4 a month, you only get the ability to read the rules from the codexes you bought. £4 doesn't let you read every single codex, you still need to buy the codexes.
However it does give you access to ALL of the 8th ed. material until it's replaced. So, for now, yes that £4 a month does mean you don't need to buy a codex unless it's a 9th ed version and one you want to have anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doubt there will be digital only versions.
ziggurattt wrote: I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
That just means that over time it loses content and you have to pay to update it.
It amuses me that the mostly useful 'feature' of the whole thing is the ability to know when old books are officially outdated. Particularly supplements and campaign books like Vigilus which don't have an obvious expiration (by being replaced).
Game-as-service mentality is a huge turnoff for me. Yearly CA points updates were bad enough, but at least CA had other content (even though it was rarely worthwhile). Monthly fees for access to the ability to play a tabletop game can feth right off.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
Did you not read the article? You don't get anything for £4 a month, you only get the ability to read the rules from the codexes you bought. £4 doesn't let you read every single codex, you still need to buy the codexes.
Free Version =
Free core rules
+
All codexes you buy in digital form.
Paid Version =
Full rules
+
Army list builder
+
All 8th ed era rules until they get replaced
+
All codexes you buy in digital form
ClockworkZion wrote: Intercessors sitting on your backfield shooting is good strategy. Intercessors sitting on your backfield hoisting the banner? Less so.
So we're back to the argument that units that are useless for anything besides scoring are good because they're useless for anything but scoring? Because why would I want a unit that can score and kill my opponent's scoring units when I'm not using it to score.
Point was comparing Intercessors to Cultists misses the mark on what roles each does best. Cultists best role is holding ground, usually out of LoS to score you points.
dumb_numpty wrote: £3.99/month for the subs version? Am I reading that right? Seems a bit pricey.
And you have to buy the rules on top of that to get a code to use in the app. So you're paying more to have an electronic version of something you've already bought.
It is pretty friggin' expensive. All the 8th books is ok. The army builder not being ready is expected...but are we still going to have access to points? Grrr.
Almost no one will jump off battlescribe for this.
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
Did you not read the article? You don't get anything for £4 a month, you only get the ability to read the rules from the codexes you bought. £4 doesn't let you read every single codex, you still need to buy the codexes.
Free Version =
Free core rules
+
All codexes you buy in digital form.
Paid Version =
Full rules
+
Army list builder
+
All 8th ed era rules until they get replaced
+
All codexes you buy in digital form
You left out "Reference All Your Rules FAST" for Subscribers. Seems like a sort of repository for all the rules you need to know for your army. Sort of like how BS puts all of your weapon rules under the units. There's not a ton of information about it, but it is one more perk.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
Because they think they can? Obviously. GW isn't in the business of anything except making lots of money.
I mean, it's especially funny that they're still charging the full, inflated price even without what they admit is the "number one feature," which will be added at some unspecified "future date." It's blatant, even by GW's normal standards. But they're obviously banking that lots of people will buy it anyway.
The only way to get them to do anything different is if people just refuse to buy things that are overpriced and under-featured. But GW knows from past experience that doesn't happen. People whine, and open their wallets anyway. So why would GW care about the bad publicity as long as the money keeps coming in?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
Because they think they can? Obviously. GW isn't in the business of anything except making lots of money.
I mean, it's especially funny that they're still charging the full, inflated price even without what they admit is the "number one feature," which will be added at some unspecified "future date." It's blatant, even by GW's normal standards. But they're obviously banking that lots of people will buy it anyway.
The only way to get them to do anything different is if people just refuse to buy things that are overpriced and under-featured. But GW knows from past experience that doesn't happen. People whine, and open their wallets anyway. So why would GW care about the bad publicity as long as the money keeps coming in?
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
Did you not read the article? You don't get anything for £4 a month, you only get the ability to read the rules from the codexes you bought. £4 doesn't let you read every single codex, you still need to buy the codexes.
Free Version =
Free core rules
+
All codexes you buy in digital form.
Paid Version =
Full rules
+
Army list builder
+
All 8th ed era rules until they get replaced
+
All codexes you buy in digital form
GWs current ebooks are awful. They dont work on any of my mobile devices, not even with their recommended apps. They work fine with my home PC. I would gladly pay 4€ to be able to read the digital codexes on my mobile device(s).
That price per month and you need to buy codex's and CA anyway.
I know it's GW and 40k is not a cheap hobby but this is taking the piss, That they consider that Less than a Paint brush isn't a selling point, it just reinforced how overinflated GW prices currently are.
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
Yeah, though the thing is a subscription doesn't actually make sense. Subscriptions generally provide ongoing content.
If you have a code for the app, you... have the relevant book. There isn't any reason to pay an additional $5/month for what you already have.
Same with the 'yearly' points update for your book. There isn't any reason to pay $5/month before or after the day of the points update.
Its a subscription service with no actual benefit to subscribing.
If this was a way to get access to all the current codexes without buying them, then it might actually have some value. But this is volunteering to pay a service fee because GW developed an app where you can pay a service fee, not because it actually provides you with anything or does anything.
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all that for 4€ per month i will gladly pay for it.
By in one or two years time, this app won't even have have the codices inside.
I would have paid the subscription if they wouldn't be removing codices as new ones are released.
ziggurattt wrote: I mean, aren't we (if you are concerned about updated rules and points) basically paying a subscription now anyway?
Your codex drops. Cost xxx to play.
Points and rules get updated, cost xxx to play with updated rules and points.
Points and rules get updated again, cost xxx to play with updated rules and points.
And then I have to lug around 17 different books to play a soup army.
I'd rather all the info just get consolidated in one place, where I know it's legit. I don't mind the monthly subscription and having to buy books to unlock the rules. Having it all in one place and automagically updated it worth is to me.
I am a little bit shocked now that people are willing to pay extra per month for something that should be the default situation
So because GW is making a mess out of their game, we should now pay them extra to fix the problem they created themselfs and we should be glad to get a fixed product for extra money?
I suppose one benefit of this scheme is that people like me who wont use the app anyway can split the cost of a codex with a friend who just wants the digital version.
I was reading the blood angels article and I don’t remember see the Chaplin with jump pack before. Is it new or just an old model? I also noticed they said his jump pack will help him keep up with other jump pack infantry models so maybe a hint to jump pack Intercessors?
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
No it isn't. 'We fixed the errors we made, and you can have them for free or pay for them' is incoherent.... unless they get into scummy business practices and stop providing access to the error-fixes for free. And then they're just being jerks (and possibly violating laws about selling faulty products)
I was excited about the app, but I think it’s a bit pricey for me. I understand that they are a company and need to make a profit, but an app that costs almost as much as a Netflix subscription, with little functionality unless you buy physical copies of the rules sources just doesn’t appeal to me.
It would be like paying a Netflix subscription but still needing to buy the DVD boxset before you could watch a tv show.
On top of that, it doesn’t work on a laptop, only a mobile device. I was really hoping that it would be a paired account where I could read the rules and do my list building on my computer and then access it on my phone when I’m at my FLGS.
Oh well, I guess not. I expect I’ll download the app to see what it’s like, but that’s about it.
SirGrotzalot wrote: I was reading the blood angels article and I don’t remember see the Chaplin with jump pack before. Is it new or just an old model? I also noticed they said his jump pack will help him keep up with other jump pack infantry models so maybe a hint to jump pack Intercessors?
He's been around for quite a while. (2015?)
I wouldn't read in too much about jump primaris, since they had just shown off sanguinary guard (whose models have not aged well- maybe its just the photography or painting, but they look like tired gak when compared to the assault intercessors and the chaplain)
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
Yeah, though the thing is a subscription doesn't actually make sense. Subscriptions generally provide ongoing content.
If you have a code for the app, you... have the relevant book. There isn't any reason to pay an additional $5/month for what you already have.
Same with the 'yearly' points update for your book. There isn't any reason to pay $5/month before or after the day of the points update.
Its a subscription service with no actual benefit to subscribing.
If this was a way to get access to all the current codexes without buying them, then it might actually have some value. But this is volunteering to pay a service fee because GW developed an app where you can pay a service fee, not because it actually provides you with anything or does anything.
But without the app how will you know that your army is officially Battle ForgedTM? Once the army builder feature is enabled I can see the subscription becoming required for all Battle ForgedTM armies.
kodos wrote: For now it is not even a list builder as the feature is marked with "coming soon"
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
so now we pay for bug-fix
Go reread that article. If you buy have the 9th ed codex, then you can access it on the app for free. All FAQs will be added for free as well. You only have yo pay to get all the 8th ed books when it launches.
SirGrotzalot wrote: I was reading the blood angels article and I don’t remember see the Chaplin with jump pack before. Is it new or just an old model? I also noticed they said his jump pack will help him keep up with other jump pack infantry models so maybe a hint to jump pack Intercessors?
He's been around for quite a while. (2015?)
I wouldn't read in too much about jump primaris, since they had just shown off sanguinary guard (whose models have not aged well- maybe its just the photography or painting, but they look like tired gak when compared to the assault intercessors and the chaplain)
SLANDER of the highest degree, pretty golden boys are the bee's knees.
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
Yeah, though the thing is a subscription doesn't actually make sense. Subscriptions generally provide ongoing content.
If you have a code for the app, you... have the relevant book. There isn't any reason to pay an additional $5/month for what you already have.
Same with the 'yearly' points update for your book. There isn't any reason to pay $5/month before or after the day of the points update.
Its a subscription service with no actual benefit to subscribing.
If this was a way to get access to all the current codexes without buying them, then it might actually have some value. But this is volunteering to pay a service fee because GW developed an app where you can pay a service fee, not because it actually provides you with anything or does anything.
But without the app how will you know that your army is officially Battle ForgedTM? Once the army builder feature is enabled I can see the subscription becoming required for all Battle ForgedTM armies.
I still have the ability to read and write.
Not sure who would require that or why I'd care about their delusions.
But without the app how will you know that your army is officially Battle ForgedTM? Once the army builder feature is enabled I can see the subscription becoming required for all Battle ForgedTM armies.
They could also add a function to scan your minis to tell you if they are "Battle Ready TM"
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
No it isn't. 'We fixed the errors we made, and you can have them for free or pay for them' is incoherent.... unless they get into scummy business practices and stop providing access to the error-fixes for free. And then they're just being jerks (and possibly violating laws about selling faulty products)
If you're buying the books then you get a free digital copy, which gets free digital updates to match the FAQs which is great for quick reference during games. I don't get this claim where paying for the updates is coming from.
Ice_can wrote: That price per month and you need to buy codex's and CA anyway.
I know it's GW and 40k is not a cheap hobby but this is taking the piss, That they consider that Less than a Paint brush isn't a selling point, it just reinforced how overinflated GW prices currently are.
My plan is to subscribe to the app rathr than buying the new core rulebook. By a few months in, I will have memorized most of the main rulebook so can just fall back on the core rules, and most of my books will probably be outdated from 8th.
If I really like the layout on digital I may continue buying codexes digital only. We'll see.
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
kodos wrote: For now it is not even a list builder as the feature is marked with "coming soon"
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
so now we pay for bug-fix
Go reread that article. If you buy have the 9th ed codex, then you can access it on the app for free. All FAQs will be added for free as well. You only have yo pay to get all the 8th ed books when it launches.
But I don't need the App for that, unless they remove the free FAQ pdf's or give App users early Access
To get the Codex and the FAQ I don't need to pay 5€ a month extra, there is no advantage with the app, specially if I get the digital version of the Codex which is updated with the FAQ as well
Ice_can wrote: That price per month and you need to buy codex's and CA anyway.
I know it's GW and 40k is not a cheap hobby but this is taking the piss, That they consider that Less than a Paint brush isn't a selling point, it just reinforced how overinflated GW prices currently are.
My plan is to subscribe to the app rathr than buying the new core rulebook. By a few months in, I will have memorized most of the main rulebook so can just fall back on the core rules, and most of my books will probably be outdated from 8th.
If I really like the layout on digital I may continue buying codexes digital only. We'll see.
kodos wrote: For now it is not even a list builder as the feature is marked with "coming soon"
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
so now we pay for bug-fix
Go reread that article. If you buy have the 9th ed codex, then you can access it on the app for free. All FAQs will be added for free as well. You only have yo pay to get all the 8th ed books when it launches.
But I don't need the App for that, unless they remove the free FAQ pdf's or give App users early Access
To get the Codex and the FAQ I don't need to pay 5€ a month extra, there is no advantage with the app
No you don't need an app for that, but I like the inline updates and feel it's a point in the App's favor since that's part of the free edition.
Ice_can wrote: That price per month and you need to buy codex's and CA anyway.
I know it's GW and 40k is not a cheap hobby but this is taking the piss, That they consider that Less than a Paint brush isn't a selling point, it just reinforced how overinflated GW prices currently are.
My plan is to subscribe to the app rathr than buying the new core rulebook. By a few months in, I will have memorized most of the main rulebook so can just fall back on the core rules, and most of my books will probably be outdated from 8th.
If I really like the layout on digital I may continue buying codexes digital only. We'll see.
I dont think you get the rulebook included....
"At launch, you’ll be able to reference the full rules from the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book. Yep – that makes this the best resource for Warhammer 40,000 gaming ever conceived. So, whether you need to know which weapons have the Blast special rule or how many Command points that Stratagem costs, it’ll all be at your fingertips."
(which weapons get blasts and the core strats are one of the things that were in the leaked Indomitus box rulebook that were not in the free download core rules)
kodos wrote: For now it is not even a list builder as the feature is marked with "coming soon"
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
so now we pay for bug-fix
Go reread that article. If you buy have the 9th ed codex, then you can access it on the app for free. All FAQs will be added for free as well. You only have yo pay to get all the 8th ed books when it launches.
But I don't need the App for that, unless they remove the free FAQ pdf's or give App users early Access
To get the Codex and the FAQ I don't need to pay 5€ a month extra, there is no advantage with the app, specially if I get the digital version of the Codex which is updated with the FAQ as well
Ebooks are not particularly usable at flipping through even one book let alone flipping through multiple books. If app manages that it's worth the price.
Ice_can wrote: That price per month and you need to buy codex's and CA anyway.
I know it's GW and 40k is not a cheap hobby but this is taking the piss, That they consider that Less than a Paint brush isn't a selling point, it just reinforced how overinflated GW prices currently are.
My plan is to subscribe to the app rathr than buying the new core rulebook. By a few months in, I will have memorized most of the main rulebook so can just fall back on the core rules, and most of my books will probably be outdated from 8th.
If I really like the layout on digital I may continue buying codexes digital only. We'll see.
I dont think you get the rulebook included....
"At launch, you’ll be able to reference the full rules from the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book. Yep – that makes this the best resource for Warhammer 40,000 gaming ever conceived. So, whether you need to know which weapons have the Blast special rule or how many Command points that Stratagem costs, it’ll all be at your fingertips."
(which weapons get blasts and the core strats are one of the things that were in the leaked Indomitus box rulebook that were not in the free download core rules)
I read that to mean the rules on the datasheets will be linked to the relevant guff in the rulebook, not that you get the rulebook included.
In fact there's no mention of anything beyond core rules for 9th ed literature included.
ClockworkZion wrote: Well they pointed out that the books will be updated for all FAQs and the like, so that's a nice sales pitch for the app alone.
No it isn't. 'We fixed the errors we made, and you can have them for free or pay for them' is incoherent.... unless they get into scummy business practices and stop providing access to the error-fixes for free. And then they're just being jerks (and possibly violating laws about selling faulty products)
If you're buying the books then you get a free digital copy, which gets free digital updates to match the FAQs which is great for quick reference during games. I don't get this claim where paying for the updates is coming from.
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
So what do you expect this list builder to do for $5 a month that battlescribe doesn't already do? Honest question.
Dumb question from someone who just pays gak on his ipad to read...
Does this app replace the digital codex completely that you could
buy on the apple store, does a digital codex provide you with a
code to use in the app in addition to reading the digital codex, or
will the digital codex be a completely separate thing from the app?
malfred wrote: Dumb question from someone who just pays gak on his ipad to read...
Does this app replace the digital codex completely that you could
buy on the apple store, does a digital codex provide you with a
code to use in the app in addition to reading the digital codex, or
will the digital codex be a completely separate thing from the app?
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
So what do you expect this list builder to do for $5 a month that battlescribe doesn't already do? Honest question.
Battlescribe does not have :
ALL rules included
ALL my digital codexes included
Ebooks are not particularly usable at flipping through even one book let alone flipping through multiple books. If app manages that it's worth the price.
this was the main feature the appstore books were advertised with, don't know if the feature is still there or not
on the other hand, I have an old ebook reader and used it for BoltAction and this was not a problem to get to the rules I need via search function
but yes, those other games are not a complete mess of rules spread all over different books so it might be worth to pay something to clean that up.....
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
So what do you expect this list builder to do for $5 a month that battlescribe doesn't already do? Honest question.
Battlescribe does not have :
ALL rules included
ALL my digital codexes included
I suspect a codex secondary market to explode.
So I can buy a brand new print codex.
Use the code to access the codex via app
And resell the codex on the secondary market to recoup most of the cost.
As long as the app allows people to build army lists without owning the codex. But makes you unable to access the digital datasheet. Just basic BattleScribe like points and list. This will still be a in option for most.
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
So what do you expect this list builder to do for $5 a month that battlescribe doesn't already do? Honest question.
Battlescribe does not have :
ALL rules included
ALL my digital codexes included
You get that without the $5 a month.
BattleScribe tends to have bugs and issues and doesn’t verify lists as legal in whatever format you chose it relies on the player to do that which if you paid attention to most tournaments there is always a problem.
Doohicky wrote: Did anyone see any reference to points? In either free or subscription?
I wonder is it just going to be part of the army builder.
If I thought I would get all the new updated points I would get the subscription day 1 just to see them, but I don't think we are
You mean the part where it says "All your points"? Its in there, not really specific, so... I dunno. wait and see I guess.
If the new points + New core rulebook are included with sub version, I am 100% getting that. I'd need to use it for many months before spending more money than I probably would have to to get the core rulebook in print+munitorium field manual book.
The fee is mostly for the army builder feature which you won't be able to access when the app is launched. They'll still take your money, though, if you want to pay for a feature you can't use yet, that was promised to be available on July 11 but now has not only been delayed, but doesn't even have a release date any more.
Doohicky wrote: Did anyone see any reference to points? In either free or subscription?
I wonder is it just going to be part of the army builder.
If I thought I would get all the new updated points I would get the subscription day 1 just to see them, but I don't think we are
You mean the part where it says "All your points"? Its in there, not really specific, so... I dunno. wait and see I guess.
If the new points + New core rulebook are included with sub version, I am 100% getting that. I'd need to use it for many months before spending more money than I probably would have to to get the core rulebook in print+munitorium field manual book.
Somehow my eyes glazed over that and missed it. I think it's worth a trial month (I wish they would do a free trial month) to see what is all included.
If it's crap I'll just go back to free version
kodos wrote: so 4 pounds a month for the same thing that Battlescribe does for free
guess next step is to act against Battlescribe?
No, battlescribe is just a list builder, this GW app will have everything, list builder, stratagems, core rules, every rule from every codex. If this app does all for 4€ per month i will gladly pay it.
No it won't. You'll have the 8th ed version and as soon as it is replaced by a 9th ed equivalent, you'll lose the 8th ed variant and will have to buy the physical book to update your app...
All you lose is the 9th codex Hyperlinks to the datasheets which you can’t expect to get for free regardless
You still have the list builder, the updated points and any new units in the list builder plus all the 9th core rules.
I also expect a much cheaper yearly subscription option.
Still excited for this, but the price is pretty crazy. Sadly, I know more than a few people that tell me they won't play Warmachine because of the price of WarRoom that will totally tell me its cheaper...
kodos wrote: yeah, so totally the way GW would do it, and of coursing sending letters to those who leaked them or added them to Battlescribe
Nah, I doubt that even Kirby era GW would have done that.
Kirby era GW did not want to interact with the Community, so they have done no FAQ's and not point changes at all
NuGW now realised that people are willing to pay for something that should be free in the first place, and if the App is successful and lot of people subscribe I can say that they take the logical next step and say up to date rules are subscription only (as the one main advantage the subscription has over regular purchase) because the true fans of the GW hobby will have a subsciption anyway to get all the rules they need in one place
I can see a lot of people using it for the first 1-2 months to get cheap rules to start 9th and than just stick with it because they are used to it (and the question will be how soon the list builder will be there)
and if there are enough using it, adding more exclusive stuff to the app to keep those who have it
So here's what app needs to have for me to pay. Good easy to use army builder. Bs is decent but could be lot better. Then ability to select secondaries(and primaries for that matter). Then mid game i can click on unit/mission objective and see datasheet. Then any reference on those i can check with click.
Do that on easy gui and it's worth the fee for me. If not i pass.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doubt there will be digital only versions.
ziggurattt wrote: I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
That just means that over time it loses content and you have to pay to update it.
It amuses me that the mostly useful 'feature' of the whole thing is the ability to know when old books are officially outdated. Particularly supplements and campaign books like Vigilus which don't have an obvious expiration (by being replaced).
Game-as-service mentality is a huge turnoff for me. Yearly CA points updates were bad enough, but at least CA had other content (even though it was rarely worthwhile). Monthly fees for access to the ability to play a tabletop game can feth right off.
The app effectively gets rid of the need for CA paid points since they are included in the app. So you technically don’t need to buy CA and the cost of the app is a wash.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doubt there will be digital only versions.
ziggurattt wrote: I believe the article said that it will have 8th edition codexes available with the subscription, until the 9th edition codex for your army drops. So that's worth it, for me.
That just means that over time it loses content and you have to pay to update it.
It amuses me that the mostly useful 'feature' of the whole thing is the ability to know when old books are officially outdated. Particularly supplements and campaign books like Vigilus which don't have an obvious expiration (by being replaced).
Game-as-service mentality is a huge turnoff for me. Yearly CA points updates were bad enough, but at least CA had other content (even though it was rarely worthwhile). Monthly fees for access to the ability to play a tabletop game can feth right off.
The app effectively gets rid of the need for CA paid points since they are included in the app. So you technically don’t need to buy CA and the cost of the app is a wash.
CA is half the price of the yearly subscription and has a missions packet with it.
tneva82 wrote: So here's what app needs to have for me to pay. Good easy to use army builder. Bs is decent but could be lot better. Then ability to select secondaries(and primaries for that matter). Then mid game i can click on unit/mission objective and see datasheet. Then any reference on those i can check with click.
Do that on easy gui and it's worth the fee for me. If not i pass.
I hadn't even thought of a mission point tracker, but that is an extremely good idea.
Yeah. Few people really bought CA for the points really. They were in Battlescribe, etc.. anyhow.
What you want from CA tends to be the missions for the coming year (unless you were playing ITC previously, but even ITC will switch to book missions for 9th it seems).
A mission packet I’ve seen no one use.
Maybe with the focus on Crusade missions this edition it might have a use.
I also expect a reduced yearly subscription like they do for white dwarf. (25% off)
gungo wrote: A mission packet I’ve seen no one use.
Maybe with the focus on Crusade missions this edition it might have a use.
I also expect a reduced yearly subscription like they do for white dwarf. (25% off)
I haven't seen anyone use the 9th ed tournament misson packet yet either
gungo wrote: A mission packet I’ve seen no one use.
Maybe with the focus on Crusade missions this edition it might have a use.
I also expect a reduced yearly subscription like they do for white dwarf. (25% off)
Outside of the US where ITC is a lot less popular the CA missions saw a lot of play.
Grrr is the correct response. I was hoping for points this week. I want to write some lists. Another disappointment. And that price converts to $5 a month. Why is the 40k app more expensive than the AoS app besides "just because we can"?
When I was tooling around with building a list building app that validates the lists the project was going to be really complex. 40K list building is no joke and I imagine the cost to get it built was quite high. The AoS builder is super rudimentary.
So what do you expect this list builder to do for $5 a month that battlescribe doesn't already do? Honest question.
Validated lists. Battlescribe can create incorrect lists. I can foresee tournaments like LVO saying, "we only accept lists through the GW app". It lifts the burden from them to do due diligence on lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doohicky wrote: Oh wait, I just looked at the picture in the article and it has the point cost of the primaris lieutenant in it.
So I may get the sub for the first month just so I can see the points for 9th!
Hmm. I guess power swords won't be +1S. That sucks. Also back to 5 points.
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
Yeah, though the thing is a subscription doesn't actually make sense. Subscriptions generally provide ongoing content.
If you have a code for the app, you... have the relevant book. There isn't any reason to pay an additional $5/month for what you already have.
Same with the 'yearly' points update for your book. There isn't any reason to pay $5/month before or after the day of the points update.
Its a subscription service with no actual benefit to subscribing.
If this was a way to get access to all the current codexes without buying them, then it might actually have some value. But this is volunteering to pay a service fee because GW developed an app where you can pay a service fee, not because it actually provides you with anything or does anything.
Well you do get all 8th Ed. codexes. If you only own 1 codex, that is "worth" $40 * X where X = however many codexes you don't own. At least until the 9th Edition Codex drops. That's the value I see in it. To each their own I guess.
But without the app how will you know that your army is officially Battle ForgedTM? Once the army builder feature is enabled I can see the subscription becoming required for all Battle ForgedTM armies.
They could also add a function to scan your minis to tell you if they are "Battle Ready TM"
Better yet, they could just award 10 VP to you if you used their app to build your list, like they do for painting your army...
Well, to be fair, it is a subscription, not a purchase. If you spend $5 one month and are completely unsatisfied, then cancel. Easy as that. If not, keep your sub.
Yeah, though the thing is a subscription doesn't actually make sense. Subscriptions generally provide ongoing content.
If you have a code for the app, you... have the relevant book. There isn't any reason to pay an additional $5/month for what you already have.
Same with the 'yearly' points update for your book. There isn't any reason to pay $5/month before or after the day of the points update.
Its a subscription service with no actual benefit to subscribing.
If this was a way to get access to all the current codexes without buying them, then it might actually have some value. But this is volunteering to pay a service fee because GW developed an app where you can pay a service fee, not because it actually provides you with anything or does anything.
Well you do get all 8th Ed. codexes. If you only own 1 codex, that is "worth" $40 * X where X = however many codexes you don't own. At least until the 9th Edition Codex drops. That's the value I see in it. To each their own I guess.
Yes, but how much value are you actually getting from that?
Sure, there's something like a dozen Codecs, meaning it's TECHNICALLY worth just sy of $500. But if you don't use them...
Sure, there's something like a dozen Codecs, meaning it's TECHNICALLY worth just sy of $500. But if you don't use them...
I use Codexes I don't play armies for frequently, actually. I like to familiarize myself with their rules, even build lists occasionally so I have an idea of what to expect or how my opponents synergize. Again, the app will have a different worth to different people.
Well that was a good laugh after a hard day at work. GW have handled the lead-in to pre-order day pretty badly so far with the gradually worsening Warhammer 40k Daily show on Twitch, the leak of the rulebook and now the great reveal of the app where I get to pay them for the privilege of...looking stuff up "fast" and being able to build lists (a feature which is replicated by various other apps out there for free).
Huge swing and a miss for me. What's really frustrating is a truly forward-looking company would realise an app is a fantastic opportunity for customer research since GW could see all the data on army building for everyone that uses it. If they'd charged £2 a month I might have considered it but this is just a terrible deal all round. Looks like they're getting pretty solidly criticised for it on social media and other forums too, as they should.
The app effectively gets rid of the need for CA paid points since they are included in the app. So you technically don’t need to buy CA and the cost of the app is a wash.
you buy CA for the Missions and stuff, not for the points
the points are avaiable for free a day after via BS or similar
darthryan wrote: I expect battlescribe to get hit with a stop using our rules or we will sue you letter in the next few weeks
Battlescribe doesn't officially supports 40k rules, it is the community who makes 40k modules for Battlescribe.
It would be like trying to sue Excel, it wouldn't get anywhere and would be laughed out of court.
There are a few key differences here.
GW doesn't actually need to win or even be in the right to succeed. The threat of a C&D and a lawsuit is often enough from larger companies to get what they want.
Even if they are 100% right, companies still have to fight it in court. This is (Sadly) a pretty common tactic.
darthryan wrote: I expect battlescribe to get hit with a stop using our rules or we will sue you letter in the next few weeks
Battlescribe doesn't officially supports 40k rules, it is the community who makes 40k modules for Battlescribe.
It would be like trying to sue Excel, it wouldn't get anywhere and would be laughed out of court.
GW have tried more stupid things like that
But it would be similar like Disney asking YouTube to remove the MCU movies from their platfrom, there is no way YT would do that as Disney would be lauged out at court because it is the people who added those videos......
not even talking about that going to court would financially ruin the people behiund BS not matter the outcome
darthryan wrote: I expect battlescribe to get hit with a stop using our rules or we will sue you letter in the next few weeks
Battlescribe doesn't officially supports 40k rules, it is the community who makes 40k modules for Battlescribe.
It would be like trying to sue Excel, it wouldn't get anywhere and would be laughed out of court.
There are a few key differences here.
GW doesn't actually need to win or even be in the right to succeed. The threat of a C&D and a lawsuit is often enough from larger companies to get what they want.
Even if they are 100% right, companies still have to fight it in court. This is (Sadly) a pretty common tactic.
And judges can sanction lawyers and fine plaintiffs for filing frivolous lawsuits exactly so things like this don't happen.
GW doesn't actually need to win or even be in the right to succeed. The threat of a C&D and a lawsuit is often enough from larger companies to get what they want.
Even if they are 100% right, companies still have to fight it in court. This is (Sadly) a pretty common tactic.
It doesn't matter, Battlescribe cannot even stop using 40k rules because Battlescribe is only a tool. At most GW could go after the repositories, but that would only push the data further underground.
If GW cannot even stop the community from pirating their codexes, they have no hope in stopping Battlescribe.
I thought there was a subscription fee. Something like $2 a month. Is that incorrect?
