"As you can see, the new bike is basically the same as the old bike. We made the rules better so you'll buy it though. Paint it whatever color! We can't wait to see you buy it and replace the thing you already bought that is the same!
Primaris Marines: The Iphone 11 of Warhammer. Now with 3 scopes, and in this metaphor, every weapon option is a headphone jack."
Ain't that the truth.
Also, they'll probably be priced like 4 points higher per model than the non-primaris ones.
"As you can see, the new bike is basically the same as the old bike. We made the rules better so you'll buy it though. Paint it whatever color! We can't wait to see you buy it and replace the thing you already bought that is the same!
Primaris Marines: The Iphone 11 of Warhammer. Now with 3 scopes, and in this metaphor, every weapon option is a headphone jack."
Ain't that the truth.
Also, they'll probably be priced like 4 points higher per model than the non-primaris ones.
If these things are only 27 points then at least Dakka will quit complaining about the cost of Intercessors
"As you can see, the new bike is basically the same as the old bike. We made the rules better so you'll buy it though. Paint it whatever color! We can't wait to see you buy it and replace the thing you already bought that is the same!
Primaris Marines: The Iphone 11 of Warhammer. Now with 3 scopes, and in this metaphor, every weapon option is a headphone jack."
Ain't that the truth.
Also, they'll probably be priced like 4 points higher per model than the non-primaris ones.
2 points per wound - the standard price of a wound in warhammer 40,000
also does mortal wounds on the charge i'd bet
probably twin bolt rifles for extra range and ap
definitely has to have an ironstorm fragblast grelasstub auxiliary launchmaster for d6 S3 ap-5 dd3 shots or some gak.
Today's episode of Warhammer Daily will cover Space Marines:
They may be the Emperor's angels but how will Space Marines fare in #New40K? Find out at 3:30pm (BST) and then stick around to Hang Out and Hobby from 4:00pm (BST)
Voss wrote: Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.
Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!
Voss wrote: Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.
Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!
And one hand to hold up an oldmarine as a shield to account for their fourth wound?
Voss wrote: Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.
Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!
I do like that one of the new bike dudes appears to have a big goofy knife. Reminds me of my very first space marine model I painted, which was a biker.
Someone had heavily emphasized that models HAD TO BE WYSIWYG no matter what, so I knew that in order to have his pistol he needed to be holding it.
But the only arms he came with were turned sideways!
so to make it work my first space marine biker is holding his gun sideways, and I borrowed some gold foil craft paint from my mom so that I could make sure he had extra bling on his gun barrel, face grill, and ammo.
Voss wrote: Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.
Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!
And one hand to hold up an oldmarine as a shield to account for their fourth wound?
Oldmarine shield, 1 CP stratagem:
-> Just like grot shield (ork codex), but replace "ork" with "primaris", and "grot" with "Oldmarine"
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cultists are also less vulnerable to multi damage weapons.
To wipe out each unit in turn with your standard D1 weapon will take, respectively, 10 and 16 shots.
But, turn D2 or more damage weapons on them? And it drops to 5 for the Intercessors....but remains 16 for Cultists.
Yes, Intercessors are far more resilient. They’re tougher and have vastly superior armour. But the risk remains. 5 Autocannons can wipe out 5 Intercessors, but they can still only ever kill a total of 10 Cultists (two shots each for the Autocannon). So even in worst case scenarios for the Intercessor and Cultists, the Cultists will still be left with 6 models on the table after that batch of shooting.
In turn, when it comes to more exotic builds (say, Nidzilla, Armoured Company etc), Intercessors are just far more vulnerable, because of the plethora of multi damage weapons. A Carnifex with boosted attacks and all the re- rolls in the world will still chew through the Intercessors faster than the Cultists.
And all that time they remain on the board, the Cultists are still capable of achieving something. Sure, they’re pretty unlikely to go smashing up enemy units....but they can scuttle off into cover, ready to make a late game break for an objective, or block the foe from charging a more critical unit.
Their very disposability is a factor in their points value, or at least it should be. Because all the time they’re being a nuisance of some kind, they’re a distraction for the enemy’s finite kill potential in a given turn. Yes, they’ll die to a stiff breeze, but don’t die in any greater number against really nasty stuff.
Should probably add I’m not saying 6 point Cultists are well priced, as we simply cannot know that now until we’ve seen how everything else stacks up. Just trying to illustrate that points are about more than just kill power and armour save.
Question: why would you fire D2 weapons at T3 1W 6+SV targets? When there are far better targets for such weapons? And there are so many high ROF D1 weapons in the game that would be better suited for use against said T3 1W 6+SV targets? Target priority is a thing. The only reason you would fire D2 weapons against cultists is if it's your only option, such as your Nidzilla example.
And all those D1 weapons are less efficient against intercessors. So that would balance things out wouldn't it?
Latro_ wrote: On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.
40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.
For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.
Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?
Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.
Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).
What, no Baby Metal?
No, I think what Gadzilla666 need is some good old chipmunk metal! The best bleach for your hears!
(Yes I chose Evanescence for my example, as they are widely recognized as the best metal band!)
I'll be sure to take your recommendation into account if I'm ever struck deaf. (Which listening to that would possibly cause).
Voss wrote: Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.
Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!
Explains the GSC headed captain. All hail the four-armed emperor!
Ghaz wrote: On the Warhammer Daily show, Stu Black said that Reanimation Protocols for Necrons will be updated "... when their book comes around..."
Hopefully this will end the crying about how all the new units are useless.
Edit: they just talked about a new necron army wide rule to make them more proactive (where as RP is defensive they wanted a rule to encourage interacting with the other army) and will be shaped the dynasty and characters
"Astartes chainsword" is definitely different to other chainswords, bikes give +2 attacks on the charge for average of 6 each
Not sure a fourth wound is actually that great for their balance of durability and mobility relative to actual damage output. Likely to make it harder to not under or overpower them, similar to how in an extreme example, a land raider has a lot of on paper assets it needs to pay for but very little actual impact relative to cost.
"As you can see, the new bike is basically the same as the old bike. We made the rules better so you'll buy it though. Paint it whatever color! We can't wait to see you buy it and replace the thing you already bought that is the same!
Primaris Marines: The Iphone 11 of Warhammer. Now with 3 scopes, and in this metaphor, every weapon option is a headphone jack."
Ain't that the truth.
Also, they'll probably be priced like 4 points higher per model than the non-primaris ones.
2 points per wound - the standard price of a wound in warhammer 40,000
also does mortal wounds on the charge i'd bet
probably twin bolt rifles for extra range and ap
definitely has to have an ironstorm fragblast grelasstub auxiliary launchmaster for d6 S3 ap-5 dd3 shots or some gak.
haha you almost called the mortal wounds on the charge, +2 attacks instead, so you get 6 astartes chainsword attacks per bike
the other guy on the stream was literally laughing at how ridiculous it was as he was being told it, before he realized what he was doing and got it under control
According to the stream, Primaris Bikes get a rule called "Devastating Charge" for +2 Attacks on the charge (not sure if instead or in addition to Shock Assault).
Sunny Side Up wrote: According to the stream, Primaris Bikes get a rule called "Devastating Charge" for +2 Attacks on the charge (not sure if instead or in addition to Shock Assault).
19 attacks for 3 so 2 base, 1 for chainsword, 2 for the bike 1 for shock assault is 6 each with the 1 odd attack for the sarge
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
Points allow us to ensure whole armies are roughly equivalent, not individual units in completely different factions It's never created a fair comparison between individual units.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Sorry so did they give away the rules for Astartes chainswords then and what is the devastating charge rule? I might have missed a few things there.
They said the following things:
- Necron Codex very early into 9th.
- Astartes chainswords are "better" than regular chainswords (no specifics)
- Bikes get "Devastating charge" for +2 Attacks on the charge and in total a bike would have 6 attacks.
The last point most likely breaks down as described above (2 Primaris attacks base, +1 for the "better" chainsword, +1 Shock Assault, +2 Devastating charge), but that is just the assumption.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Sorry so did they give away the rules for Astartes chainswords then and what is the devastating charge rule? I might have missed a few things there.
Astartes chainswords are ap-1. They previewed that a while ago.
No wolves on Fenris wrote:Sorry so did they give away the rules for Astartes chainswords then and what is the devastating charge rule? I might have missed a few things there.
Already covered twice upthread.
Oguhmek wrote:
Ghaz wrote: On the Warhammer Daily show, Stu Black said that Reanimation Protocols for Necrons will be updated "... when their book comes around..."
Mixed weapons for Necron Warrior squads confirmed.
Yes, that sounds great. I'm very happy that they identified that the rule didn't really work. This makes everything much more interesting to me.
It also makes that article from the other day even more useless...
According to their Facebook page, the Faction Focus articles are aimed more for those looking to play an army, not existing players. Necrons and Space Marines are in the same boat as everybody else and will have their updated rules previewed when their codex drops. At this time I don't expect any updated army-wide rules for Necrons or Space Marines in the Indomitus box.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Sorry so did they give away the rules for Astartes chainswords then and what is the devastating charge rule? I might have missed a few things there.
Astartes chainswords are ap-1. They previewed that a while ago.
Sunny Side Up wrote: According to the stream, Primaris Bikes get a rule called "Devastating Charge" for +2 Attacks on the charge (not sure if instead or in addition to Shock Assault).
19 attacks for 3 so 2 base, 1 for chainsword, 2 for the bike 1 for shock assault is 6 each with the 1 odd attack for the sarge
Gotta sell those new bikes that look exactly like the old bikes somehow, and you're not gonna do it by the fact that they look exactly like the old bikes.
Ghaz wrote: On the Warhammer Daily show, Stu Black said that Reanimation Protocols for Necrons will be updated "... when their book comes around..."
Mixed weapons for Necron Warrior squads confirmed.
Yes, that sounds great. I'm very happy that they identified that the rule didn't really work. This makes everything much more interesting to me.
It also makes that article from the other day even more useless...
Yeah, they specifically called out Opponents are able to mitigate RP too much, and gave it an overhaul. They also said you expect to bring more of your models back.
As a Ravenwing player, I'm happy about the new bikes obviously, but don't want all my old ones useless either, so I hope points will be a significant factor. Love my old bikes.
Are we sure that devastating charge doesn't replace shock assault? Kind of like Ragnar's rule which is just a better form of shock assault. That would be more reasonable. 2A, +2 for devastating charge, +1 for chainsword for 5 attacks each (still more than Jain Zar which is so stoopid!). That's still a lot of attacks from one biker. 4W is a bit silly too, but that might make the points pretty steep (think Attack Bike).
You can bet your lunch money you won't have left after buying the new bikes that they will be priced to move. In points, that is. Not in $. In $, they will be priced to empty your wallet.
They want you to replace your old bikes with the new bikes. I wouldn't hold out much hope of the old ones staying competitive, just like tactical marines aren't competitive with intercessors.
Stu said they'd get 6 attacks on the charge, so unless astartes chainswords give +2 attacks then the bike charge attacks seem to be in addition to, rather than replace shock assault.
Those bikers are insane. If they're costed fairly (I know), then I have no problem, but if they're coming in at like 50% on top of the normal bikers, then they're ludicrous.
PiñaColada wrote: Stu said they'd get 6 attacks on the charge, so unless astartes chainswords give +2 attacks then the bike charge attacks seem to be in addition to, rather than replace shock assault.
well, that's just silly isn't it. I mean, that's more than most characters, jeez. I guess they knew that they wouldn't sell with just being a mobile bolt rifle platform and had to give them a boost (turbo in fact) to make people buy them.
I wonder if this is finally going to get people thinking about how ludicrous primaris statlines and stuff are getting. Everybody kind of laughs it off when you point out how they get more attacks than eldar aspect warriors, so, how we feeling about 2 more attacks than a custode bike?
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
Points allow us to ensure whole armies are roughly equivalent, not individual units in completely different factions It's never created a fair comparison between individual units.
You just contradicted yourself entirely when you take a minute to think it through. If I am playing army X and you Y, then the entire rosters are unalike lol.
the_scotsman wrote: I wonder if this is finally going to get people thinking about how ludicrous primaris statlines and stuff are getting. Everybody kind of laughs it off when you point out how they get more attacks than eldar aspect warriors, so, how we feeling about 2 more attacks than a custode bike?
Do Custodes not get shock assault (sorry I rarely play against them)? If they do then it is only 1 less. And then only on a charge.
It still is ridiculous the buffing they are getting though.
ClockworkZion wrote: They could have doubled everything and we'd all be playing 3k just to get most of our toys back.
And?
What does that have to do with anything? The point limit can be 10k, wouldn't matter so long as everything is balanced relatively.
Doubling the points wouldn't balance things, it'd just push us to play even higher points totals without addressing the relative balance between factions.
the_scotsman wrote: I wonder if this is finally going to get people thinking about how ludicrous primaris statlines and stuff are getting. Everybody kind of laughs it off when you point out how they get more attacks than eldar aspect warriors, so, how we feeling about 2 more attacks than a custode bike?
Yep. Primaris bikers have a better statline and combat ability than almost all factions' characters.
They also have more attacks per model than a captain or khan on a bike (equal if the captain has a chainsword, I guess). Sergeant gets 7 attacks on the charge, compared to 5 for a bike captain or khan. Figure that one out.
But you gotta sell those bikes somehow. GW's in the business of making $, not of making sense.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can bet your lunch money you won't have left after buying the new bikes that they will be priced to move. In points, that is. Not in $. In $, they will be priced to empty your wallet.
They want you to replace your old bikes with the new bikes. I wouldn't hold out much hope of the old ones staying competitive, just like tactical marines aren't competitive with intercessors.
I wouldn't be shocked if the new bikes were limited to the "release" box for a fair while, causing ebay scalping to get out of hand for the impatient. Ala Oblits from shadowspear.
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
Points allow us to ensure whole armies are roughly equivalent, not individual units in completely different factions It's never created a fair comparison between individual units.
You just contradicted yourself entirely when you take a minute to think it through. If I am playing army X and you Y, then the entire rosters are unalike lol.
More coffee for sure.
Yes, you do need more coffee.
The point of points is to allow two wildly different armies to meet at a relatively equivilant strength. It allows for some comparison between units that share rules (like Intercessors vs Scouts vs Tacticals) but it's never really worked as a way to compare different units between armies (such as Cultists vs Intercessors) since those units have little to no common baseline in rules, much less wargear or stats.
ClockworkZion wrote: They could have doubled everything and we'd all be playing 3k just to get most of our toys back.
And?
What does that have to do with anything? The point limit can be 10k, wouldn't matter so long as everything is balanced relatively.
Doubling the points wouldn't balance things, it'd just push us to play even higher points totals without addressing the relative balance between factions.
You really need to do a better job following topics. The increase was billed as an attempt to create room for granularity.
the_scotsman wrote: I wonder if this is finally going to get people thinking about how ludicrous primaris statlines and stuff are getting. Everybody kind of laughs it off when you point out how they get more attacks than eldar aspect warriors, so, how we feeling about 2 more attacks than a custode bike?
Do Custodes not get shock assault (sorry I rarely play against them)? If they do then it is only 1 less. And then only on a charge.
It still is ridiculous the buffing they are getting though.
No they don't so these things as they are, are better at CC than a Custode FFS.
These things will have to be in the Custodes Jetbike points range yo be vlose to reasonable. Thats such a massive amount of points for 3 models I can't see GW not underpointing them massively as the current bikers are not even half that points.
ClockworkZion wrote: They could have doubled everything and we'd all be playing 3k just to get most of our toys back.
And?
What does that have to do with anything? The point limit can be 10k, wouldn't matter so long as everything is balanced relatively.
Doubling the points wouldn't balance things, it'd just push us to play even higher points totals without addressing the relative balance between factions.
You really need to do a better job following topics. The increase was billed as an attempt to create room for granularity.
And I pointed out that it'd do little to fix the game since people would up the points level they play to keep their combos going, and since we know that a straight doubling in points wouldn't solve the balance issues it means some units wouldn't quite double, while others would go up even further leading to more complaining about the points increases being done unfairly.
Inventing scenarios that ultimately lead to the same end result doesn't solve anything by the way. You're just inventing reasons to complain that GW did it "wrong" while ignoring that it'd still be where it is now, only with bigger numbers attached to everything.
My bet is vastly underpointed at release, followed by a 10-15 points per model hike in CA 2020, accompanied by a "lol sorry not sorry" message about how they received testing feedback that the bikes were overtuned but decided not to do anything about it.
Doohicky wrote: Do Custodes not get shock assault (sorry I rarely play against them)?
They don't get shock assault, and they don't get bolter discipline either. Those were pushed to marines and marines only, when marines were struggling. And now, marines got so much more on top of it that it's ridiculous.
godswildcard wrote: Why does every new vehicle for the imperium in 40K have to have a ‘bellicose machine spirit’?
Like, why do the bikers have to ‘dominate’ their bikes? Why couldn’t you build a bike without AI?
I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!
The definition of bellicose is "... someone who is bellicose enjoys fighting or arguing...". Would you rather go to war with a machine spirit that's a pacifist?
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
Points allow us to ensure whole armies are roughly equivalent, not individual units in completely different factions It's never created a fair comparison between individual units.
You just contradicted yourself entirely when you take a minute to think it through. If I am playing army X and you Y, then the entire rosters are unalike lol.
More coffee for sure.
Yes, you do need more coffee.
The point of points is to allow two wildly different armies to meet at a relatively equivilant strength. It allows for some comparison between units that share rules (like Intercessors vs Scouts vs Tacticals) but it's never really worked as a way to compare different units between armies (such as Cultists vs Intercessors) since those units have little to no common baseline in rules, much less wargear or stats.
Mate I am not the one called out every other day, who then claims it early and in need of caffeine when it's mid day.
Again, your contradicting yourself between posts.
What your saying also makes no sense. Your claiming internal balance justifies external imbalance which is daft. It might not be your intention but it's what your doing. The goal is to have two armies regardless of faction equivalent, you can't do that without internal balance.
Your argument boils down to saying its OK for one unit to be bad and another too good so long as the end result comes out roughly level to another army. That only works when you can't build unique armies. This is what is contradictory.
Doohicky wrote: Do Custodes not get shock assault (sorry I rarely play against them)?
They don't get shock assault, and they don't get bolter discipline either. Those were pushed to marines and marines only, when marines were struggling. And now, marines got so much more on top of it that it's ridiculous.
I'm fine with them not having either since they could have other stuff baked in instead, but GW really needs to sit down and rethink how the whole Talons faction works because as it stands neither half of it is well executed.
Interestingly the outrider statline is the same than the old school attack bike. So one could reasonably use an outrider model converted to have attack bike weapons to represent an attack bike.
the_scotsman wrote: I wonder if this is finally going to get people thinking about how ludicrous primaris statlines and stuff are getting. Everybody kind of laughs it off when you point out how they get more attacks than eldar aspect warriors, so, how we feeling about 2 more attacks than a custode bike?
Do Custodes not get shock assault (sorry I rarely play against them)? If they do then it is only 1 less. And then only on a charge.
It still is ridiculous the buffing they are getting though.
Custodes bikes only have 4 attacks, and no “shock assault” mechanic. A normal custodian has 3 attacks. Intercessors have 3 as well, because shock assault triggers on charges AND being charged. With doctrines Primaris shoot better and have equivalent melee, right now the only place Custodes are better is toughness and an extra wound (and save, but that’s wargear-based).
I’m not upset that Primaris feel like space marines; but Custodes are fluffwise vastly superior to space marines in offense and defense, something that isn’t reflected on the tabletop and makes the points disparity between them seem unfair.
Is there currently a way for marine bikes to fall back and charge again? Because they double their number of attacks on the charge, so being charged or charging would make a big difference.
"It's very important to keep in mind both what a faction is good at, and what a faction is not good at. After all, it wouldn't be fun if you could move, shoot, fight, and do everything the best! So for necrons, they're highly resilient, but they're a little bit slow - I mean you can build some units with good mobility, but not that many."
"Yes, yes of course stu, that is all very important to creating a game that's fun for everyone involved. So, what's our next topic?"
"Well next we're going to talk about the new space marine bikes!"
Someone somewhere is aware of the irony present in these warhammer daily segments, and I am loving their sense of humor.
I think it's that time of day where you need more coffee
Points allow us to ensure whole armies are roughly equivalent, not individual units in completely different factions It's never created a fair comparison between individual units.
You just contradicted yourself entirely when you take a minute to think it through. If I am playing army X and you Y, then the entire rosters are unalike lol.
More coffee for sure.
Yes, you do need more coffee.
The point of points is to allow two wildly different armies to meet at a relatively equivilant strength. It allows for some comparison between units that share rules (like Intercessors vs Scouts vs Tacticals) but it's never really worked as a way to compare different units between armies (such as Cultists vs Intercessors) since those units have little to no common baseline in rules, much less wargear or stats.
Mate I am not the one called out every other day, who then claims it early and in need of caffeine when it's mid day.
Again, your contradicting yourself between posts.
What your saying also makes no sense. Your claiming internal balance justifies external imbalance which is daft. It might not be your intention but it's what your doing. The goal is to have two armies regardless of faction equivalent, you can't do that without internal balance.
Your argument boils down to saying its OK for one unit to be bad and another too good so long as the end result comes out roughly level to another army. That only works when you can't build unique armies.
you really don't understand how points work.
You're off your rocker and creating positions I'm not taking. I'm saying that points have never made for good 1:1 comparisons between different units in different books. 40k falls apart at low levels because of this, which is why people rarely played below 1k in the past, and 1.5k was held as the point where armies generally started to trade blows on more equal footing.
I'm not saying that anything is okay, I'm saying the comparison is pointless because the game doesn't work at that level. It's never worked at that level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is there currently a way for marine bikes to fall back and charge again? Because they double their number of attacks on the charge, so being charged or charging would make a big difference.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is there currently a way for marine bikes to fall back and charge again? Because they double their number of attacks on the charge, so being charged or charging would make a big difference.
You could just be white scars, and do that all the time.
WS also have the 1cp strat to allow them to move 20" and charge. That's 2" more than the no-man's land in the new board size isn't it?
So guaranteed turn 1 charge with 19 attacks and can be charging every single marine turn. Hmm.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is there currently a way for marine bikes to fall back and charge again? Because they double their number of attacks on the charge, so being charged or charging would make a big difference.
You could just be white scars, and do that all the time.
WS also have the 1cp strat to allow them to move 20" and charge. That's 2" more than the no-man's land in the new board size isn't it?
So guaranteed turn 1 charge with 19 attacks and can be charging every single marine turn. Hmm.
Woah, that's... that's... I'm not very enthusiastic about this. Especially with T5 5W 3+ saves models, meaning even with flamers they won't even fear overwatch...
I'm not off my rocker. You basically wonder off topic constantly and contradict yourself.
It's literally right there in your posts.
I was talking about granularity and you somehow started talking about internal and external balance, and hilariously contradicted yourself.
Points are REQUIRED to have the same value between players armies, regardless of faction. Which means they need to have both internal and external balance.
the_scotsman wrote: "It's very important to keep in mind both what a faction is good at, and what a faction is not good at. After all, it wouldn't be fun if you could move, shoot, fight, and do everything the best! So for necrons, they're highly resilient, but they're a little bit slow - I mean you can build some units with good mobility, but not that many."
"Yes, yes of course stu, that is all very important to creating a game that's fun for everyone involved. So, what's our next topic?"
"Well next we're going to talk about the new space marine bikes!"
Someone somewhere is aware of the irony present in these warhammer daily segments, and I am loving their sense of humor.
Did you notice when they pivoted to Space Marines, they described them as a "jack of all trades," without the "masters of none" bit on the end?
A freudian slip, or a rare bit of accuracy in GW hypespeak? Either way, it made me laugh.
the_scotsman wrote: "It's very important to keep in mind both what a faction is good at, and what a faction is not good at. After all, it wouldn't be fun if you could move, shoot, fight, and do everything the best! So for necrons, they're highly resilient, but they're a little bit slow - I mean you can build some units with good mobility, but not that many."
"Yes, yes of course stu, that is all very important to creating a game that's fun for everyone involved. So, what's our next topic?"
"Well next we're going to talk about the new space marine bikes!"
Someone somewhere is aware of the irony present in these warhammer daily segments, and I am loving their sense of humor.
Did you notice when they pivoted to Space Marines, they described them as a "jack of all trades," without the "masters of none" bit on the end?
A freudian slip, or a rare bit of accuracy in GW hypespeak? Either way, it made me laugh.
If you have been paying attention lately you know full well GW has decided to make them jack of all trades, master of all trades. Thats the issue.
They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Stream said both sides were close to 50 PL.
Remains to be seen if fighting with the box contents actually gives you a reasonably balanced match-up
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Stream said both sides were close to 50 PL.
Remains to be seen if fighting with the box contents actually gives you a reasonably balanced match-up
I'm not familar with how that generally translates to points. What is that, about 1k?
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Stream said both sides were close to 50 PL.
Remains to be seen if fighting with the box contents actually gives you a reasonably balanced match-up
I'm not familar with how that generally translates to points. What is that, about 1k?
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Stream said both sides were close to 50 PL.
Remains to be seen if fighting with the box contents actually gives you a reasonably balanced match-up
I'm not familar with how that generally translates to points. What is that, about 1k?
Yes he said 52 then corrected to 50 then said approximately.
It's not exactly looking great for anyone playing another army in 9th having fun matchups vrs Marines dialing it up to 14 on the power creep 0-10 scale.
So a Warbiker has the same statline except BS 5+ and a 4+ save with 2 wounds. With 2 attacks and 6 18" shots (at BS 5+), an Outrider should be worth more or less the same as two Warbikers. That's 46 points. Maybe add a few points for the better save and better leadership, that would put the Outrider at around 50 points, right?
Now watch GW put them at 40, and raise the cost of the Warbiker to 27 or so (because costs go up in 9th).
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Stream said both sides were close to 50 PL.
Remains to be seen if fighting with the box contents actually gives you a reasonably balanced match-up
I'm not familar with how that generally translates to points. What is that, about 1k?
In 8th, 50 PL is 1000pts, but it looks like 9th will have 50PL = 500pts (based on the game sizes they previewed)
Edit: never mind, they aren’t changing it, I misread the preview
Of course, no one is talking about those bikes going to the Deathwatch....so all those great stats, plus guns that wound on 2+. I recall that the designers said the new models would work with Deathwatch, just not sure how they will fit in currently.
Oguhmek wrote: So a Warbiker has the same statline except BS 5+ and a 4+ save with 2 wounds. With 2 attacks and 6 18" shots (at BS 5+), an Outrider should be worth more or less the same as two Warbikers. That's 46 points. Maybe add a few points for the better save and better leadership, that would put the Outrider at around 50 points, right?
Now watch GW put them at 40, and raise the cost of the Warbiker to 27 or so (because costs go up in 9th).
Comparing Xenos with Marines is futile, lol
Hell, a single Primaris Marine with 2 Attacks in his profile jumps on a bike and throws out 6 attacks on the charge, while 2 Harlequins with 4 attacks each jump on a bike and end up with a total of ..... 3 attacks
Oguhmek wrote: So a Warbiker has the same statline except BS 5+ and a 4+ save with 2 wounds. With 2 attacks and 6 18" shots (at BS 5+), an Outrider should be worth more or less the same as two Warbikers. That's 46 points. Maybe add a few points for the better save and better leadership, that would put the Outrider at around 50 points, right?
Now watch GW put them at 40, and raise the cost of the Warbiker to 27 or so (because costs go up in 9th).
well seeing that a normal oldmarine biker already costs the same as an ork warbiker (balance blablablub )... a nob biker (+1w, +1s and +1attack) costs 10points more than a normal one... i am guessing 40 points for the primebike (+2w and +2a) including the 20% general increase in marinestuff...
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Yeah I heard that primaris armies are getting so much smaller the game designers laughed at people and said their space marine army went down in size by one single squad.
ClockworkZion wrote: They mentioned that armies all have stuff the fall short on, so leaving it as "Jack of All Trades" was more the assumption people would understand how that saying ends.
Primaris armies seem like they're going to be getting a lot smaller to fit in the bikes and other melee units.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Indomitus box was a 1k-1.5k army for each side.
Yeah I heard that primaris armies are getting so much smaller the game designers laughed at people and said their space marine army went down in size by one single squad.
Losing a squad out of an existing army from points changes isn't the same as people needing to remove even more to fit in the new units.
Comparing the bike stats to an intercessor that is 20 points, there is no possible way they should be less than 45 points, and really you're looking at least 50. They shoot more than double as well, melee more than double as well, move more than twice as far, and have twice the wounds with a higher toughness value.
yukishiro1 wrote: Comparing the bike stats to an intercessor that is 20 points, there is no possible way they should be less than 45 points, and really you're looking at least 50. They shoot more than double as well, melee more than double as well, move more than twice as far, and have twice the wounds with a higher toughness value.
So they'll probably be 35 at launch.
I hope not.
Heck they are literally 2 khorneberzerkers tacked together with chainaxes and mobility and durability of 4 of them, that'd be hardly fair if they were just 35 pts.
yukishiro1 wrote: Comparing the bike stats to an intercessor that is 20 points, there is no possible way they should be less than 45 points, and really you're looking at least 50. They shoot more than double as well, melee more than double as well, move more than twice as far, and have twice the wounds with a higher toughness value.
So they'll probably be 35 at launch.
I remember how broken intercessors were at the launch of 8th as well, let's hope these are the same eh?
These should be 50pts. Those 16/17 cultists would be hard pushed to counter two of these.
I imagine my nu40k 8-10 pt Ork Boyz will not fare much better. (This is obviously speculation, before the flames start...) But will likely be somewhere close.
the_scotsman wrote: Great the underpowered Thunderfire Cannon is finally getting the buffs it deserves.
Watch it become out of stock for 4 months again then go to legends when the next book comes around because the mold breaks.
Nah, it'll be updated to a Primaris Thunderfire cannon with double the barrels but triple the shots.
Wow; faction focus space marines #341! Yes! I've been waiting at least three days for the latest intel on all things Astartes. Get with the program GW.
Primaris Indestructifire cannons!! ZOMG!!??@! T8 with 25 wounds !!!
ClockworkZion wrote:And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Oh goody, more ancient Heresy tech for the numarines while the actual ancient warriors from the time of the Heresy are stuck with scavenged hand me downs.
Dudeface wrote:
the_scotsman wrote: Great the underpowered Thunderfire Cannon is finally getting the buffs it deserves.
Watch it become out of stock for 4 months again then go to legends when the next book comes around because the mold breaks.
Then they'll just make a better primaris version in plastic.
ClockworkZion wrote:And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Oh goody, more ancient Heresy tech for the numarines while the actual ancient warriors from the time of the Heresy are stuck with scavenged hand me downs.
I will always say that Chaos needs more Dark Mechanicus madness. Like a Defiler/Rhino hybrid.
ClockworkZion wrote: And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Lol that pistol outranges the Necron Gauss Reaper.
No penetration though. So it's sort of weaker. It has longer range and higher RoF and damage, but I can see it doing poorly against well armored targets. It pretty much needs those MW procs to do something against those.
Oh yes, that just screams Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Iron Warriors. Iron Warriors, who btw, are known to chop off their own limbs and replace them with bionics if they show signs of mutation. For the millionth time, all csm are not chaos worshipping mutants.
ClockworkZion wrote: And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Lol that pistol outranges the Necron Gauss Reaper.
15" pistols
14" rapid fire weapons
WHAT IS GOING ON?!?!?
Yeah, its weird.
I'm going to hazard a guess that Necrons get more teleportation options, so the 14" range is so that you just can't make a unit of 20 warriors with reapers and teleport them in with no risk involved.
ClockworkZion wrote:And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Oh goody, more ancient Heresy tech for the numarines while the actual ancient warriors from the time of the Heresy are stuck with scavenged hand me downs.
Its neo-volkite though, so its not heresy era
Seriously though, Chaos should get some of the heresy stuff from Forge World / Horus Heresy.
If they are stuck with Reaper Autocannons because Assault Cannons were invented after the Heresy, then they should have old-school volkite weapons too.
Oh yes, that just screams Night Lords, Alpha Legion, and Iron Warriors. Iron Warriors, who btw, are known to chop off their own limbs and replace them with bionics if they show signs of mutation. For the millionth time, all csm are not chaos worshipping mutants.
But they all work and trade with the Dark Mechanicus who makes things like Daemon Engines for the long war.
And I still stand by that Alpha Legion follow Tzeentch, even if they don't know it. They're too many layers into their convoluted planning not to be unwitting pawns of a Trickster God
PiñaColada wrote: He has a chainsword in this box but it's quite possible the multipart kit offers a plethora of weapon options.
I am curious to see if the Astartes chainsword will be trading the bonus attack for the rumored better AP.
I mean, it would have to be AP in addition to the extra attack though, right? Because they're supposed to have 6 attacks on the charge. Unless an astartes chainsword is simply +2 attacks and the bike charge rule is instead of shock assault and not in addition to it.
Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
stream highlights:
-Redesigning necron models provided insight into how GW wants necrons to play, both in strengths and weaknesses
-GW want to play up the horror aesthetic with the new necrons
-Reanimation Protocols have been given a big overhaul
-Right now there are a lot of ways to mitigate RP. GW wants to make it so bringing back your units is constant and consistent
-Canoptek Reanimator uses it's nano-scarab beam to break down and reconstruct necron units. For enemies, it's just the break down part.
-New necron codex has a lot of emphasis on being broken down and getting back up again.
-"A relentless, grinding playstyle" with a mid-field shooting emphasis
-Command phase will prompt decisions for in what way necron units should reanimate. The player should be responsible more making the decisions, they are the overlord
-"Dynastic noble" aesthetic will still exist with the triarch units
-While necrons do have fast units, they want necrons to be slow and methodical, with lots of firepower
-"100% more guns"
-Necrons will get other army-wide rules besides Reanimation Protocols
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
So if we assume the bikes are 150 for the three, and the Assault Intercessors will total 200 for the 10, that leaves roughly 650 points for the Chaplain, Captain, Lieutenant, Judiciar and 3 Bladeguard Veterans based on the roughly 1k points cost.
Either wargear is going to run some serious points, or we're looking at some expensive characters if these assumptions are true.
ClockworkZion wrote: So if we assume the bikes are 150 for the three, and the Assault Intercessors will total 200 for the 10, that leaves roughly 650 points for the Chaplain, Captain, Lieutenant, Judiciar and 3 Bladeguard Veterans based on the roughly 1k points cost.
Either wargear is going to run some serious points, or we're looking at some expensive characters if these assumptions are true.
ClockworkZion wrote: So if we assume the bikes are 150 for the three, and the Assault Intercessors will total 200 for the 10, that leaves roughly 650 points for the Chaplain, Captain, Lieutenant, Judiciar and 3 Bladeguard Veterans based on the roughly 1k points cost.
Either wargear is going to run some serious points, or we're looking at some expensive characters if these assumptions are true.
And 3 eradicators
I honestly forgot about them.
So what are we thinking? Roughly 150 for the Bladeguard, 150 for the Eradicators and the other 350 for the characters?
ClockworkZion wrote: So if we assume the bikes are 150 for the three, and the Assault Intercessors will total 200 for the 10, that leaves roughly 650 points for the Chaplain, Captain, Lieutenant, Judiciar and 3 Bladeguard Veterans based on the roughly 1k points cost.
Either wargear is going to run some serious points, or we're looking at some expensive characters if these assumptions are true.
And 3 eradicators
I honestly forgot about them.
So what are we thinking? Roughly 150 for the Bladeguard, 150 for the Eradicators and the other 350 for the characters?
Which is all looking fairly light on points cost vrs the field like the bikes are a 200+ point units compaired to any other armies similar unit's.
ClockworkZion wrote: So if we assume the bikes are 150 for the three, and the Assault Intercessors will total 200 for the 10, that leaves roughly 650 points for the Chaplain, Captain, Lieutenant, Judiciar and 3 Bladeguard Veterans based on the roughly 1k points cost.
Either wargear is going to run some serious points, or we're looking at some expensive characters if these assumptions are true.
And 3 eradicators
I honestly forgot about them.
So what are we thinking? Roughly 150 for the Bladeguard, 150 for the Eradicators and the other 350 for the characters?
Which is all looking fairly light on points cost vrs the field like the bikes are a 200+ point units compaired to any other armies similar unit's.
It could run more with the wargear factored in since points get a little weird compared to PL when wargear is involved.
Well a normal primaris captain is 82 points, a fancy stormshield could easily bump that to the 95 range. A primaris chaplain is 77. Say the Judiciar is roughly the same. A primaris lieutenant is 69, plus whatever that volkite gun is. So like 75?
That'd put the characters at 324, somewhere between there and 350 sounds pretty likely. Maybe 45 points per eradicator, same for the bladeguard and 55 points per bike is another 435. 200 for the 10 intercessors.
Sum total for that is 959 points. If the bikes have a slightly "bloated" PL because their multipart kit comes with some extra options, like thunderhammers, then it sounds pretty plausible to me.
Edit: Actually the lieutenant also has a storm shield and I don't remember how much SM characters pay for those, so chuck another 10 points onto this equation I guess
Sasori wrote: Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
Hrm, not sure how they're gonna do that after they gave Necrons skimmer transports, flyer transports, reintroduced jetbikes with Tomb Blades after redefining Destroyers, amped up Wraiths, shifted most fire support away from Destroyers and onto Vehicle weaponry, etc. Necrons haven't been a faction lacking for speed ever since they got rebooted, and I'm not sure how they're gonna do that now without effectively breaking the utility of these units or overbuffing the infantry. Being cynical, I imagine they'll get a ton of layered on infantry rules the way Space Marines have, but we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
PiñaColada wrote: Well a normal primaris captain is 82 points, a fancy stormshield could easily bump that to the 95 range. A primaris chaplain is 77. Say the Judiciar is roughly the same. A primaris lieutenant is 69, plus whatever that volkite gun is. So like 75?
That'd put the characters at 324, somewhere between there and 350 sounds pretty likely. Maybe 45 points per eradicator, same for the bladeguard and 55 points per bike is another 435. 200 for the 10 intercessors.
Sum total for that is 959 points. If the bikes have a slightly "bloated" PL because their multipart kit comes with some extra options, like thunderhammers, then it sounds pretty plausible to me.
Edit: Actually the lieutenant also has a storm shield and I don't remember how much SM characters pay for those, so chuck another 10 points onto this equation I guess
If those bikers Ever get the option to take anything other than a chainsword they will entirely break the weapons they have acess too as 6 attacks even dropping it to 5 is Charictor levels of attacks give him a Master Crafter thunderhammer and your onto a 50 smash captain with a unit to handle any infantry tarpit even if fallback is gone.
If the extra 2 attacks they get on the charge are added to their attack characteristic, then yeah any special weapon would be completely nuts. But I'm not convinced the bike attacks aren't just another weapon profile that you only get to use if they charged.
If they just get two extra S4 AP-1 D1 attacks per bike if they charged regardless of equipped weapons then it's not nearly as bad.
PiñaColada wrote: If the extra 2 attacks they get on the charge are added to their attack characteristic, then yeah any special weapon would be completely nuts. But I'm not convinced the bike attacks aren't just another weapon profile that you only get to use if they charged.
If they just get two extra S4 AP-1 D1 attacks per bike if they charged regardless of equipped weapons then it's not nearly as bad.
Sasori wrote: Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
Hrm, not sure how they're gonna do that after they gave Necrons skimmer transports, flyer transports, reintroduced jetbikes with Tomb Blades after redefining Destroyers, amped up Wraiths, shifted most fire support away from Destroyers and onto Vehicle weaponry, etc. Necrons haven't been a faction lacking for speed ever since they got rebooted, and I'm not sure how they're gonna do that now without effectively breaking the utility of these units or overbuffing the infantry. Being cynical, I imagine they'll get a ton of layered on infantry rules the way Space Marines have, but we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
That was my thought as well. Ultimately, it ISN'T a slow army, unless they're going to dramatically change some movement stats.
PiñaColada wrote: If the extra 2 attacks they get on the charge are added to their attack characteristic, then yeah any special weapon would be completely nuts. But I'm not convinced the bike attacks aren't just another weapon profile that you only get to use if they charged.
If they just get two extra S4 AP-1 D1 attacks per bike if they charged regardless of equipped weapons then it's not nearly as bad.
That would make a lot more sense.
And find anothe rpossibility to make the game slower
Putting the attacks on the bikes at the same stats as what we assume will be the chainsword stats means they can be fastrolled with the chainswords, but won't stack with other melee weapons.
Sasori wrote: Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
Hrm, not sure how they're gonna do that after they gave Necrons skimmer transports, flyer transports, reintroduced jetbikes with Tomb Blades after redefining Destroyers, amped up Wraiths, shifted most fire support away from Destroyers and onto Vehicle weaponry, etc. Necrons haven't been a faction lacking for speed ever since they got rebooted, and I'm not sure how they're gonna do that now without effectively breaking the utility of these units or overbuffing the infantry. Being cynical, I imagine they'll get a ton of layered on infantry rules the way Space Marines have, but we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
That was my thought as well. Ultimately, it ISN'T a slow army, unless they're going to dramatically change some movement stats.
As a Necron player, I wouldn’t mind nerfs to our speed as a swap to a more cohesive vision! I definitely agree that we have a super abundance of fast moving options. Nearly* everything other than our Troops and HQs moves 8”+.
ClockworkZion wrote: And the only real new rule we get out of the Marine preview:
Lol that pistol outranges the Necron Gauss Reaper.
15" pistols
14" rapid fire weapons
WHAT IS GOING ON?!?!?
Marines. Gw has stopped all pretense of not favouring marines
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
stream highlights:
-Redesigning necron models provided insight into how GW wants necrons to play, both in strengths and weaknesses
-GW want to play up the horror aesthetic with the new necrons
-Reanimation Protocols have been given a big overhaul
-Right now there are a lot of ways to mitigate RP. GW wants to make it so bringing back your units is constant and consistent
-Canoptek Reanimator uses it's nano-scarab beam to break down and reconstruct necron units. For enemies, it's just the break down part.
-New necron codex has a lot of emphasis on being broken down and getting back up again.
-"A relentless, grinding playstyle" with a mid-field shooting emphasis
-Command phase will prompt decisions for in what way necron units should reanimate. The player should be responsible more making the decisions, they are the overlord
-"Dynastic noble" aesthetic will still exist with the triarch units
-While necrons do have fast units, they want necrons to be slow and methodical, with lots of firepower
-"100% more guns"
-Necrons will get other army-wide rules besides Reanimation Protocols
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
If gw thinks there's multiple ways to mitigate rp they haven"t even read necron rules. There's 1. Wipe unit. That makes rp useless.
Volkite Blasters(an option on the Techpriest Dominus) are 24" Heavy 3 with S6 AP0 D1 and "Wound roll of 6+ causes Mortal Wounds in addition to damage" bit...so are we really that up in arms over a fricking pistol?
Kanluwen wrote: Volkite Blasters(an option on the Techpriest Dominus) are 24" Heavy 3 with S6 AP0 D1 and "Wound roll of 6+ causes Mortal Wounds in addition to damage" bit...so are we really that up in arms over a fricking pistol?
I mean, the Marine Version is significantly better against a lot of targets, due to that D2, so...
It's not a massive issue ON ITS OWN, it's just a bad sign given everything else.
Latro_ wrote: But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.
Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that
Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).
FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.
But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.
Latro_ wrote: But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.
Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that
Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).
FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.
But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.
Pretty sure they said kill points were a thing of the past?
Latro_ wrote: But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.
Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that
Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).
FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.
But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.
Being able to allow a unit to use Reanimation Protocols after that unit has been destroyed sounds like it would be a special rule right up the Canoptek Reanimator's alley.
Latro_ wrote: But they have a new codex coming... RP might work if all dead.. heck they might of changed it so it's like fnp.
Could be like fnp 6+ and depending how many chars you have on the board or other conditions etc give a plus to that
Maybe. We'll see. Even if all dead works has it's own issues though. If there's no qualficiations it's basically if you go 2nd you are virtually 100% quaranteed to have all your infantry units standing at the end. So either you are bleeding kill points like no tomorrow(unit dies, you get VP, some come back alive, they are killed again, more vp's) or they kill no vp's basically(because unit i always alive at the end).
FNP would be more feasible but 5+++ is kind of DG material. That makes the 2 armies maybe too close.
But yeah it's possible it changes. That's the big Q for necrons.
Being able to use Reanimation Protocols on a unit that's been destroyed sounds like it would be right up the Canoptek Reanimator's alley.
If gw thinks there's multiple ways to mitigate rp they haven"t even read necron rules. There's 1. Wipe unit. That makes rp useless.
You can also re-spawn block the unit, because returning units can't be placed within 1" of enemy models and must be in unit cohesion with surviving models, so if you surround the survivors they can't come back. There is also morale, units lost to the morale phase can't be returned via RP. Also there is a deathwatch stratagem that gives a -1 to RP. II feel like I'm forgetting one, oh yes, units lost in TWD can't reanimate. So five total ways to stop RP, but wiping the unit is generally easier.
The way they were talking about making Reanimation Protocols constant and consistent — I wouldn't be surprised if they made it so a small number models are guaranteed to be reanimated every turn, maybe in addition to the normal RP rolls.
They could make it vary based on unit size, similar to how they made Blast weapons affect units based on the number of models.
Are there any units in the Necron army right now which modify the RP rolls or amounts brought back?
I could see them giving a few units rules like the Idoneth's "Soulrender", who rolls a D3 to return slain Namarti(up to the value of the roll) to their units with a +1 to the roll for each enemy model slain by the Soulrender's Talunhook. There might be a relic or subfaction benefit adding a flat number to the returned rolls as well as what the roll was.
Kanluwen wrote: Are there any units in the Necron army right now which modify the RP rolls or amounts brought back?
I could see them giving a few units rules like the Idoneth's "Soulrender", who rolls a D3 to return slain Namarti(up to the value of the roll) to their units with a +1 to the roll for each enemy model slain by the Soulrender's Talunhook. There might be a relic or subfaction benefit adding a flat number to the returned rolls as well as what the roll was.
The new Canoptek Reanimator adds +1 to RP rolls, Crypteks and Illuminor Szeras have the Technomancer ability that adds +1 to the roll as well. I don't think there's anything that increases the amount of models brought back though.
There is always the chance that the roll might directly bring models back. We'll have to wait and see though since they won't show us the updated version until they do their codex launch sometimes after 9th drops.
Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"Thanks to the Big Guns Never Tire rule, all of our vehicles will be able to shoot accurately on the move and even in combat."
In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"Another change that Space Marines benefit from is the addition of Blast weapons..."
In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"An important thing to remember is that with the next generation of missions in the new edition, you can select secondary objectives that your army is more suited to achieving."
In other words, "This general rule that every gets also impacts our units!!! WOW!".
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"By using the revamped terrain rules to limit the number of enemy units that can shoot at your army, you can focus on pouring your efforts into achieving the objectives."
What this has to do with Marines specifically is beyond me...
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"This strategy works very effectively with Space Marines, as they can use their speed, flexibility and hitting power to apply maximum force to specific areas of the battlefield."
By using your army you can complete objectives! WOW!
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"When I’m playing Space Marines, I like to take the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too approach as much as possible (who doesn’t, honestly?). What this means on the tabletop is maximizing the amount of damage I can do to my opponent while limiting their ability to do hurt me in return."
OMG... is that how you play 40k? I was running my units around in circles, hiding all my long-ranged stuff behind LOS blocking terrain, and flapping my arms whilst making chicken noises at random passers by.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"I accomplish this by using... reserve units (using the new Strategic Reserves rules or otherwise keeping them protected) and terrain. It’s easier than ever to hide units behind buildings, helping to keep troops safe and ensuring they get great use out of weapons that ignore line of sight. Meanwhile, reserve units offer flexible deployment and the ability to deliver damage right where they’re needed."
In other words, "I do this by using the New Rules™ that everyone can also use! WOW!".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.
It's not like he's allowed to say, "the entire game is set up so that I have the upper hand in every situation without having to make tough choices or sacrifice any part of my army's potential. I bought the Best Book, and that's how I plan to win!"
Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... these faction focus articles are so useless.
It's not like he's allowed to say, "the entire game is set up so that I have the upper hand in every situation without having to make tough choices or sacrifice any part of my army's potential. I bought the Best Book, and that's how I plan to win!"
No but they could relate aspects of the factions they're talking about to the 9th edition changes that have already been revealed. What's in store for the Necrons in the command phase, how do SM flyers particularly benefit from the aircraft rule, how various 'stealth' rules interact with the new cover system, etc.
Instead we get told of a few weapons that obviously get blast, and a new statline for a new gun or unit (which will apply to exactly zero factions going forward, as we know of nothing new past the boxed set stuff).
These are theoretically faction articles for the new edition, and they're mostly talking about stuff people already know from 2019 or even earlier.
Incredibly excited from today’s daily stream. Reanimation Protocols being overhauled to allow players to get models back more vs the issue on being heavily mitigated this edition. Play styles of order of execution conducting war and variety how each dynasty does so.
Hopefully it’ll wash out the bland taste 8th left in my mouth.
On the plus side it's almost time for the cringe worthy attempt to make the Word Bearers trait sound like something worth choosing. Always a highlight.
Wonder if they're changing the Reanimation Protocols to just being "The unit recovers 1D6 wounds in your Command Phase" … the +1 modifiers would still work, just in a different way, and this would fall into their "reliable" concept.
Have some abilities to doublediip, rolling an extra D3 or D6, or some "Once per game, regain 6 wounds instead of rolling" tech or strat.
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank, mate.
The purpose is to "generate interactions." This is 2020 marketing. It doesn't matter whether the interactions are positive or not. It's all about getting people talking on social media. Doesn't mater whether it's positive or negative.
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
Because they're for new players or those considering starting an army that they're unfamiliar with.
Sasori wrote: Here is a more updated transcript for the Necron side of things from Today's stream:
stream highlights:
-Redesigning necron models provided insight into how GW wants necrons to play, both in strengths and weaknesses
-GW want to play up the horror aesthetic with the new necrons
-Reanimation Protocols have been given a big overhaul
-Right now there are a lot of ways to mitigate RP. GW wants to make it so bringing back your units is constant and consistent
-Canoptek Reanimator uses it's nano-scarab beam to break down and reconstruct necron units. For enemies, it's just the break down part.
-New necron codex has a lot of emphasis on being broken down and getting back up again.
-"A relentless, grinding playstyle" with a mid-field shooting emphasis
-Command phase will prompt decisions for in what way necron units should reanimate. The player should be responsible more making the decisions, they are the overlord
-"Dynastic noble" aesthetic will still exist with the triarch units
-While necrons do have fast units, they want necrons to be slow and methodical, with lots of firepower
-"100% more guns"
-Necrons will get other army-wide rules besides Reanimation Protocols
-Necrons main weakness is their speed. They also want necrons to use more infantry than vehicles
Thanks you very much for the summary, quite appreciated!
Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.
They don't need a way to aim, they're Space Marines. The chapter master reroll hit aura bends space and time to put the enemy in the path of every bullet fired by a space marine, automatically.
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
To dripfeed info while generating clicks would be my guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank, mate.
The purpose is to "generate interactions." This is 2020 marketing. It doesn't matter whether the interactions are positive or not. It's all about getting people talking on social media. Doesn't mater whether it's positive or negative.
I stand by this being the reason they're so cagey with real information. If we understand the game we're less invested about the news and the hype will die off. Better to keep the pot boiling so we keep engaged.
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.
What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'
I guess my issue is the same issue I have with GW most of the time: They are always wasting their potential, squandering good ideas and taking one step sideways rather than one step forward (except for their prices, obviously; they're always ready and eager to step forward with those).
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.
What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'
GW's always been like that though, and the guy writing the article is a play tester yes but he's also a tourny goer, so it's not like he's saying anything we don't know already, space marines are an amazing army in 8th and 9th edition gives them some fun new stuff.
do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
People who have not read the previous articles would find them reasonably informative, and people are extremely good at misremembering things which aren't told to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong--I am not a fan of the article either, but I can understand the 'why' of it.
What particularly irks me is how so much of it reads along the lines of 'this is why Space Marines are better than other armies, this is why these particular units are better than your other unit options' which is the exact opposite mentality of what I want to see. There is a subtle but extremely important difference between that and 'this is what Space Marines are particularly good at, these are units that have particularly notable interactions with new rules.'
GW's always been like that though, and the guy writing the article is a play tester yes but he's also a tourny goer, so it's not like he's saying anything we don't know already, space marines are an amazing army in 8th and 9th edition gives them some fun new stuff.
do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
Pretty sure he said what he wanted- that they should talk about notable interactions with the new rules (and I totally agree). The articles are intended as 9th edition previews after all...
Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing day. As in we saw the power creep and bloat.. we noticed the power creep and bloat. Buuuuut then we decided to keep the power creep and the blaot.
I like how pretty much all of the marines/necron previews were highlighting stuff they already have shown us.
This suggest we pretty much seen the main core changes. reverse CP generation, a command phase, and ITC terrain rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: Snark aside it's likely that they can't write about changes in 9th or new rules from Indomitus unless they have explicit permission due to NDAs so updating relative to 8th with one, maybe two, new rules is likwly the best we can expect since GW is insisting on tightly controlling the drip feed right now
Which, once again, begs the question, why even write these articles in the first place?
If they're going to be so unabashedly shallow, containing virtually no new information (and a lot of repeated already-known information), then what's the damn point? We're learning nothing from them, and these play-testers are making themselves look like idiots with their GW-sanctioned vaguebooking.
Maybe they aren’t aimed at Warhammer lifers and pro athletes who demand all the details, but more casual players looking for an excuse to pick up the new shiny.
The article before the lockdown about ursus claws included an important mistake about how they operate in AT. I chuckled, but it wasn’t something to get bent out of shape about.
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th.
With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th.
With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
Yeah, this is mostly how I feel. We all know that 7th was received very poorly, so they needed to move away from it. 8th is far from perfect, but it was much better than 7th. With the foundations of 8 it seems like they've taken things that needed to be fixed and tweaked other things. to make 9th a lot better.
We also have the move to the app and free digital codex with 9th edition books. It feels very similar to the move in AOS to 2.0, which was taking the current ruleset and making some quality of life improvements and tweaks. AoS 2.0 has been well received for the most part
The app is all very good and that and their promises.. again sound very good and that... But battlescribe already does the army building perfectly.
What I think most players don't like is the fact they have to carry 4-5 books to a game and then jump around all the books to find out to check if your guy gets to some minor thing or not so you dont cheat yourself or your opponent. And it seems there is zero inclination to change the experiance. They focused on model count to shorten game but somehow didint realise that half the time we are flicking through 5 different books and faqs to clarify ruyles instead of rolling dice...
I don't see the app changing this. Realisticaly do we think GW will give us all those rules in one place and not have to buy those 4-5 books? And if not that if/when it launches i expect this thing to be ridden with errors and bugs constantly.
Seems a realy nothing burger. Shame.
I hope they see the light and give a pdf version of the codex along with the codex when you buy a hard copy if nothing else.
Argive wrote: The app is all very good and that and their promises.. again sound very good and that... But battlescribe already does the army building perfectly.
What I think most players don't like is the fact they have to carry 4-5 books to a game and then jump around all the books to find out to check if your guy gets to some minor thing or not so you dont cheat yourself or your opponent. And it seems there is zero inclination to change the experiance. They focused on model count to shorten game but somehow didint realise that half the time we are flicking through 5 different books and faqs to clarify ruyles instead of rolling dice...
I don't see the app changing this. Realisticaly do we think GW will give us all those rules in one place and not have to buy those 4-5 books? And if not that if/when it launches i expect this thing to be ridden with errors and bugs constantly.
Seems a realy nothing burger. Shame.
I hope they see the light and give a pdf version of the codex along with the codex when you buy a hard copy if nothing else.
They already said you are getting a free digital codex with the hardcopy for the new books.
Also, Battlescribe is really not that great. It's the only thing in the market right now that works, but it's not amazing. The AOS app currently gives you the full statline and special rules for units, for free. The only thing it doesn't include in that is the Army and Subfaction special rules and the Warscroll battalions. The listbuilder is like 1.00 USD month, and it's very handy and easy to use.
I like those stats. Question is how many points are they?
Wow! As many wounds as a Custodes Jetbike! I wasn't expecting that. Rest seems pretty standard, except for the LD 7.
And with even more attacks too! They are going to be so OP !!! I mean, it seems like these primaris bikers have everything, lots of attacks, lots of shots, durability, high movement ... is there anything they are even bad at? @@
I like those stats. Question is how many points are they?
Wow! As many wounds as a Custodes Jetbike! I wasn't expecting that. Rest seems pretty standard, except for the LD 7.
And with even more attacks too! They are going to be so OP !!! I mean, it seems like these primaris bikers have everything, lots of attacks, lots of shots, durability, high movement ... is there anything they are even bad at? @@
They're quite bad at getting out of range of CM and Lieutenant buffs. Oh, no, they're going to get bikes. I've said too much...
BrianDavion wrote: do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
No, I expected an article to talk about how Space Marines work in 9th, not "There is a new rule that everyone gets, meaning it also works with Space Marines! WOW!" meaningless drivel.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.
Primaris marines never drive their bikes in any direction except directly at the enemy. The weapons are tracers. The primaris marine is the bullet.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Am I missing something, or do the new Primaris Raider-pattern combat bikes have absolutely no way to aim their weapons? They seem fixed to the front armour and locked in position facing forwards, with no noticable way to move them. The previous design had them fixed to the front of the handlebars so it would still have them aiming the same direction the Bike is going, but at least with the previous version that would presumably offer a bit more control to it.
Primaris marines never drive their bikes in any direction except directly at the enemy. The weapons are tracers. The primaris marine is the bullet.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"When I’m playing Space Marines, I like to take the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too approach as much as possible (who doesn’t, honestly?). What this means on the tabletop is maximizing the amount of damage I can do to my opponent while limiting their ability to do hurt me in return." OMG... is that how you play 40k? I was running my units around in circles, hiding all my long-ranged stuff behind LOS blocking terrain, and flapping my arms whilst making chicken noises at random passers by.
I could only get this far before i broke down laughing...
BrianDavion wrote: do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
No, I expected an article to talk about how Space Marines work in 9th, not "There is a new rule that everyone gets, meaning it also works with Space Marines! WOW!" meaningless drivel.
That'd be nice, but it's apparently not in line with their need to string this out for a while with just enough info to keep the pot boiling.
In combination with some of the other chapter tactics those bikes will be horrendous! ( To face I mean)
Extra attacks and +1 to wound in BA forces
Extra damage in WS forces
Extra attacks on 6s to hit with SW
When they said melee was getting better what they meant was 65% of our player base (SM players) will be buying loads of these Uber bikers!
No wolves on Fenris wrote: In combination with some of the other chapter tactics those bikes will be horrendous! ( To face I mean)
Extra attacks and +1 to wound in BA forces
Extra damage in WS forces
Extra attacks on 6s to hit with SW
When they said melee was getting better what they meant was 65% of our player base (SM players) will be buying loads of these Uber bikers!
I know I will!
And here I was enjoying my rerolling charges (BT).
BrianDavion wrote: do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
No, I expected an article to talk about how Space Marines work in 9th, not "There is a new rule that everyone gets, meaning it also works with Space Marines! WOW!" meaningless drivel.
That'd be nice, but it's apparently not in line with their need to string this out for a while with just enough info to keep the pot boiling.
I suspect that much like crons there's extra content/book/codex around the corner they can't divulge too much about.
I'm hoping the other factions will cover the changes in more earnest terms since there's less for them to hide in comparison.
BrianDavion wrote: do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
No, I expected an article to talk about how Space Marines work in 9th, not "There is a new rule that everyone gets, meaning it also works with Space Marines! WOW!" meaningless drivel.
That'd be nice, but it's apparently not in line with their need to string this out for a while with just enough info to keep the pot boiling.
I suspect that much like crons there's extra content/book/codex around the corner they can't divulge too much about.
I'm hoping the other factions will cover the changes in more earnest terms since there's less for them to hide in comparison.
I'm on the same page about these guest articles. NDAs mean all they can really say is whatever is permitted, and it seems they can only speak very generally about anything that even touches 9th.
With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Well , you'd enter the justifyable nerdrage sphere, because such Bikers would be horrendusly unfair.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:"When I’m playing Space Marines, I like to take the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too approach as much as possible (who doesn’t, honestly?). What this means on the tabletop is maximizing the amount of damage I can do to my opponent while limiting their ability to do hurt me in return." OMG... is that how you play 40k? I was running my units around in circles, hiding all my long-ranged stuff behind LOS blocking terrain, and flapping my arms whilst making chicken noises at random passers by.
I could only get this far before i broke down laughing...
SF
Yeah GW isn't particularly subtle about how they favour marines.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: In combination with some of the other chapter tactics those bikes will be horrendous! ( To face I mean)
Extra attacks and +1 to wound in BA forces
Extra damage in WS forces
Extra attacks on 6s to hit with SW
When they said melee was getting better what they meant was 65% of our player base (SM players) will be buying loads of these Uber bikers!
I know I will!
Really?
What exactly do they do better than two oldmarine bikers?
So despite the hype they are only going to be at all relevant if they are significantly cheaper than two oldmarine bikers - because oldmarine bikers have had no real competitive relevance for a while.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Well , you'd enter the justifyable nerdrage sphere, because such Bikers would be horrendusly unfair.
Witness salt turning into gun powder, and then the powder keg that is this forum, previously just a salt mine, blowing up ! A tankbusta's dream !
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Same. GW giving marines broken stuff is hardly as news anymore.
Well guess we can be happy they didn't put them at 30 pts at least...
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
Maybe. We'll see. Mind you the idea of 150 for 3 is more an assumption on how they price them after all, we'll find out if that's the case or not soon enough I'm sure.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
Bikes issues in 8th are less to do with the bike stats and how keyword interact with terrain. When everything in tournaments is a ruin and bikers can't enter magic boxes they don't bring anything to the party. Gw assured us that Terrain will be better and more interactive and FLG magic boxes are gone, so bikers etc are more viable, undercosting the new Primaris version just because no-one took a unit screwed over by terrain rules that are changing is going to result in a broken unit.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
You forgot the ungodly pistols that are technical heresy era tech but he, who cares.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Well , you'd enter the justifyable nerdrage sphere, because such Bikers would be horrendusly unfair.
Witness salt turning into gun powder, and then the powder keg that is this forum, previously just a salt mine, blowing up ! A tankbusta's dream !
before said tankbusta get's a swift primaris astartes chainsword into the face by said bikers and consequently will restart the salt mining.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
I kind of hope they aren't that cheap. They compare really well against Custode bikers at a whopping 90 points a pop! And if my custodies army increases by any significant % of points, it may aswell be legends at that point since they already struggle unless I ether A) Buy tons of Forgeworld. B) Run up, jump on objective and wait out turns. And that strategy died when Doctrines became a thing on 3W T5 and 2+/4++ became NOT durable.
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th. With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
To put it in a less negative perspective - developing software in stages of alpha, beta, release is a pretty dated way of doing things. Even most big gaming companies only pretend to still do things this way because of the marketing effect that "beta phases" have.
In reality, you (should) start with a MVP(minimum viable product). A MVP is a something that already provides enough value and can be released on its own. After you have released your MVP, you keep improving the product and adding features to it. In software this is often delivered through patches, some of them within days of the release.
If your transfer this to 8th, it was a complete re-rewrite of the rule-set becoming completely incompatible with anything before, a new product. The MVP for 8th was the BRB and the indexes - you literally can't play the game with less. This is their version 1.0, consisting of core rules 1.0 and army rules 1.0. When a codex was released, they updated the army rules of that army to 1.1, the following FAQ and errate updates them to 1.2 When a big FAQ was released, they updated the core rules to 1.1 CA then updated both the core rules to 1.2 and all the army rules This cycle repeated three times now, effectively ending us up with core rules 1.7 and codices 1.8 or 1.10 for CSM or marines. Note that I'm ignoring Vigilus and PA for simplicity's sake. With the release of 9th, they will be replacing the core rules with something new, so a version 2.0 for the core rules, which will eventually be incremented by CA and the big FAQs.
What you are perceive as being exploited as beta-tester is just modern way of developing complex systems. Staying in an ivory tower and "finishing" a product has been proven not to work over and over again. What does work is creating a minimum viable product with as little bells and whistles as possible and go from there, generating and collecting feedback as early as possible to incorporate it in your product. If they hadn't released 8th and instead worked 4 years to prefect was is now 9th, it wouldn't have improved the quality of the product one bit, quite the opposite.
The only problem with this approach is that continuous improvement doesn't mix well with printing your system in books.
TL;DR: GW isn't exploiting players as beta testers, they are just continuously improving their system based on feedback as professionals should.
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th.
With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
To put it in a less negative perspective - developing software in stages of alpha, beta, release is a pretty dated way of doing things. Even most big gaming companies only pretend to still do things this way because of the marketing effect that "beta phases" have.
In reality, you (should) start with a MVP(minimum viable product). A MVP is a something that already provides enough value and can be released on its own. After you have released your MVP, you keep improving the product and adding features to it. In software this is often delivered through patches, some of them within days of the release.
If your transfer this to 8th, it was a complete re-rewrite of the rule-set becoming completely incompatible with anything before, a new product.
The MVP for 8th was the BRB and the indexes - you literally can't play the game with less. This is their version 1.0, consisting of core rules 1.0 and army rules 1.0.
When a codex was released, they updated the army rules of that army to 1.1, the following FAQ and errate updates them to 1.2
When a big FAQ was released, they updated the core rules to 1.1
CA then updated both the core rules to 1.2 and all the army rules
This cycle repeated three times now, effectively ending us up with core rules 1.7 and codices 1.8 or 1.10 for CSM or marines. Note that I'm ignoring Vigilus and PA for simplicity's sake.
With the release of 9th, they will be replacing the core rules with something new, so a version 2.0 for the core rules, which will eventually be incremented by CA and the big FAQs.
What you are perceive as being exploited as beta-tester is just modern way of developing complex systems. Staying in an ivory tower and "finishing" a product has been proven not to work over and over again.
What does work is creating a minimum viable product with as little bells and whistles as possible and go from there, generating and collecting feedback as early as possible to incorporate it in your product.
If they hadn't released 8th and instead worked 4 years to prefect was is now 9th, it wouldn't have improved the quality of the product one bit, quite the opposite.
The only problem with this approach is that continuous improvement doesn't mix well with printing your system in books.
TL;DR: GW isn't exploiting players as beta testers, they are just continuously improving their system based on feedback as professionals should.
That this approach just so happens to also be incredibly monetizable is just a coincidence then?
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th.
With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
To put it in a less negative perspective - developing software in stages of alpha, beta, release is a pretty dated way of doing things. Even most big gaming companies only pretend to still do things this way because of the marketing effect that "beta phases" have.
In reality, you (should) start with a MVP(minimum viable product). A MVP is a something that already provides enough value and can be released on its own. After you have released your MVP, you keep improving the product and adding features to it. In software this is often delivered through patches, some of them within days of the release.
If your transfer this to 8th, it was a complete re-rewrite of the rule-set becoming completely incompatible with anything before, a new product.
The MVP for 8th was the BRB and the indexes - you literally can't play the game with less. This is their version 1.0, consisting of core rules 1.0 and army rules 1.0.
When a codex was released, they updated the army rules of that army to 1.1, the following FAQ and errate updates them to 1.2
When a big FAQ was released, they updated the core rules to 1.1
CA then updated both the core rules to 1.2 and all the army rules
This cycle repeated three times now, effectively ending us up with core rules 1.7 and codices 1.8 or 1.10 for CSM or marines. Note that I'm ignoring Vigilus and PA for simplicity's sake.
With the release of 9th, they will be replacing the core rules with something new, so a version 2.0 for the core rules, which will eventually be incremented by CA and the big FAQs.
What you are perceive as being exploited as beta-tester is just modern way of developing complex systems. Staying in an ivory tower and "finishing" a product has been proven not to work over and over again.
What does work is creating a minimum viable product with as little bells and whistles as possible and go from there, generating and collecting feedback as early as possible to incorporate it in your product.
If they hadn't released 8th and instead worked 4 years to prefect was is now 9th, it wouldn't have improved the quality of the product one bit, quite the opposite.
The only problem with this approach is that continuous improvement doesn't mix well with printing your system in books.
TL;DR: GW isn't exploiting players as beta testers, they are just continuously improving their system based on feedback as professionals should.
That this approach just so happens to also be incredibly monetizable is just a coincidence then?
Hey atleast the FAQ's were free if GW was EA they would have been behind a micro transaction paywall of $5 an FAQ.
Because what people love is being sold an unfinished product with half it's "launch features" hidden behibd paywalls and not released for 6 months.
Thud wrote: With the amounts of salt in here already, I wonder what the reaction is going to be when you find out that the primaris bikers are about 40 points each.
Some of us are thinking around 50, but some are claiming they'll be 35, but I suspect that's more the salt talking.
Currently two bikers are 46 points. If you take them with chainswords for a choppy chapter they get the same number of attacks on the charge, more attacks when charged and twice as many bolter shots albeit at AP0 instead of AP-1.
At 8th ed rates they would need to be less than 46 points each to be even barely relevant. If everything goes up by 10% they still need to be less than 50 points to be able to compete with a unit that hardly anyone takes competitively because its just not very good.
You forgot the ungodly pistols that are technical heresy era tech but he, who cares.
You mean the heavy bolt pistols that nobody will ever use unless they are locked in combat because twin bolt rifles will always be better?
Or did you think all the new Primaris get that new pistol the Lt gets?
stratigo wrote: That this approach just so happens to also be incredibly monetizable is just a coincidence then?
Not by coincidence at all, it is a matter of project management. The old approach would generate costs without generating income for six years and the resulting product is very hit-and-miss. We all know GW, the rules aren't going to be better just because they worked longer on them. The new approach aims to start generating value (in the case of 40k: money, customer happiness) as soon as possible and either end up with a successful product or bury the thing before it consumed to much money.
Normally product coming out of second approach cost less money(for the company), as you don't have to invest large amounts of money into a product that might fail. However, we all know GW doesn't transfer those savings to us
Less abstract, the new attempt vastly improves the quality of the game we are playing because things that make people unhappy are corrected faster and not built upon for further development. Which is good for everyone. Keeping the game behind closed doors longer and polishing it inside the ivory tower will not result in a better game, as previous editions have proven.
Argive wrote: Well.. Stop gap Edition 8.5 certainly seems more and more like a stop gap edition 8.5 with each passing say. As in we saw the power creep.. we noticed the power creep. But then we decided to keep the power creep.
I have to admit, I lean more toward 8th feeling like the 'early access' version for 9th.
With indexes being the alpha stage, codexes being the beta stage, and then SM codex v2 being the release candidate stage followed by a lot of crunch time (PA) to drag everything up to the finish line before release, regardless if they're completely ready or not.
To put it in a less negative perspective - developing software in stages of alpha, beta, release is a pretty dated way of doing things. Even most big gaming companies only pretend to still do things this way because of the marketing effect that "beta phases" have.
In reality, you (should) start with a MVP(minimum viable product). A MVP is a something that already provides enough value and can be released on its own. After you have released your MVP, you keep improving the product and adding features to it. In software this is often delivered through patches, some of them within days of the release.
If your transfer this to 8th, it was a complete re-rewrite of the rule-set becoming completely incompatible with anything before, a new product.
The MVP for 8th was the BRB and the indexes - you literally can't play the game with less. This is their version 1.0, consisting of core rules 1.0 and army rules 1.0.
When a codex was released, they updated the army rules of that army to 1.1, the following FAQ and errate updates them to 1.2
When a big FAQ was released, they updated the core rules to 1.1
CA then updated both the core rules to 1.2 and all the army rules
This cycle repeated three times now, effectively ending us up with core rules 1.7 and codices 1.8 or 1.10 for CSM or marines. Note that I'm ignoring Vigilus and PA for simplicity's sake.
With the release of 9th, they will be replacing the core rules with something new, so a version 2.0 for the core rules, which will eventually be incremented by CA and the big FAQs.
What you are perceive as being exploited as beta-tester is just modern way of developing complex systems. Staying in an ivory tower and "finishing" a product has been proven not to work over and over again.
What does work is creating a minimum viable product with as little bells and whistles as possible and go from there, generating and collecting feedback as early as possible to incorporate it in your product.
If they hadn't released 8th and instead worked 4 years to prefect was is now 9th, it wouldn't have improved the quality of the product one bit, quite the opposite.
The only problem with this approach is that continuous improvement doesn't mix well with printing your system in books.
TL;DR: GW isn't exploiting players as beta testers, they are just continuously improving their system based on feedback as professionals should.
That this approach just so happens to also be incredibly monetizable is just a coincidence then?
Hey atleast the FAQ's were free if GW was EA they would have been behind a micro transaction paywall of $5 an FAQ.
Because what people love is being sold an unfinished product with half it's "launch features" hidden behibd paywalls and not released for 6 months.
Even EA produces free patches man.
I mean the joke is, GW is hilariously more expansive and exploitative in pricing than EA is even with all of EA's horrible microtransaction and live service policies. EA whales dump a few hundred bucks on average. GW whales dump a few thousand. A grand's about the buy in for a GW mainline, sixty for EA. People can't be okay with GW and not with EA's pricing and marketing schemes without being all sorts of hypocritical.
stratigo wrote: That this approach just so happens to also be incredibly monetizable is just a coincidence then?
Not by coincidence at all, it is a matter of project management.
The old approach would generate costs without generating income for six years and the resulting product is very hit-and-miss. We all know GW, the rules aren't going to be better just because they worked longer on them.
The new approach aims to start generating value (in the case of 40k: money, customer happiness) as soon as possible and either end up with a successful product or bury the thing before it consumed to much money.
Normally product coming out of second approach cost less money(for the company), as you don't have to invest large amounts of money into a product that might fail. However, we all know GW doesn't transfer those savings to us
Less abstract, the new attempt vastly improves the quality of the game we are playing because things that make people unhappy are corrected faster and not built upon for further development. Which is good for everyone.
Keeping the game behind closed doors longer and polishing it inside the ivory tower will not result in a better game, as previous editions have proven.
I mean... I'm not entirely sure that follows. The old GW process also included extremely limited playtesting. If they playtested as extensively, there'd likely have been way less issues with the old method. They simply refused to invest to properly create a product. Not that it is impossible to make a higher quality more finished product on release.
Honestly I think the profit motive came first and the benefits of the method are incidental to the ability to monetize more aggressively and cut costs of development. A 'good' product is incidental. This method doesn't, in my opinion, produce better products in any appreciable higher quantity ratio than older methods. You can't look at aggressive monetization schemes in gaming and go "yes, NBA2k has certainly benefited from being aggressively monetized as a live service". Some products using this method are good quality, some are bad. It just creates different incentives for how a company measures cost benefits. Sometimes it means the development is responsive. Sometimes it means the product is made to intentionally waste time and force grinding to sell time savers. For the case of GW, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some strong incentive to NOT fix things so that the next cycle has something to be worked on and sold, and that there is a push to buy the new hot overpowered unit this cycle, which will get nerfed next cycle to push a different product. And that's on top of genuine errors and mistakes GW writers make. GW isn't just regularly upping their prices, they are pushing you to buy and trade out books and units at an increased pace too.
The one benefit of the development cycle you describe is one that GW, being a fair sized corporation, doesn't enjoy. It lowers the cost of entry for developers, as seen in a proliferation of small gaming companies, both in miniature gaming and video gaming. But, again, not something that is applicable to GW, since GW isn't small and it has the money to invest development that doesn't require getting a product out now or it goes bankrupt.
Whilst I have been miffed with most on here, especially in regards to play testing discussion, I must admit that the article posted yesterday is an absolutely awful indication of the direction of travel for this edition.
Playtesters being allowed to play in a style that fits their fairly obvious bias (I absolutely bet he was already using(abusing) thunder fire cannons and drop pod devs in 8th edition, and didn't fancy buying/painting new models) is just poor control by GW. What is the point in having absolutely endless information about thunder fire cannons and playing a peek a boo style, it does not address the general landscape, it just skews, again. Then letting the guy write an article, F me... Seriously? Talk about skewing the direction of travel even further.
The hilarious thing is, TF cannons and devs aren't going to be around by next edition you would presume (in their current iteration anyway).
Really poor article, and why they decided to only highlight already used strats in this current edition is beyond me...
Lets hope some of the other play testers were doing their job properly, such as TTT.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst I have been miffed with most on here, especially in regards to play testing discussion, I must admit that the article posted yesterday is an absolutely awful indication of the direction of travel for this edition.
Playtesters being allowed to play in a style that fits their fairly obvious bias (I absolutely bet he was already using(abusing) thunder fire cannons and drop pod devs in 8th edition, and didn't fancy buying/painting new models) is just poor control by GW. What is the point in having absolutely endless information about thunder fire cannons and playing a peek a boo style, it does not address the general landscape, it just skews, again. Then letting the guy write an article, F me... Seriously? Talk about skewing the direction of travel even further.
The hilarious thing is, TF cannons and devs aren't going to be around by next edition you would presume (in their current iteration anyway).
Really poor article, and why they decided to only highlight already used strats in this current edition is beyond me...
Lets hope some of the other play testers were doing their job properly, such as TTT.
If you were a new player wanting to know what will be good in 9th based on what marines have access to currently, that article wasn't too far off the mark. But again they're probably told what to write more or less. I can't see gw letting them gush over how good the new marine supplement/codex is that's 6 months out, or how this generic strat that the GW team haven't previewed yet makes predators amazing or w/e. They'll have been told to stick to the confines of what people already have, mention a specific singular new thing and move on.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst I have been miffed with most on here, especially in regards to play testing discussion, I must admit that the article posted yesterday is an absolutely awful indication of the direction of travel for this edition.
Playtesters being allowed to play in a style that fits their fairly obvious bias (I absolutely bet he was already using(abusing) thunder fire cannons and drop pod devs in 8th edition, and didn't fancy buying/painting new models) is just poor control by GW. What is the point in having absolutely endless information about thunder fire cannons and playing a peek a boo style, it does not address the general landscape, it just skews, again. Then letting the guy write an article, F me... Seriously? Talk about skewing the direction of travel even further.
The hilarious thing is, TF cannons and devs aren't going to be around by next edition you would presume (in their current iteration anyway).
Really poor article, and why they decided to only highlight already used strats in this current edition is beyond me...
Lets hope some of the other play testers were doing their job properly, such as TTT.
If you were a new player wanting to know what will be good in 9th based on what marines have access to currently, that article wasn't too far off the mark. But again they're probably told what to write more or less. I can't see gw letting them gush over how good the new marine supplement/codex is that's 6 months out, or how this generic strat that the GW team haven't previewed yet makes predators amazing or w/e. They'll have been told to stick to the confines of what people already have, mention a specific singular new thing and move on.
The point is, every unit should be 'good', and viable (not game breaking, but worthwhile bringing, yeah some units will be more effective, but the line should be thin). We already know TF cannons and drop pod grav devs are fairly decent units in the current edition, how about finding out how they are making reivers viable? That's because the play tester probably hasn't checked....
stratigo wrote: I mean... I'm not entirely sure that follows. The old GW process also included extremely limited playtesting. If they playtested as extensively, there'd likely have been way less issues with the old method. They simply refused to invest to properly create a product. Not that it is impossible to make a higher quality more finished product on release.
This is a misconception, not limited to 40k or games, but all projects of such complexity. You cannot test everything, there will always be something that you missed. In addition, both the testing process and processes for incorporating tester feedback can have systematic flaws (or worse, no defined processes at all). In addition, testers are pretty likely to become routine- or system-blinded as they become absorbed by a companies' philosophy and organizational structure. The problems of Conway's law also apply to play-testing. In the end, you are creating a product for your customers, only the customer knows what they want. Testers aren't customers, but part of the company.
Honestly I think the profit motive came first and the benefits of the method are incidental to the ability to monetize more aggressively and cut costs of development. A 'good' product is incidental. This method doesn't, in my opinion, produce better products in any appreciable higher quantity ratio than older methods.
I honor your opinion, but the old method has been proven to not work. Blindly developing a complex system for a long time without continuously integrating customer feedback might yield a great product if you get lucky, but most of the time simply fails to do so. Windows 8 is a great example of large project that failed because of the lack of customer involvement.
You can't look at aggressive monetization schemes in gaming and go "yes, NBA2k has certainly benefited from being aggressively monetized as a live service". Some products using this method are good quality, some are bad. It just creates different incentives for how a company measures cost benefits. Sometimes it means the development is responsive. Sometimes it means the product is made to intentionally waste time and force grinding to sell time savers. For the case of GW, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some strong incentive to NOT fix things so that the next cycle has something to be worked on and sold, and that there is a push to buy the new hot overpowered unit this cycle, which will get nerfed next cycle to push a different product. And that's on top of genuine errors and mistakes GW writers make. GW isn't just regularly upping their prices, they are pushing you to buy and trade out books and units at an increased pace too.
Two things: 1) GW already tried the aggressive monetization in 7th approach, selling dozens of single datasheets for 10€ and it clearly didn't work out well. Their current goal clearly seems to be to provide just enough product to keep everyone buying. 2) In the gaming industry, providing an objectively good game with few pain points for your players has proven to be the best way to earn money with your game in long term. Not fixing your game or intentionally breaking it has proven to hurt your sales and eventually will cause your game to die.
The one benefit of the development cycle you describe is one that GW, being a fair sized corporation, doesn't enjoy. It lowers the cost of entry for developers, as seen in a proliferation of small gaming companies, both in miniature gaming and video gaming. But, again, not something that is applicable to GW, since GW isn't small and it has the money to invest development that doesn't require getting a product out now or it goes bankrupt.
That is not how it works. The old models generates unnecessary risks, which will turn into losses. If you polish and test for six years and then release an edition that everyone hates, and then it takes you another six years to release the next one, even GW will be facing financial troubles. Taking small steps and adjusting your direction when you need is superior to blindly steering towards a set goal for years. And I also disagree that GW is too large for such an attempt - companies ten to a hundred time their size use this approach to develop their products.
If you like to continue this discussion, I suggest creating a thread somewhere else and PM me a link. This is nowhere near the topic anymore.
Except he thinks GW is trying to improve it. GW has never cared about improving game. Just changing in sidestep to ensure people buy new stuff to replace old stuff. Hordes sold enough, time to kill off hordes and promote elites and monsters. That's not improving game. If they were improving both playstyles would be valid but GW is throwing light infantry off the rail because market is already saturated with them. Time to go for elites and solo models.
GW isn't interested in game balance. What they are interested is that what's best constantly changes so people buy new models to replace previously good models that are now junk. That sells them.
tneva82 wrote: Except he thinks GW is trying to improve it. GW has never cared about improving game. Just changing in sidestep to ensure people buy new stuff to replace old stuff. Hordes sold enough, time to kill off hordes and promote elites and monsters. That's not improving game. If they were improving both playstyles would be valid but GW is throwing light infantry off the rail because market is already saturated with them. Time to go for elites and solo models.
GW isn't interested in game balance. What they are interested is that what's best constantly changes so people buy new models to replace previously good models that are now junk. That sells them.
Your fundamentally error here is assuming that 'improve' is an objective goal.
Of course they want to improve the game, because a better game means more customers, they just frequently define improve differently than you.
The software thing is an interesting one, the issue with applying the logic to GW is that typically in software, a development results in simply a product bigger than the last, a feature etc and there are patterns in place to manage dependencies and whole books on user experience etc.
For GW they add features but they are tightly coupled to others to use programming lingo, that is to say the change or adding of one thing often changes or has effects on the rest (something in programming you generally want to avoid).
If i add a CSV export feature to my invoice system it does not effect generating invoices and it certainly does not effect system users (unless they need permissions to export csvs, but this is just more adding stuff in)
If GW add in primaris bikers with OP rules it effects the entire marine army as you'd be daft not to take them and therefore all armies that fight against them are effected and therefore the whole product morphs so the user experience changes.
So if 40k were software i'd have unit tests up the wazoo, human testers at all stages of development and still expect my support queue on release to be full within hours. So we are not much beta testers so much as users finding bugs because the system is so tightly coupled it's impossible to do anything new that wont result in unexpected behaviors, however much you test.
Jidmah wrote: Feel free to provide proof for your theories.
there are 2 possibilities, either GW wants it that why, or they don't know what they are doing
problem is, that the game is on update 1.8 while some armies are still waiting for update 1.2
it is one of the only game companies were factions are on a different level of updates for a very long time
either they don't want to stick to a basic game design and don't care to update everything in time to the same level (core rule patch 1.8 breaks 3 factions but this will be solved by itself wit core rule update 2.1 in 2 years so no need to take care about it)
or they just change things for the sake of change and don't know their own game
Latro_ wrote: The software thing is an interesting one, the issue with applying the logic to GW is that typically in software, a development results in simply a product bigger than the last, a feature etc and there are patterns in place to manage dependencies and whole books on user experience etc.
For GW they add features but they are tightly coupled to others to use programming lingo, that is to say the change or adding of one thing often changes or has effects on the rest (something in programming you generally want to avoid).
If i add a CSV export feature to my invoice system it does not effect generating invoices and it certainly does not effect system users (unless they need permissions to export csvs, but this is just more adding stuff in)
If GW add in primaris bikers with OP rules it effects the entire marine army as you'd be daft not to take them and therefore all armies that fight against them are effected and therefore the whole product morphs so the user experience changes.
So if 40k were software i'd have unit tests up the wazoo, human testers at all stages of development and still expect my support queue on release to be full within hours.
You clearly haven't ever worked in a sufficiently complex software system. At my previous employer, I can assure you could take the whole company out of business for a day by doing as much as touching the CSV export The whole balance thing very much works like developing a UI. For example, if you would build a new version of dakkadakka and you let the Gallery button cross the rubicron primaris to increase its size by 2, it would most likely mess up most of the design.
Note that this also proves my point that "finishing" the game without constantly integrating feedback is all but impossible.
If anything, creating rules for a game is a lot less complex than creating software, but they clearly lack the tooling support that is taken as granted when developing software.
Jidmah wrote: Feel free to provide proof for your theories.
there are 2 possibilities, either GW wants it that why, or they don't know what they are doing
I'm fairly sure it is the later. The entire disaster surrounding the first big FAQ and tau commanders/hive tyrants clearly demonstrated the disconnect between GW and their customers.
However, it is quite likely that they use sales as one metric to determine which units are doing well and which aren't since terrible units tend to sell bad unless they have an exceptionally great model. It doesn't take a genius to find out whether the squigbuggy or the scrapjet sold more.
problem is, that the game is on update 1.8 while some armies are still waiting for update 1.2
it is one of the only game companies were factions are on a different level of updates for a very long time
either they don't want to stick to a basic game design and don't care to update everything in time to the same level (core rule patch 1.8 breaks 3 factions but this will be solved by itself wit core rule update 2.1 in 2 years so no need to take care about it)
This is not game design. This is basic system design as part of any sufficiently large project with the ability iterate. Everything I wrote applies as much to games as it does to software, management projects, machinery construction , building a mall or subdivision or going to space. They don't blow up these rockets every other month because more testing would have solved their problems.
From a technical point of view, there is nothing wrong with updating modules at different speeds, as long as you make sure they still work well with each other.
So if 40k were software i'd have unit tests up the wazoo, human testers at all stages of development and still expect my support queue on release to be full within hours. So we are not much beta testers so much as users finding bugs because the system is so tightly coupled it's impossible to do anything new that wont result in unexpected behaviors, however much you test.
Excellent annalogy. As a Dev myself I had alway thought the same thing.
There are so many moving parts that until it gets to the wider community it's physically impossible to test everything. There just isn't the man hours.
If I am running a test suite on my code I can have it run through thousands of permutations in seconds and I will almost certainly still have bugs.
40k can only really test through actual games played and it just can't cover anything more than the tip of the iceberg,
Would be an interesting project to try and write some sort of AI that could play millions of games of 40k and work out all permutations though. How cool would that be for trying to create a balance?
The point was about the actual result of development tending to be 'adding' not 'changing'. The business would not fall over if you released a new PDF export on top of the CSV where there was not one before e.g. a new button. You obviously from a back-end have been good and have business logic and design patterns in place so the PDF is a few lines of code different from the CSV and they share 99% of their code so you'd never 'touch the csv code'. If the adding of the button did have massive business issues then yes i guess complexity is interwoven here with scale of use but thats not my point.
With GW 'adding' and 'changing' to 40k are more often not mutually exclusive factors. If i add anything to 40k its ripples in some way effect the entire system as although you might not experience issues the whole thing is evaluated and developed as a whole.
I'm on board with your point, they should do small and often releases. In fact i think codex books are too monolithic a release for 40k for the entropy that is introduced as soon as they change anything.
I dont see how game rules are less complex than software, i think they are different skills. Game dev is the acceptance of some entropy whereas software is the outright revulsion of it. GW are in the position where they are releasing a pdf export, a xml export, a json export etc etc and all these pieces of code are coupled to each other so if you change one it effects the other.
Argive wrote: This suggest we pretty much seen the main core changes. reverse CP generation, a command phase, and ITC terrain rules.
And being able to fire in close combat for vehicles and monsters, and new blast weapon mechanic, and no more -1 to shooting for moving with heavy weapon on not-infantry, and point change across the board, and new missions.
And the flyer new stuff, I don't care much about it I have no flyers.
BrianDavion wrote: do you expect a marketing article to lead with "marines actually kind of suck now that X has been nerfed"?
No, I expected an article to talk about how Space Marines work in 9th, not "There is a new rule that everyone gets, meaning it also works with Space Marines! WOW!" meaningless drivel.
If the marines have not received new rules, then everything new about marines is how the rules that everyone get affects them. I don't understand what you want to read from those.
I am betting that when the faction focus for Sisters will come, they will tell us about how blast rules make the exorcist anti-infantry version even better, how exorcists are more mobile now that the -1 to hit is gone, and stuff like this. It's going to be all about the rules we already know about, that affect everyone, because there are no other new rules, so they don't have anything else to talk about. With the occasional new info being only about which weapons are confirmed to be blast, or giving away one new point value.
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
Latro_ wrote: The point was about the actual result of development tending to be 'adding' not 'changing'. The business would not fall over if you released a new PDF export on top of the CSV where there was not one before e.g. a new button.
My point was that I have worked for an actual company with a profit of about three millions a year which would have to shut down all its operations for an entire day should you touch their export module because it is just that fragile, badly designed, undocumented and no automated tests - much like GW's balance model Now guess why they are my former employer
With GW 'adding' and 'changing' to 40k are more often not mutually exclusive factors. If i add anything to 40k its ripples in some way effect the entire system as although you might not experience issues the whole thing is evaluated and developed as a whole.
I'm on board with your point, they should do small and often releases. In fact i think codex books are too monolithic a release for 40k for the entropy that is introduced as soon as they change anything.
Agree, but a lot of these problem stem from them needing to print changes in books instead of just pushing new stuff once a week/month.
I dont see how game rules are less complex than software, i think they are different skills. Game dev is the acceptance of some entropy whereas software is the outright revulsion of it. GW are in the position where they are releasing a pdf export, a xml export, a json export etc etc and all these pieces of code are coupled to each other so if you change one it effects the other.
It's math really. You can easily program the 40k rulesset as a piece of software of the same complexity (if you can't, you have a broken ruleset), but you would have to add extra code to cover all the things which are not explicitly called out by the rules.
Therefore game rules would always less complex than software doing the same thing.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst I have been miffed with most on here, especially in regards to play testing discussion, I must admit that the article posted yesterday is an absolutely awful indication of the direction of travel for this edition.
Playtesters being allowed to play in a style that fits their fairly obvious bias (I absolutely bet he was already using(abusing) thunder fire cannons and drop pod devs in 8th edition, and didn't fancy buying/painting new models) is just poor control by GW. What is the point in having absolutely endless information about thunder fire cannons and playing a peek a boo style, it does not address the general landscape, it just skews, again. Then letting the guy write an article, F me... Seriously? Talk about skewing the direction of travel even further.
The hilarious thing is, TF cannons and devs aren't going to be around by next edition you would presume (in their current iteration anyway).
Really poor article, and why they decided to only highlight already used strats in this current edition is beyond me...
Lets hope some of the other play testers were doing their job properly, such as TTT.
I actually know tony and I can tell you... no he's not telling GW things so that 'his' army is the better one. He doesn't GAF about what army he is playing with really, he'll cycle to what he thinks is the best one anyways (And he's good enough that he is one of the dudes who sets what everyone else thinks is good in the future). And, indeed, I think his heart is in Space Wolves as an actual collector.
Jidmah wrote: Feel free to provide proof for your theories.
GW has, in fact, dictated certain units get a boost in the past, according to former rules writers. I guarantee no current rules writers is gonna tell anyone if the current GW execs do the same because, you know, they'd like to keep their jobs. But, gak, constant cycling what is the top of the power curve is dead basic development for products like 40k. I mean, do you follow the 40k meta at all? Either the designers are stunningly incompetant (and they aren't), or they have built in a certain level of churn into the system. For these 4 months castellans the hot gak. Okay, now let's nerf em. Eldar flyars are the hottest gak. Okay now for space marines. Centurions are the hottest gak. Okay, nerf em. Some of that is, sure, mistakes not noticing interactions that they patch. But not all of it is. Especially if you note, as several have in this thread, how hard they can nerf units now. The Castellan isn't just no longer the best unit to build an army around, it is straight out trash and even knights players are better with smaller versions of knights now.
This happens in CCGs (and thier online versions) and MOBAs all the time, and it's a well known process.
stratigo wrote: I mean... I'm not entirely sure that follows. The old GW process also included extremely limited playtesting. If they playtested as extensively, there'd likely have been way less issues with the old method. They simply refused to invest to properly create a product. Not that it is impossible to make a higher quality more finished product on release.
This is a misconception, not limited to 40k or games, but all projects of such complexity. You cannot test everything, there will always be something that you missed. In addition, both the testing process and processes for incorporating tester feedback can have systematic flaws (or worse, no defined processes at all). In addition, testers are pretty likely to become routine- or system-blinded as they become absorbed by a companies' philosophy and organizational structure. The problems of Conway's law also apply to play-testing.
In the end, you are creating a product for your customers, only the customer knows what they want. Testers aren't customers, but part of the company.
Honestly I think the profit motive came first and the benefits of the method are incidental to the ability to monetize more aggressively and cut costs of development. A 'good' product is incidental. This method doesn't, in my opinion, produce better products in any appreciable higher quantity ratio than older methods.
I honor your opinion, but the old method has been proven to not work. Blindly developing a complex system for a long time without continuously integrating customer feedback might yield a great product if you get lucky, but most of the time simply fails to do so.
Windows 8 is a great example of large project that failed because of the lack of customer involvement.
You can't look at aggressive monetization schemes in gaming and go "yes, NBA2k has certainly benefited from being aggressively monetized as a live service". Some products using this method are good quality, some are bad. It just creates different incentives for how a company measures cost benefits. Sometimes it means the development is responsive. Sometimes it means the product is made to intentionally waste time and force grinding to sell time savers. For the case of GW, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some strong incentive to NOT fix things so that the next cycle has something to be worked on and sold, and that there is a push to buy the new hot overpowered unit this cycle, which will get nerfed next cycle to push a different product. And that's on top of genuine errors and mistakes GW writers make. GW isn't just regularly upping their prices, they are pushing you to buy and trade out books and units at an increased pace too.
Two things:
1) GW already tried the aggressive monetization in 7th approach, selling dozens of single datasheets for 10€ and it clearly didn't work out well. Their current goal clearly seems to be to provide just enough product to keep everyone buying.
2) In the gaming industry, providing an objectively good game with few pain points for your players has proven to be the best way to earn money with your game in long term. Not fixing your game or intentionally breaking it has proven to hurt your sales and eventually will cause your game to die.
The one benefit of the development cycle you describe is one that GW, being a fair sized corporation, doesn't enjoy. It lowers the cost of entry for developers, as seen in a proliferation of small gaming companies, both in miniature gaming and video gaming. But, again, not something that is applicable to GW, since GW isn't small and it has the money to invest development that doesn't require getting a product out now or it goes bankrupt.
That is not how it works. The old models generates unnecessary risks, which will turn into losses. If you polish and test for six years and then release an edition that everyone hates, and then it takes you another six years to release the next one, even GW will be facing financial troubles.
Taking small steps and adjusting your direction when you need is superior to blindly steering towards a set goal for years.
And I also disagree that GW is too large for such an attempt - companies ten to a hundred time their size use this approach to develop their products.
If you like to continue this discussion, I suggest creating a thread somewhere else and PM me a link. This is nowhere near the topic anymore.
I mean, taking just GW into account, is 8th so much better than, say, 4th? Iunno. I can't even say. I remember 4th being quite fun, but it's hard to tell over the years
But is, say, an aggressively monetized minimum viable product in games better than the older style of internal iterations until a finished product is produced? Eh? Both are actually still regularly produced, and indeed quite successful. Doom Eternal did not release as the "minimum viable product". But paradox games sort of do (and I adore paradox games) with endless editions and development.
Both are entirely valid ways to develop. But if your minimum viable product is just a tool for aggressive monetization over any other concerns, that is going to produce a gak product. And I worry how much GW's development is driven for the most profit verse what is actually the healthiest for the game. Necromunda's minimum viable product was absolute gak and GW tried to fleece people for roughly a year with drip fed barely tested nonsense before they actually created what I would actually consider their minimum viable product. Actually worth the price of buying in to play.
Latro_ wrote: The software thing is an interesting one, the issue with applying the logic to GW is that typically in software, a development results in simply a product bigger than the last, a feature etc and there are patterns in place to manage dependencies and whole books on user experience etc.
For GW they add features but they are tightly coupled to others to use programming lingo, that is to say the change or adding of one thing often changes or has effects on the rest (something in programming you generally want to avoid).
If i add a CSV export feature to my invoice system it does not effect generating invoices and it certainly does not effect system users (unless they need permissions to export csvs, but this is just more adding stuff in)
If GW add in primaris bikers with OP rules it effects the entire marine army as you'd be daft not to take them and therefore all armies that fight against them are effected and therefore the whole product morphs so the user experience changes.
So if 40k were software i'd have unit tests up the wazoo, human testers at all stages of development and still expect my support queue on release to be full within hours.
You clearly haven't ever worked in a sufficiently complex software system. At my previous employer, I can assure you could take the whole company out of business for a day by doing as much as touching the CSV export The whole balance thing very much works like developing a UI. For example, if you would build a new version of dakkadakka and you let the Gallery button cross the rubicron primaris to increase its size by 2, it would most likely mess up most of the design.
Note that this also proves my point that "finishing" the game without constantly integrating feedback is all but impossible.
If anything, creating rules for a game is a lot less complex than creating software, but they clearly lack the tooling support that is taken as granted when developing software.
Jidmah wrote: Feel free to provide proof for your theories.
there are 2 possibilities, either GW wants it that why, or they don't know what they are doing
I'm fairly sure it is the later. The entire disaster surrounding the first big FAQ and tau commanders/hive tyrants clearly demonstrated the disconnect between GW and their customers.
However, it is quite likely that they use sales as one metric to determine which units are doing well and which aren't since terrible units tend to sell bad unless they have an exceptionally great model. It doesn't take a genius to find out whether the squigbuggy or the scrapjet sold more.
problem is, that the game is on update 1.8 while some armies are still waiting for update 1.2
it is one of the only game companies were factions are on a different level of updates for a very long time
either they don't want to stick to a basic game design and don't care to update everything in time to the same level (core rule patch 1.8 breaks 3 factions but this will be solved by itself wit core rule update 2.1 in 2 years so no need to take care about it)
This is not game design. This is basic system design as part of any sufficiently large project with the ability iterate. Everything I wrote applies as much to games as it does to software, management projects, machinery construction , building a mall or subdivision or going to space. They don't blow up these rockets every other month because more testing would have solved their problems.
From a technical point of view, there is nothing wrong with updating modules at different speeds, as long as you make sure they still work well with each other.
It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.
Nor is GW a company making 3 million a year profit.... it's VASTLY larger. Things that work or don't in small business don't necessarily scale to mid tier business.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.
No, of course not. The Devs almost certainly work on units as a part of a larger picture, and then GW decides when and how to release the codexes in what order.
I'm sure the devs get some say - i.e. "hey, if you have no major model release coming up, Faction X could really use those improvements we queued up for them" or "Hey, since GK are in a really tough spot can we release their Tides of the Warp thing prior to the codex 2.0 just to give them a bump?" but there are CERTAINLY tons of much needed fixes that get crowbarred into the codex churn schedule purely to keep creating have/have not situations, and that's done by corporate, not design.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.
I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.
I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.
James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.
stratigo wrote: It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.
Game rules are by definition code that is written in a way to be human readable. All of Warhammer 40k's rules can be written as code in any programming language, and therefore all concepts that are true for code also apply to the Warhammer 40k ruleset.
This has nothing to do with human nature, but solely with your inability to recognize an abstract concept.
You also failed to notice that the concepts I described are do in fact stem from a project management and not from a background of software development.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imateria wrote: James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.
A person no longer working at GW talking about another person no longer working at GW still seems to be sufficient to fuel the tin-hats despite us having dozens of counter-examples of units which fell flat on their faces when they were released.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Oh GW does know. It's not accident marines are getting so buffed.
addnid wrote: I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.
Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.
Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units
oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...
I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.
Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995
Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.
I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.
James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.
Also, because this keeps being brought up as some kind of proof of the evils of GW marketing, it's worth mentioning this is the only confirmed instance we have of this (as well as the fact that, as you mention, the people responsible for this sort of meddling no longer work for the company). I don't think it's anywhere near as widespread as people think, mainly because I think the GW designers are generally so far removed from the sort of hardcore competitive, razor-edged balance style of play that is often discussed on forums that they aren't designing for that sort of balance in the first place. Personally I think they should because it ultimately benefits everyone if the game is better balanced but I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.
Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.
Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.
You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!
Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s
Tyran wrote: Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s
They are Xenos, so the opposite is true. They make them bad to not prevent sales of Marines.
addnid wrote:Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...
We don't know the new cost of the Custodes bikes, so that's hardly a good place to start for reasonable points value. Fortunately, we do know that Intercessors are 20 points.
Look at the bike stat block along with the wargear of Twin Bolt Rifle, Heavy Bolt Pistol, Astartes Chainsword and presumedly Frag and Krak Grenades. Assuming they also have Angels of Death along with there charge ability of +2 attacks on the charge and we have a unit that has:
The shooting power of 2 intercessors
The wounds of 2 Intercessors
The charge attacks of two intercessors, but otherwise the combat ability of 1 Intercessor
Upgraded to Heavy Bolt Pistol and an Astartes Chainsword
+8 Move and +1 Toughness
This model should not cost a point less than 50, two intercessors plus more for all the upgrades. It should probably be more. Unfortunately, we don't know if GW has finally realized that mobility should cost more points than they have assigned in the past.
Tyran wrote: Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s
Yeah, the Grand GWspiracy where every new thing is purposefully OP to sell models is obviously silly, new things come out all the time that are extremely weak.
But GW does have a habit of....creatively designing the rules of units that are entirely redundant, and otherwise would be totally pointless, to get people to buy the new thing.
When they release a new unit, generally that new unit is somewhere in the middle of the power curve. Occasionally you get something brand new that's super crazy, but generally you see a fairly normal spread. Look at all the new admech stuff
flyers; Seemingly pretty middle of the road
new floating HQ guy: Bad
Pistol cavalry: Average to bad
Sniper cavalry: Average to good
Dakka winged dudes: Average to bad
Flamer winged dudes: Good
Floating transport: Average
Floating gunship: OP
There's a fairly normal spread in there, with one or two things falling in the top percentage where you'll see them in tourney lists, most things having at least SOME reason to consider them, and the one character just being kind of a dud. Because people have a built-in reason to want to buy some cool new thing that's totally unique.
People need to be given a reason to replace their marine bikers with new ones that look exactly the same, or their CSM havocs, or their necron warriors, which is where the "oh look we made this new unit super duper strong and have a million attacks for...reasons...its because they're on a bike...no not like everyone else's bikes that don't give 2 bonus attacks, these are...different ones..." or the classic "hey look, it's a new fancy weapon that's just better than all the other weapons, and you'll need to get the new box to get it" tricks come in.
I'd bet the spacemario kart is actually pretty tame ruleswise.
Tyran wrote: Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s
They are Xenos, so the opposite is true. They make them bad to not prevent sales of Marines.
That's not how sales works, that's not how anything works. Economics being a zero sum game was an outdated ideology a century ago.
And Marines were a crap faction until very recently. In fact the only faction that has been consistently top tier has been Eldar.
Tyran wrote: Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s
It also explains why Primaris were inferior in every way to Squatty Marines for 80% of 8th edition.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
That's always been an issue. It also doesn't help that for a long time they didn't always listen to thw playtesters (when they bothered to have some).
The team has gotten better, but they are far from perfect for sure. Claims of them intentionally breaking game balance for sales is silly though. It's more they go "this would be a cool rule" amd then they refuse to murder their darlings when playtested feedback is negativw leading to stuff like the initial Iron Hands release.
That or somone made the bad choice of sending the books off to print while it was still being tested meaning the playtest feedback becomes day one patches at best.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.
Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.
You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!
You mean... you auto lose unless you pick 1 specific weapon?!
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.
The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.
Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.
You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!
You mean... you auto lose unless you pick 1 specific weapon?!
It's a handicap to go Terminators, but it's even moreso one if you pick a wrong weapon to upgrade them with.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Yes, you can do that if you feel that the product is not worth the price. It is called 'not playing the game,' instead of advocating piratism like you have done in the past.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
stratigo wrote: It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.
Game rules are by definition code that is written in a way to be human readable. All of Warhammer 40k's rules can be written as code in any programming language, and therefore all concepts that are true for code also apply to the Warhammer 40k ruleset.
That's a very flawed comparison. Computer code is specifically compiled or interpreted for a fairly strict & narrow platform. Aside from hardware errors or data corruption, the same code will be interpreted the same way on any platform it's intended for. The same isn't true of human readable rules, which can easily be misunderstood thanks to the huge range of factors in the target audience. The whole profession of law exists to write language in ways that avoid ambiguity, but there's a reason people don't communicate like that in everyday life. We're not robots.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Lenton's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by naivety
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Bingo! It's also more likely that they simply don't design the game with the same factors in mind as the majority of players who frequent forums. It should be pretty obvious their design goals are not for excellent balance. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be aiming for it with each release but it shouldn't come as a surprise to people when they miss. I just wish people would stop pushing this utterly false idea that GW overpower new releases in order to sell them as that implies a level of both competence and similarly aligned design goals it should be patently obvious they simply don't have.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Patches are free. They're called FAQs..
TIL Chapter Approved is free.
Hard to say for certain, they're more like DLC since you're paying for missions and narrative content as well.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Patches are free. They're called FAQs..
TIL Chapter Approved is free.
Chapter Approved hasn't been where they've been releasing rules fixes, just points adjustments and even that was something you could find without buying.
I get that we want to throw dirty water and GW and make all sorts of accusations, but stuff like supplements are more akin to DLC than patches. Conflating the two in order to blame for trying to make money as a company is silly.
Matrindur wrote: "Ready, aim, prepare to find out about the changes to Overwatch in #New40K.!"
This might be one of the more important 40k Daily shows. Their approach to Overwatch will likely tell us quite a bit about where they envisage close combat sitting in the wider scheme of things. I just hope we get some decent detail.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Patches are free. They're called FAQs..
TIL Chapter Approved is free.
Chapter Approved hasn't been where they've been releasing rules fixes, just points adjustments and even that was something you could find without buying.
I get that we want to throw dirty water and GW and make all sorts of accusations, but stuff like supplements are more akin to DLC than patches. Conflating the two in order to blame for trying to make money as a company is silly.
Point adjustments and fixing what are usually terrible missions is NOT DLC, that's a patch.
EDIT: Please do not advocate piracy on Dakka Dakka
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Patches are free. They're called FAQs..
TIL Chapter Approved is free.
Chapter Approved hasn't been where they've been releasing rules fixes, just points adjustments and even that was something you could find without buying.
I get that we want to throw dirty water and GW and make all sorts of accusations, but stuff like supplements are more akin to DLC than patches. Conflating the two in order to blame for trying to make money as a company is silly.
Point adjustments and fixing what are usually terrible missions is NOT DLC, that's a patch.
Alternate missions are DLC. The CA missions didn't replace old missions, but were new side content. As were the character and vehicle design rules for narrafivs.
The only thing that could be argued were points changes, but honestly how many people buy CA for those since they're online with a day of the release?
All this is pointless though quibbling in the end though that ignores on basic fact: GW can't release anything in print for free. Putting it online forces people to print it, and they get complaints about that for FAQs, so it's a lose-lose they face when trying to rebalance the game.
Darsath wrote: I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.
Hanlon's Razor strikes again!
I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.
Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.
Patches are free. They're called FAQs..
TIL Chapter Approved is free.
Chapter Approved hasn't been where they've been releasing rules fixes, just points adjustments and even that was something you could find without buying.
I get that we want to throw dirty water and GW and make all sorts of accusations, but stuff like supplements are more akin to DLC than patches. Conflating the two in order to blame for trying to make money as a company is silly.
Point adjustments and fixing what are usually terrible missions is NOT DLC, that's a patch.
Alternate missions are DLC. The CA missions didn't replace old missions, but were new side content. As were the character and vehicle design rules for narrafivs.
The only thing that could be argued were points changea, but honestly how many people buy CA for those since they're online with a day of the release?
You mean the missions that effectively replace the old ones because they're better designed compared to the first iteration that shouldn't have been released in the first place, which is effectively why ITC has been so successful as a Mission set?
It being against the forum rules would be one good reason.
With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.
If you think it is crap, you don't need to steal it either. Just don't play the game instead of continuing to play it while hating it and trying to portray your piratism as some sort of moral cause. That is just sad and dysfunctional.
But at the same time, the real issue with melee is Falling Back. Neither that strat nor making Overwatch a strat changes the fact that a unit can waltz casually away from combat and have the HTH unit blasted off the table in its wake.
But at the same time, the real issue with melee is Falling Back. Neither that strat nor making Overwatch a strat changes the fact that a unit can waltz casually away from combat and have the HTH unit blasted off the table in its wake.
Maybe at the beginning of 8th but right now theres a ton of subfactions and units that makes charging them nearly impossible unless you ignore overwatch or catch them with a consolidation or crossing ruins.
But at the same time, the real issue with melee is Falling Back. Neither that strat nor making Overwatch a strat changes the fact that a unit can waltz casually away from combat and have the HTH unit blasted off the table in its wake.
Maybe at the beginning of 8th but right now theres a ton of subfactions and units that makes charging them nearly impossible unless you ignore overwatch or catch them with a consolidation or crossing ruins.
Yea... universal falling back isn't the issue for melee armies in the current edition versus the horrific, withering Overwatch certain combos/factions can cause.
I'm not even a melee-focused player and I always thought it was a bit crazy.
tneva82 wrote: So elite assault units got okay buff. Finally some bone thrown to (marine) assault armies.
Yes...just Marine Assault Armies.
Seriously, do you hear yourself? Battleforged armies can only use a specific stratagem once per turn. Stu made that mention as they showed the Overwatch stratagem. That means unless you have things like the Ultramarines strat where UM units can add in their Overwatch or the Greater Good bits from Tau...that's one unit a turn Overwatching.
Cool tactical decisions to make when holding terrain, defending units *can* get bonuses against charging enemies it seems if they're in the right terrain and made the right tactical decision. I like it!
It being against the forum rules would be one good reason.
With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.
If you think it is crap, you don't need to steal it either. Just don't play the game instead of continuing to play it while hating it and trying to portray your piratism as some sort of moral cause. That is just sad and dysfunctional.
Your attitude of "take it as it is and fix the rules for them" is why we get lazy releases and lazy editing.
So good call dude ! I did not seen this coming. Overwatch will be all but disappeared in 9th edition.
For a 1 CP decision, you would be better having serious firepower to trigger the overwatch stratagem (auto-hit or hit on OW on 5+ at least).
So good call dude ! I did not seen this coming. Overwatch will be all but disappeared in 9th edition.
For a 1 CP decision, you would be better having serious firepower to trigger the overwatch stratagem (auto-hit or hit on OW on 5+ at least).
The positioning of that unit of flamers suddenly became so much more important, since they're probably going to be the ones you want Overwatching lol
According to the feed there are other ways to Overwatch, not just the Strategem. some units will have it for a special rule and the day one FAQ/errata will amend existing rules and strategems that interact with overwatch so that they still work.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: Cool tactical decisions to make when holding terrain, defending units *can* get bonuses against charging enemies it seems if they're in the right terrain and made the right tactical decision. I like it!
Some reason to take fortifications that generally sucked and quite possibly costs cp to get det so were about to take a nerfbat
It being against the forum rules would be one good reason.
With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.
If you think it is crap, you don't need to steal it either. Just don't play the game instead of continuing to play it while hating it and trying to portray your piratism as some sort of moral cause. That is just sad and dysfunctional.
Your attitude of "take it as it is and fix the rules for them" is why we get lazy releases and lazy editing.
If you want to poison the well maybe start a thread in 40kGen. There is more on topic news to talk about right now.
Like Overwatch being a strat, but some units will have access to rules that let them Overwatch for free, and like the Cool Headed buff you can give a veteran unit in the Crusader system.
It being against the forum rules would be one good reason.
With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.
If you think it is crap, you don't need to steal it either. Just don't play the game instead of continuing to play it while hating it and trying to portray your piratism as some sort of moral cause. That is just sad and dysfunctional.
Your attitude of "take it as it is and fix the rules for them" is why we get lazy releases and lazy editing.
Please, just stop playing this game. If you're so angry with the releases and rules, just stop. It's not healthy for you or this forum to have people promoting piracy because they deem the game lazy and worthless.
Aash wrote: According to the feed there are other ways to Overwatch, not just the Strategem. some units will have it for a special rule and the day one FAQ/errata will amend existing rules and strategems that interact with overwatch so that they still work.
Yeah. Expect tau for example get hefty amount of ways.
Plus the oddball units like aggressors still has that 1cp with more cp to pay.
Not huge help overall though elite assault units like it
