Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.
Spoletta wrote: Matched play does not mean "Ultra competitive setting".
The saturday game at the LGS organized on a Whatsapp group that same morning by saying "Hey! Who's up for a game with my salamanders? 2000 points", is the definition of matched play. The rules exist for this exact event, which represents easily more than 90% of the 40K games being played.
Those games are not ultra competitive, and the players usually bring to the table a mix of models they like and models that make the list work. This is 40K, this is what the rulebook is made for. This is what codici aim at.
The rules for "Ultra competitive play" the kind of which is right now made exclusively by soups, do not exist. They have no reason to, because they represent such a tiny amount of games, that they are completely irrelevant to the state of the game.
The difference in 8th is that GW finally understood that those tiny percentage of games tend to attract a lot of attention, and so through FAQs and CA, they are trying to patch the worst issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even there, they don't really to resolve them fully, they just need to constantly shake what is played at those levels, so that the cost of chasing the meta is high.
This way, the average 40K player (which takes his time to paint minis and has in general limited time to dedicate to the hobby), is not encouraged to buy into the last hotness, because the time required to implement it into his army, is longer than the time the meta requires to change.
As long as this is true, you prevent the cancer of the top competitive lists to contaminate the healthy parts of the hobby.
There is so much speculation here it's mind boggling. We don't actually know what kind of game is the most common. For instance, when my group says "Who's up for a game?" This weekend, the understanding is it's ultra competitive and you better bring a netlist or something you made that can compete with them. Just because a game isn't at a tournament doesn't mean it's not super competitive.
I would fix the Soup issue by making a rule that you can only use Artifacts and Stratagems of your Warlord's faction. This would heavily nerf soup lists (it also hurts my primary list real bad so I am not bias), then we can move on the the next broken issue that will come up, because for as long as I have played 40K for the past almost two decades, there has always been some issue that needs fixing, it gets fixed and we are one to the next issue.
Also they need to nerf Agents of Vect. That stratagem is way way to good with the CP regen. It needs to be once per game turn or something.
xeen wrote: I would fix the Soup issue by making a rule that you can only use Artifacts and Stratagems of your Warlord's faction. This would heavily nerf soup lists (it also hurts my primary list real bad so I am not bias), then we can move on the the next broken issue that will come up, because for as long as I have played 40K for the past almost two decades, there has always been some issue that needs fixing, it gets fixed and we are one to the next issue.
I feel it's important to emphasise that with the best will in the world, this will never change. I feel some people don't realise this. It will always be fighting fires by the very nature of how GW publishes rules.
If they were ever approaching a 'perfect' ruleset (hypothetically) it wouldn't be long until it was chucked and replaced by a new edition, even if it's change for changes sake. Because ultimately they have to keep selling books!
Reemule wrote: I do care about the other ones, but your system of using casual players gives no chance of fixing them either, despite your idea that some how causal players are good at identifying those things.
And again, Trying to balance the one thing with multiple nerfs at the same time just leads to centurions.
Chaos doesn't bring predators either. So chances are your matching something that is broken, against something else that is broken.
Well, your system of using competitive players (or casual players or any other type of players) won't work, because you need ALL players if you're writing a game for ALL players. And we need the casual players' insight precisely BECAUSE you, by your own admission, seem unable to wrap your head around their perspective and contribution. That is why they need to be represented (just like all other kinds of players, casual, competitive, drunk, narrative, whatever) by their own kind.
If you want to balance (or not) the game for the competitive types only, do it in the ITC ruleset. There's already pages upon pages of horribly ill-advised house rules to missions and terrain and what not (actually making ITC tournament players arguably the least qualified to give feedback on 40K, given they aren't actually playing it by the book to begin with). Adding a few pages of points and whatnot won't be much of an issue. Than you can have your own little "competitive 40K" for the privileged competitive you seem to value so highly.
But for the 40K everyone plays, everyone must get a say relative to how much of the player base they constitute.
Reemule wrote: I do care about the other ones, but your system of using casual players gives no chance of fixing them either, despite your idea that some how causal players are good at identifying those things.
And again, Trying to balance the one thing with multiple nerfs at the same time just leads to centurions.
Chaos doesn't bring predators either. So chances are your matching something that is broken, against something else that is broken.
Well, your system of using competitive players (or casual players or any other type of players) won't work, because you need ALL players if you're writing a game for ALL players.
If you want to balance (or not) the game for the competitive types only, do it in the ITC ruleset. There's already pages upon pages of horribly ill-advised house rules to missions and terrain and what not (actually making ITC tournament players arguably the least qualified to give feedback on 40K, given they aren't actually playing it by the book to begin with). Adding a few pages of points and whatnot won't be much of an issue. Than you can have your own little "competitive 40K" for the privileged competitive you seem to value so highly.
But for the 40K everyone plays, everyone must get a say relative to how much of the player base they constitute.
While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.
While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.
Again. Not true.
1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.
Ordana wrote: Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.
Generally speaking, inter-faction balance should be the primary goal. It's very easy to get hung up on intra-faction balance, but most games struggle to have even one competitively viable list for each of their factions and that kind of needs to be the priority. As disappointing as it is that Terminators are bad; I'd rather something like that be non competitive than an entire faction.
Ordana wrote: Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.
It blows my mind that this needs to be stated so often but well said. This is the truth!
Ordana wrote: Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.
Sure. But what is the difference,
That's the problem with tournament samples. A 3% or even 0.3% difference between the very best unit and the second best unit/codex/equipment/combo/whatever can result in huge swings in the tournament meta, because that's the nature of tournaments, while a 30% difference between the 16th best unit and the 17th best unit goes unnoticed.
Ordana wrote: Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.
Sure. But what is the difference,
That's the problem with tournament samples. A 3% or even 0.3% difference between the very best unit and the second best unit/codex/equipment/combo/whatever can result in huge swings in the tournament meta, because that's the nature of tournaments, while a 30% difference between the 16th best unit and the 17th best unit goes unnoticed.
Trying to balance units is madness. There are too many factors at play, the least of which is which other units people are taking. Focus on factions first, make sure they all have at least one competitive option, then you can start balancing underperforming units in that faction up to their competitive standard.
While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.
Again. Not true.
1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.
This is just wrong, quite frankly. Skill can be a relevant factor while lists are still a MORE relevant factor. Look at SC2 as an example. Most player wouldn't dispute late game is biased against Terran just from design/unit stats/production methods, but there isn't a huge push for Blizzard to fix it because you have players like Maru and TY at the tippy top level proving that, when you've got top level skills, things are fairly balanced. It's just that it's more mechanically demanding for a Terran to fight in that stage so lower level players can't do it as well.
As it is though, you definitely see a bias in most PvT favoring turtle builds for P and rush builds for T because both players know that's where their advantage lies.
Here, we see biases towards soup because mass CP is really helpful on certain units or SfD is. Skill is certainly RELEVANT, even if this game doesn't take as much as something like Starcraft, but you'll see that bias towards those lists because that's where natural advantage lies just like in SC2's builds.
We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.
We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.
That's why you sample. If you show me a Nova or LVO finals, it can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the heavy houserules and custom missions simply distorted the game in ways that don't reflect normal 40K. Lots of units boosted by ITC formats like Hive Guard, Space Marine Scouts, etc.. probably need a slight point increase in ITC only to reflect their increased utility and decreased downsides in that particular houserule format, but are better balanced in 40K.
Hence, statistically and scientifically, you sample 40K games from all types, skill levels, geographic regions, etc.., and get a broad, representative cross-section of the game across the entirety of the player base it is made for.
Hence, statistically and scientifically, you sample 40K games from all types, skill levels, geographic regions, etc.., and get a broad, representative cross-section of the game across the entirety of the player base it is made for.
The problem I have with this is that its a null. What is a sample? How does it matter that you talk some some group in Florida, but you don't talk to the second largest group in New Jersey that has many more players who are much more active because you needed someone from the south east portion of the US?
Still going back to sample. What is this do they fill out a questionnaire? How many points does your PL playing group feel Bobby G should be? Do you attend there game sessions to see what kind of play they do? Who is going to do this?
Another part of the reason the Tourney play is the standard is the information is very easy to get. Within a few minutes I can pull the winning list of each major tourney for the last 4-5 years and what format they used.
Your idea of somehow this mass sampling is worthwhile was never going to work. But once you get to any kind of nut and bolts, it really falls apart.
While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.
Again. Not true.
1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.
This is just wrong, quite frankly. Skill can be a relevant factor while lists are still a MORE relevant factor. Look at SC2 as an example. Most player wouldn't dispute late game is biased against Terran just from design/unit stats/production methods, but there isn't a huge push for Blizzard to fix it because you have players like Maru and TY at the tippy top level proving that, when you've got top level skills, things are fairly balanced. It's just that it's more mechanically demanding for a Terran to fight in that stage so lower level players can't do it as well.
As it is though, you definitely see a bias in most PvT favoring turtle builds for P and rush builds for T because both players know that's where their advantage lies.
Here, we see biases towards soup because mass CP is really helpful on certain units or SfD is. Skill is certainly RELEVANT, even if this game doesn't take as much as something like Starcraft, but you'll see that bias towards those lists because that's where natural advantage lies just like in SC2's builds.
We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.
40k has nothing even close to representing the power that skill has in a game like sc2. It's really not even a factor in 40k. I seriously could never win a game against a pro sc2 player and I used to be a diamond 1v1 player. I literally would not have a chance and would lose 100% of games to a top challenger player. I would win at least 50% against top 40k players - the only factor in these games would be list selection and dice.
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?
Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?
Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.
Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.
Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level. Games are decided when you fail a crucial spell even though you saved your reroll...A turn where you make 14-15 4++ saves with basically win you the game where as a turn where you make 1-15 4++ saves loses it. If everyone is rolling average - the guy who went first is probably gonna win a long close game. That's just the way the game works.
I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.
Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level.
I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.
Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level.
There's really no point. If you're going to make a statement like 'there is no skill in top-level 40k that matters', no reasonable statement I could make would make you realize how incorrect that is.
The same players/teams being successful in high level play time after time above hundreds of other players should be enough to prove to anyone that at least the game is not a coin toss.
As expected Knights w. Batteries and Ynnari are doing incredibly well. Drukhari are at 10th place. Craftworlds are at 21st place performing below average(ie. Ynnari and soup is the problem with Craftworlds not monolists). Harlequins are also doing well but I imagine that is thanks to their Haywire versus the current IK meta as well as their mobility and invulns against high damage weapons.
There is a lot of skill in 40k. The dice mean there is inherently more luck than SC2 - but I'd argue its considerably less influenced by luck than MTG/Hearthstone.
Good players get ranked in tournaments sufficiently consistently that it stretches credibility they don't possess some knowledge we can define as "skill" and are instead just lucky. Part of that is bringing a list which is good - but there is also using it correctly. Unlike certain card decks while Imperial Soup might stack the odds in your favour it doesn't play itself.
It sounds simple, but remembering movement, objectives, target priority, rules interactions, stratagems etc through a tournament isn't easy when you are the one doing it rather than just observing from the sidelines.
FWIW I am suspect a top level player of SC2 would defeat someone vaguely good without Micro (i.e. A moving their whole army in and only looking at their base). The point about being a good player is that you can micro and it doesn't impact your macro much (and vice versa). You can quite easily defeat someone who A-moves even if they have considerably more resources.
There's really no point. If you're going to make a statement like 'there is no skill in top-level 40k that matters', no reasonable statement I could make would make you realize how incorrect that is.
Okay so - "skill in 40k is a huge factor because you say so and to not say so is preposterous" this is your argument?
Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.
I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.
I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.
If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.
List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.
All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?
Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?
Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.
Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.
I guess he meant the size of the actual game, which has many more factions and units than SC2 or most other games. I guess no one would say Warhammer has a bigger fan base than esports, that would be just silly.
In SC2 there are 3 factions with maybe 20 units each. Each faction can beat the other depending on the build chosen and the skill level of the player, as building your army is part of the game, and every unit has it's place to counter another unit or suprise the enemy. This is much easier to balance as 40k is. If a unit isn't as strong as the others overall it doesn't feel all that bad, as it will still have it's uses in some games and can be built at will. If a unit is underpowered/overspecialized in 40k no one will bring it, as it would be too risky.
The problem I have with this is that its a null. What is a sample? How does it matter that you talk some some group in Florida, but you don't talk to the second largest group in New Jersey that has many more players who are much more active because you needed someone from the south east portion of the US?
Still going back to sample. What is this do they fill out a questionnaire? How many points does your PL playing group feel Bobby G should be? Do you attend there game sessions to see what kind of play they do? Who is going to do this?
Another part of the reason the Tourney play is the standard is the information is very easy to get. Within a few minutes I can pull the winning list of each major tourney for the last 4-5 years and what format they used.
Your idea of somehow this mass sampling is worthwhile was never going to work. But once you get to any kind of nut and bolts, it really falls apart.
How do you sample, what questionaire questions, etc.. ?
There books and experts on that. I am not gonna elaborate that here. Even an hour on Wikipedia should give you a basic overview.
Is it realistic that GW will correctly sample and/or perform a survey of that kind? No. That is why you shouldn't use a data-based approach as well. That's the point. If you use data, you MUST sample correctly. If you use biased and skewed data, such as tournament data, you're doing harm. You're doing worse than nothing. You're doing worse than having a drunk monkey type in point values for Codexes. Freshman statistics should teach you this much.
If you don't have representative data, don't for the sake of god use non-representative data just "because we have it". That's just the most basic error of data analysis ever.
If you don't have representative data, don't use a data-based approach. Just set a benchmark list (e.g. the GW starter-box armies would seem a good fit, but whatever) and balance around it mathematically. Or use the aforementioned monkey. Either is admittedly infinitely inferior than a good data based approach, but infinitely superior than working with biased and skewed data.
There's literally hundreds of years of human error in statistical analysis in field of far more dire and far-reaching consequences than toy soldiers that have proven that over and over and over and over again.
Trying to balance units is madness. There are too many factors at play, the least of which is which other units people are taking. Focus on factions first, make sure they all have at least one competitive option, then you can start balancing underperforming units in that faction up to their competitive standard.
If you're limiting yourself to identifying the over-/top performing units through tournaments, balancing the rest "up" is not feasible. The obvious approach is to just balance those you identify at the top down. e.g. take the 10% most common units in each faction and hit em with a 20% point increase. Take the next 10% below those and hit em with a 10% point increase. The 20-30% with a 5% point increase. Repeat in half a year, etc.., etc..
But even if you'd price Raven Castellans differently from Hawkshroud Castellans, Prophets of Flesh Talos different than other Talos, etc., you'd still be missing a huge chunk of the synergies and combos that cause a majority of problems here.
Bharring wrote: Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.
Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.
I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.
I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.
If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.
List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.
All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.
Unless of course. Not everyone at Nova is playing a super competitive list. Go ahead and toss out 50% of the list right there. Some armies are just better than others and people tend to play the same army...That accounts for more. That's basically it right there.
Bharring wrote: Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.
Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.
I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.
I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.
If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.
List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.
All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.
Not necessarily.
If the lists of the people in the Top 10 changed more dramatically from last year to this year than the list of those in the Bottom 10, it just means that the Top 10 were more willing to chase the meta, buy or borrow the necessary models to win a competition around finding the worst game-designer oversight, vs. players who stuck more closely to what they always play.
If Tony Kopach had won using the exact same list with 120 Conscripts and Guilliman, which he fielded last year, despite the meta changes, you might've had a point.
Bharring wrote: Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.
Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.
I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.
I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.
If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.
List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.
All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.
Not necessarily.
If the lists of the people in the Top 10 changed more dramatically from last year to this year than the list of those in the Bottom 10, it just means that the Top 10 were more willing to chase the meta, buy or borrow the necessary models to win a competition around finding the worst game-designer oversight, vs. players who stuck more closely to what they always play.
If Tony Kopach had won using the exact same list with 120 Conscripts and Guilliman, which he fielded last year, despite the meta changes, you might've had a point.
Yeah - and if you asked him if he could have placed just as high with his previous list. He'd certainly tell you. No - It wouldn't have a chance.
I think you're missing half the point:
"I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%. "
If the same players place top 10 more regularly than random chance, there *is* a biasing factor.
If the list were the only biasing factor, you'd see last year's top 10 in the bottom 50% more frequently than you'd see copies of the top 10 players' lists in the bottom 50%.
However, we see top-10 players be more likely top-10, than lists matching top-10 players' lists being top-10. This *strongly* suggests being a better player impacts the game more powerfully than random chance.
I'm not refuting that list building is important. Or that you need a strong list be top 10. I'm showing a reasonable, testable prediction that shows that the player has an impact on their standing beyond their list.
If the top players are so good, maybe they should bring Necrons to the next big tournament? If it is skill after all, they should be able to win with the worst army.
Furthermore - controlling for non-serious lists:
This is one of the reasons why my criteria for 'top lists' was a lot less rigid than my criteria for 'top players'. The bottom 10 lists are *probably* not the same as the top 10 lists.
If you take all the lists that were functionally equivelent to the top-10 lists, you should expect their averages - even if you drop the top 10 from them - to be above the average for the entire population. Because the lists matter.
However, lets say there were 20 people at the event with lists that were the same (counting the top 10). In theory, if all 10 top-10s from last year played this year, and were in that list of 20 people, you should see an average of 5 repeat top-10 placers.
If there were 30 such lists, you'd expect only about 3 of last years' top-10 to be in this year's top-10.
If there were 50 such lists, having more than 2 of last year's top 10 be in this year's top 10 would be notable.
The fact remains that the same people tend to place top 10 across multiple events, often with different armies. Further, more often than not, most of the top-10 lists are the same as the majority of the other top-50 lists at large events.
Clearly, while the list building is important, some players place higher more frequently than others with the same lists. This strongly suggests matchups are determined more by player skill than coin flip. List building is more important than either, but player skill still tops coin flip.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Necron,
I'm not saying that it's not list building. I'm saying that it's not list building *alone*.
I'd argue that if you took at frequently-top-10 player, and put them up against (me, xenos, probably you, etc), with identical or equally powerful lists, the frequently-top-10 player would win more often than not. As in, more frequently than a coin flip.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Xeno,
What part of "List construction is a biasing factor" did you read as "List construction is *not* a biasing factor"?
Bharring wrote: I think you're missing half the point:
"I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%. "
If the same players place top 10 more regularly than random chance, there *is* a biasing factor.
If the list were the only biasing factor, you'd see last year's top 10 in the bottom 50% more frequently than you'd see copies of the top 10 players' lists in the bottom 50%.
However, we see top-10 players be more likely top-10, than lists matching top-10 players' lists being top-10. This *strongly* suggests being a better player impacts the game more powerfully than random chance.
I'm not refuting that list building is important. Or that you need a strong list be top 10. I'm showing a reasonable, testable prediction that shows that the player has an impact on their standing beyond their list.
So what you're saying is the players who regularly top 10 all use loaded dice. /sarcasm
Ultimately what separates the top players from the middle of the pack is better preparation. Making as informed a choice as possible when building their list for the current meta. Making the correct plays to minimise how much chance impacts the game. Being familiar with their opponents army and knowing what they're aiming to do next turn and the turn after that. While these may seem relatively insignificant compared to other games all the benefits from proper planning add up. All other things equal in higher level play the player who makes the most mistakes is always the player most likely to lose.
NecronLord3 wrote: If the top players are so good, maybe they should bring Necrons to the next big tournament? If it is skill after all, they should be able to win with the worst army.
By that logic you'd expect a naked marine with a toothpick to take down some random guy with an ak-47 from 100 paces away with broken glass all over the ground.
Maybe 40k is not as simple as some people claim, but SC2 jsut has a lot more room for the human factor to influence a game. The amount of (split second) decisions coupled with the actual physical execution is just so much more demanding and complex than 40k's rules framework.
BertBert wrote: Maybe 40k is not as simple as some people claim, but SC2 jsut has a lot more room for the human factor to influence a game. The amount of (split second) decisions coupled with the actual physical execution is just so much more demanding and complex than 40k's rules framework.
I can adjust my build based off scouting. 40K has blind meta guessing.
Besides eldar soups are there any actual lists that can do that for real? All other faction seem to have that one build, if they are mostly mono lists, or consist of pre build detachments one can't just mix and match, because of points costs.
List building and chasing the power codex creep is just as much competitive 40k as skill.
Skill in 40k comes mostly down to target priority, deployment and knowing the core mechanics of both players armies, but ultimately it's a game of dice and the best laid plans can be undone by rolling a bad string of dice early on.
Most of competitive play is the codex you play. It's all about understanding the meta and tailoring your list that will beat most of that meta and outside any blindside lists that no one thought of yet - 9 PBC with spitters was never the intention of the codex authors but brutally efficient none the less with a lot of unsuspecting victims when it was first used.
You'll consistently see the same group of top players at the annual events in the top field, but they will also be playing with the best codexes - give someone who has won anything major a GK army for example and they will tell you it's never going to win in a competitive setting.
Then why doesn't GW hotfix stuff that is really bad?
Eldar get a change to how their soup rules work every FAQ, maybe even more often. Yet they are still one of the top armies out there, so what kind of a FAQs are those? If the meta is supposed to be changed every 6-9 months, there can't be armies that are kept good for years or even whole editions.
Bharring wrote: Furthermore - controlling for non-serious lists:
This is one of the reasons why my criteria for 'top lists' was a lot less rigid than my criteria for 'top players'. The bottom 10 lists are *probably* not the same as the top 10 lists.
If you take all the lists that were functionally equivelent to the top-10 lists, you should expect their averages - even if you drop the top 10 from them - to be above the average for the entire population. Because the lists matter.
However, lets say there were 20 people at the event with lists that were the same (counting the top 10). In theory, if all 10 top-10s from last year played this year, and were in that list of 20 people, you should see an average of 5 repeat top-10 placers.
If there were 30 such lists, you'd expect only about 3 of last years' top-10 to be in this year's top-10.
If there were 50 such lists, having more than 2 of last year's top 10 be in this year's top 10 would be notable.
The fact remains that the same people tend to place top 10 across multiple events, often with different armies. Further, more often than not, most of the top-10 lists are the same as the majority of the other top-50 lists at large events.
Clearly, while the list building is important, some players place higher more frequently than others with the same lists. This strongly suggests matchups are determined more by player skill than coin flip. List building is more important than either, but player skill still tops coin flip.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Necron,
I'm not saying that it's not list building. I'm saying that it's not list building *alone*.
I'd argue that if you took at frequently-top-10 player, and put them up against (me, xenos, probably you, etc), with identical or equally powerful lists, the frequently-top-10 player would win more often than not. As in, more frequently than a coin flip.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Xeno,
What part of "List construction is a biasing factor" did you read as "List construction is *not* a biasing factor"?
Without actual statistics this is all anecdotal.
The statistical facts are that certain combinations of codexes make it to the top tables consistently.
While it may certainly be true that these players would have the same outcome with other lists, there are no actual facts supporting it.
In fact given how list building is a strong aspect of the game it is likely that top players recognize which combination of units five the greatest points/value in the game and have chosen their lists based on that whereas other players may have units they like mixed into their force.
It is further likely top players recognize which units these are in other lists when they make there list.
I contend this is a large factor in what makes those top players good.
The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.
You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.
People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.
The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.
beir wrote: The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.
You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.
People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.
The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.
I am not suggesting the player skills is not an element, I am suggesting it is not the main element. If player skill was the main element we would see a common name on BCP winning a major event with Necrons, or Tau. That we don't see this is highly indicative that list is the major factor in victory. Certainly this is not to say player skill isn't a strong factor, however skill beyond list making appears be secondary given the lack of variety in codexes we see make it to top tables at major events.
beir wrote: The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.
You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.
People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.
The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.
A list matters more than player skill in reading the board state; identifying key units in your codex that serve as units that do more for their points is mandatory in performing well.
If I threw 10 identical players with 1 identical list at each other guess what happens. Someone wins. Because there are dice involved in this game.
Lists are the largest factor in whether someone wins or not, then player experience/skill/knowledge, then the dice rolls.
Someone in the top 10 isn't bringing a substandard list. So to say only player skill matters ignores the fact that all these people are good enough to realize there are simply objectively better units than others.
vaklor4 wrote: So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.
Following the premise of them needing three weeks following Nova (writing, testing and translating I'd guess) like they did earlier in the year, the 9/26 is the soonest we'd see it (and the day I most expect to see it).
beir wrote: The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.
You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.
People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.
The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.
The extent of "skill" in 40k is target priority, deployment and spamming the best couple units from soup combo's. Get a tourney winning list and give it to someone who doesn't know how to use it? Of course they won't be on par with a 'skilled' person because again, it all comes down to target priority and understanding combos.
8th Edition is all about who rolls the most the dice. The player who usually wins is the one who knows which order and against what to roll those dice - that is the real extent of skill in the current state of the game. The top tier codexes and/or soup used by the top 10 etc play a huge part and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
NurglesR0T wrote: Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol
They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair
Maybe if the other relics would cost more than 25 pts you would have more reason to take it. But when it's free there's no point in not taking the best one possible.
They've been there, done that. Guess what happens when they charge points for relics? The best 1 or 2 are always taken and the rest are trash and "overcosted". The problem isn't relics being free or costed, it's that they are never balanced against each other - It's been that way for 20 years.
beir wrote: The more that certain lists and combos rise to the top, the more often mirror matchups occur. The best players consistently win these matchups, given their consistent performance over the years. This is solid evidence that player skill is a huge factor in 40k.
You have to bring a top-tier list to be competitive at the highest level but there is a lot of skill involved in piloting such a list well enough to win. Certainly more skill than is overcome by any number of dice rolls.
People who are arguing that it is all about the list - do you honestly think that you could do as well with these lists as the tourney winners? I posit that you could not.
The fact that the tournament standings at big events isn't simply 'everyone with this list placed top 10, everyone with the next best list placed next 10, etc.' is proof of this.
The extent of "skill" in 40k is target priority, deployment and spamming the best couple units from soup combo's. Get a tourney winning list and give it to someone who doesn't know how to use it? Of course they won't be on par with a 'skilled' person because again, it all comes down to target priority and understanding combos.
8th Edition is all about who rolls the most the dice. The player who usually wins is the one who knows which order and against what to roll those dice - that is the real extent of skill in the current state of the game. The top tier codexes and/or soup used by the top 10 etc play a huge part and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Bear in mind all these comments re: skill in 40k were made in response to Xeno's posts, which basically claimed that there is zero skill in high level competitive 40k and matches are basically a coin flip (or that hes really awesome and would have a 50% winrate against all of the best players in the game, who knows).
No one's being disingenuous and claiming that there isn't actually any luck involved in a dice game, but make sure you read them in that context and you'll see why they are written as such.
I'll concede to that point - my mistake if I took other comments out of context. There is definitely more to skill than just a "coin flip" but I still stand by my point too
Luck mitigation (namely proper use of rerolls to smooth out the bell curve in your favor) is a skill as well. I mean anyone can copy a list, but knowing the nuances in playing it properly to make it fun like a well oiled bolter takes more skill than just "pick target, roll dice, win". I've seen a lot of claims of lists that "couldn't be beat" but in the end if you play them poorly it doesn't matter how good your list is or how well it stacks the odds in your favor if you get tabled every game.
Audustum wrote: While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.
When the guys at the top are actually playing 40k - and not the 40k ITC Edition - then we can talk about using their tournament results as data
Tyel wrote: There is a lot of skill in 40k. The dice mean there is inherently more luck than SC2 - but I'd argue its considerably less influenced by luck than MTG/Hearthstone.
Good players get ranked in tournaments sufficiently consistently that it stretches credibility they don't possess some knowledge we can define as "skill" and are instead just lucky. Part of that is bringing a list which is good - but there is also using it correctly. Unlike certain card decks while Imperial Soup might stack the odds in your favour it doesn't play itself.
Based on reports over the last year, such skills include:
- Ability to netlist a broken army (and learn to play it well)
- Ability to play by the house rules of various events
- Ability to slow play
- Ability to trap your opponent into breaching RAW due to your own slow play
- Ability to manipulate dice which are recording game state information
- Ability to use a "stretchy" tape measure
- Ability to browbeat other players into accepting your interpretation of the rules
Karol wrote: Eldar get a change to how their soup rules work every FAQ, maybe even more often. Yet they are still one of the top armies out there, so what kind of a FAQs are those?
They're errata, but GW appear determined to call their errata documents "FAQs" instead, for some perverse reason.
vaklor4 wrote: So uh, when do ya'll think it's coming out? I am almost certain it won't be in September at this rate.
I think that not-September is a safe bet, given they're down to three working days (including today) to release it within. I lean towards October, probably the first week or two, but I've nothing to back up that feeling.
Dysartes wrote: I think that not-September is a safe bet, given they're down to three working days (including today) to release it within. I lean towards October, probably the first week or two, but I've nothing to back up that feeling.
Yep. Alas it looks like they miss their own deadlines again. Hopefully they learn from this and name them from now on spring and autumn faq's. There's no real downside for that(they can still internally try to aim to release them on specific month) but it looks hell of a lot better for them than constantly missing deadlines they themselves set well in advance.
Then again not in a rush to see what models GW wants players to buy next to replace existing models.
40K is not SC2 and the "skill" required to play it is completely different, and the same one required to play similar games like warmachine.
Tabletop miniature games are convoluted games of chess, where you need to plan your moves and predict the enemy moves. This is easier than in chess, because the amount of "good moves" is limited, but then you need to balance it with a second factor, which is percentages. 40K is a game where luck has a say, but that actually means that skill matters more, not less.
Bridge is a worlwide competitive game with a huge following and is an olympic sport, yet if one were to look at the rules without being an expert it would just say "This is crap! It is all based on luck!". The "skill" is in being able to choose the correct path in the game which gains you the higher chances of winning.
40K and all tabletop games are the same. There are dice rolls? Then you need to find best way to win through them, which means not only choosing the best targets for your models, but also planning your games with layered B and C plans if something goes wrong. You need to maximize your chances.
In the end to play 40K at the top levels, what is required is being a bit of a chess player and a bit of a bridge player (by the way, two of the most skill based games in the world).
Having a good list is a requirement to partecipate, not part of the "skill".
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional. In 40K the best player wins.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.
Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.
Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.
No ones refuting that. 40k isn't in perfect balance and never will be. But hey they're trying, we're posting in the thread about their new, regular FAQ releases to address balance aren't we?
I know 8th edition isn't everyones cup of tea (don't know why exactly coming from 7th), but one thing I can say that no one can deny is that GW are putting out the best attempt at a balanced, living ruleset that they have ever done, since I started in 3rd edition anyway. Before the Knight codex came out, top level tournament results were as diverse in army selection as they have ever been. Yeah NOVA was an obvious sore thumb, but in a few days to a few weeks we will have an official rules release which should help to remedy the obvious imbalance that was so heavily represented there.
Has everyone already forgotten just a short while ago last edition, where blatantly ridiculous stuff like the 7th ed. Wraithknight, Pink Horrors or the Battle Company gets released and we have to live with it for 18-24 months until a new ruleset comes out? Now you're worried about having to wait an extra couple of weeks? If at all? Doesn't make sense to me.
Spoletta wrote: 40K is not SC2 and the "skill" required to play it is completely different, and the same one required to play similar games like warmachine.
Tabletop miniature games are convoluted games of chess, where you need to plan your moves and predict the enemy moves. This is easier than in chess, because the amount of "good moves" is limited, but then you need to balance it with a second factor, which is percentages. 40K is a game where luck has a say, but that actually means that skill matters more, not less.
Bridge is a worlwide competitive game with a huge following and is an olympic sport, yet if one were to look at the rules without being an expert it would just say "This is crap! It is all based on luck!". The "skill" is in being able to choose the correct path in the game which gains you the higher chances of winning.
40K and all tabletop games are the same. There are dice rolls? Then you need to find best way to win through them, which means not only choosing the best targets for your models, but also planning your games with layered B and C plans if something goes wrong. You need to maximize your chances.
In the end to play 40K at the top levels, what is required is being a bit of a chess player and a bit of a bridge player (by the way, two of the most skill based games in the world).
Having a good list is a requirement to partecipate, not part of the "skill".
Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
I agree with the general argument, but keep in mind that statistics only serve to make the "good" and "bad" moves less obvious. For most situations, there is a clear path of action, no matter what the dice show. If you have a knight sitting with one wound left, you are going to take your commissar's bolt pistol and try to shoot it, even though the chance is next to nothing. If there are some guardsmen nearby and the knight is happily sitting at 10+ life, the obvious thing to do is shoot the guardsmen instead.
In general, skill is used to mitigate the luck faction. You might need three LRBT to blow up a rhino or you might need just two. The skill portion is not unnecessarily over-committing with six LRBT on the rhino, and making sure that if the first LRBT one-shots the rhino, that the other two still have valuable targets to shoot.
There are games which have almost zero player skill involved. For example, in Monopoly there one strategy that is superior to all others (always buy everything possible). If all players are aware of this, the game is decided by the dice, you could determine the outcome of the game without playing it.
Why so much hate on tournament players? If someone don't like it he or she should not play it.
Someone given example that most of match play is "Hey i have 2000pts of Salamanders and looking to play in LGS". And exactly that's why we need balance on COMPETITITVE level to allow such player have nice and fun game.
Imagine now that someone respond with "okay, i will go with my 2k knights" (or Ynnari). Not even maxed list but include Castellan. That player asked more experienced player how he should field Castellan and advised to use Raven/Cawl/3++. People like to win, people looks for advise and in time, their lists become more competitive.
He plays with clearly undercosted Knight that destroy every land rider and stuff from Salamander player without getting a wound. Salamander player is sad, he asks other people how we can deal with Castellan? So competitive player says - he cannot, he need BA capitains or play ynnari. He adds BA det and he is happy with results - finaly can deal with knight! But was running out of CP... what to do? IG battalion! Few weeks later he have BA+Castellan+IG army.
To stop that we need balance on maxed and optimal levels to let players play with different lists and have answers in their own codexes not in netlists. Otherwise games that supposed to be 2000 vs 2000 are in fact 2000 vs 3000 worth armies without balance and fun.
Anyway, GW ignoring such topic as SEPTEMBER FAQ is very sad and hurting sales as many players prefer to wait for it...
Of course if you want nice, fun and balanced game you don't go for "2k, let's play" to begin with as the moment you involve points you have decided to abandon balance. And GW doesn't even try to get close. Their balance is more like shooting with shotgun at 1m target 5km away firing randomly repeatedly so that while pattern is still unbalanced as hell it's different forcing players to buy new models.
Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.
Eldarsif wrote: Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.
I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.
According to their Facebook, about an hour ago, in an unrelated TSOALR-thread, they said that the FAQ is already written and is being checked, translated and so on. Shouldn't take too long to come out, then.
Eldarsif wrote: Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.
I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.
Going over Nova I see several things that could be changed. Locally we have a 2 limit max on detachments and that makes for a very different meta. The detachments can also not be the same twice which further restricts the meta where I am. Most of the Nova lists have a 3 detachments each.
Using the AoS limit of 20% and going over the Nova lists I see that the Harlequin ally would have been over 435 points over the AoS limit of a 2000 pt game. The one allying simple Craftworlds would have been 190 points over the limit. The Ynnari allies would have been around 400 points over that limit. Even a minimal blood angel captain list of 2 captains(1 with shield, but both with hammers and jump pack) would be 14 points over the limit with the bare minimum of 3 scout squads. Custodes, being naturally expensive, would easily go over the limit. None of those lists would have been legal in the AoS rule.
Going over the lists and their point costs I am even more convinced that the AoS rule of 20% is a very good rule that limits allies a great deal but still offers a little spice to your army.
Eldarsif wrote: Somewhat back on point regarding the FAQ, I am willing to bet that we'll see a beta rule that states allies can only be a certain percentage of each army like the current AoS rule as well as a max limit on detachments. Would be a good move to get rid of some of the more egregious problems.
I doubt it. The best soup lists use only a small fraction of the points for things like slamguinus and imperial guard batallion, or craftworld eldars/ynnari, and the rest comes from one codex.
Well 25% prevents adding castellan ally nevermind tag team of castellan+slamquinus. Even min BA slamquinus battallion would be fairly close to limit. IG ally would take it over so slamquinus would have to come from patrol(-5CP) rather than battallion.
20% would flat out prevent slamquinus battallion. Slamquinus patrol+IGCP battery would be juuuust about legal with even mortar HWS to boot(assuming no point increases to say BA captain...) but again 5 CP less to play with.
Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.
Yeah it would appear that the new FAQ is imminent at this point. The Facebook post by the Warhammer 40k social media team pretty much confirms it. I expect it'll be out in the next couple of days, quite possibly tomorrow.
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?
Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?
Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.
Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.
I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games. [u]
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?
Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?
Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.
Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.
I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?
I miss read you, after looking at it, you seem to mean that 40K as a game has more options and is bigger than games in esports. I bolded the confusion.
Reemule wrote: Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.
I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.
Alternatively, I want to experiment with a set CP number for all armies. I understand GWs original intent was to give you the option to swing your list for more power and less cp, or less power and more CP by bringing more troops. It doesn't work too well because of AM and some armies just having better troops (daemons, DE, AM). If every army had say, 10CP base, and then every army had a CP regen ability, the standard +5 to get a CP back, I think we would see a larger diversity of lists. Troops are already very important due to obsec, I don't think they should also be the primary way we get CP in our detachments. I know AM can currently get insane numbers of CP, but I've also heard that they never use them all. So I wonder if it would even hurt the AM players to take a CP hit.
Reemule wrote: Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.
I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.
Which armies do you feel it benefits/restricts? Not trying to make a counterpoint or anything, just curious about which army.
Reemule wrote: Is that the path forward? Make a new tournament only detachment. Its a brigade detachment, but you have to only field 1 HQ and 2 troops, You can have up to 3 HQ, 6 troops, 3 Fast, 3, Elite, 3 Heavy, 2 LOW, and 3 ally choices. You get 10 CP, go have fun. No other detachments can be fielded in the tournament.
I like the concept of detachment restrictions, but it would hamstring some armies and benefit others. Some armies have really strong dedicated transports (Dark Eldar) while others troop choices are seen as a list tax (most marine armies). Same can be said for just about any other slot in the force org. I do really like the idea of "tournament play" rules. So we get: Open, Matched, and Tournament sets of rules. The rules could be adjusted however GW or whoever wants them to be, whenever, and no worries of messing up the new players and crippling sales of that new hot toy (knight titans) that are making the tournament scene a spam fest.
Which armies do you feel it benefits/restricts? Not trying to make a counterpoint or anything, just curious about which army.
Going Brigade would be easiest for AM, they are the wrench in the system when it comes to detachment balance in this edition, especially with Brigades, and the 1HQ 2 troops. Though upon second reading, I think I misread the original point as "A brigade that needs 1HQ, 2 troops AND everything else" instead of what is essentially a 10 CP patrol detachment with a bunch of other options. Knights would be in trouble if they were forced to field troops, they are the extreme opposite of AM in any detachment based restrictions. I think that any army that can field units that act independently in the game would also have a leg up on the rest of the armies, such as AM tanks, and Tyranid monsters. 3 heavy support to most armies is just 3 tanks, to others, it's 9, but that goes back to rule of 3 getting awkward.
I suppose at the end of it all, it wouldn't be MORE imbalanced than any other current fix we have now. Beta reserves hurt most armies, while others do fine without it, same with rule of 3. Maybe it's impossible with the current diversity of armies to make a blanket fix that wouldn't hurt one army and leave one happier. One one hand we have a armies that can easily bring any detachment for very few points, on the other we have armies restricted to a single type of detachment. In between we have a diverse selection of armies that have obvious strengths in different slots, where elites outshine fast attack by a large margin, or heavy supports are the spammed options. I do like your idea of set CP for everyone though. I think CP being tied to list building is a restraint that leads to exploitation, and restricted lists, the same for CP regen traits/relics.
gwarsh41 wrote: . I know AM can currently get insane numbers of CP, but I've also heard that they never use them all. So I wonder if it would even hurt the AM players to take a CP hit.
Pre cp change i rarely ran out of cp. With cp change it's just silly how much i have left unless i forget that warlord trait and use others and have no headache with cp.only times i benefit from trait is with allies. Less cp to begin with, more cp hungry
It's possible that I could beat the best player. But the odds are bad on that.
What are the odds I beat the best player? Certainly not above 50%. I'd argue somewhere in the 20% range, but the exact level is very arguable.
I think there are 4 positions being argued here:
-The game's result is at least partially based on luck - meaning I have a non-zero chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.
-The game's result is at least partially based on skill - meaning I have less than a 50% chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.
-The player with the better list has more than a 50% chance of winning.
-The game's result is entirely based on luck - meaning I have a 50/50 chance of beating a top player, assuming equally-powerful lists.
The first three do not conflict. Arguing against the 4th is being mistaken as arguing against the first or third.
The 4th I think can easily be discredited. That's what my post was about. It made a very clear prediction site-unseen that would heavily refute the 4th. Yet that prediction hasn't been falsified at all.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
That will never be true as long as luck determines who goes first and remains so very powerful.
It is true ON AVERAGE.
Think of it more like poker than chess (to use the old analogy).
Good players will lose games to bad players sometimes. But good players win more games than bad players. They make better decisions, that maximise their ability to capitalise on the randomised elements.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
Provided they also use top list. Army level gap is such that if you don't bring top lists you are handicapping so much not even skill helps to overcome.
Yes same names appear on top. Also same armies...You don't see same names without one of those broken armies.
Spoletta wrote: Saying that 40K is only "Select a list and coin flip" is delusional.
In 40K the best player wins.
That will never be true as long as luck determines who goes first and remains so very powerful.
It is true ON AVERAGE.
Think of it more like poker than chess (to use the old analogy).
Good players will lose games to bad players sometimes. But good players win more games than bad players. They make better decisions, that maximise their ability to capitalise on the randomised elements.
I absolutely agree that a better player will win on average. I suppose I was thinking of it more from a tournament perspective, where you get one game per opponent - and then dakka uses the outcome of that game to generate hyperbole.
Cinderspirit wrote: GW said only thing left to do is layouting stuff. So I guess the wait is almost over.
Yeah. I would hazard a guess that it will drop either tomorrow or Friday in all honesty. A lot of the chat here is almost completely unrelated though.
Keep in mind that they said the 'Spring' FAQ was done before Adepticon even started and we still had to wait weeks for 'last minute' changes. While it's not impossible, take the latest comments with a dosage of salt.
So while I doubt we will see any super huge changes this FAQ (or even CA), I feel like a good fix to the issue of "pick and choose factions" would be limiting choices of certain legions, craftworlds, etc. choices based on their fluff. Yes, I know, everyone wants to run whatever they want as whatever they want.
But many games put limitations on what you can play to help balance the game better, but also make the game easier to balance. For example, Warmachine/Hordes places limits on what units each warcaster (think your Warlord in warhammer) can choose based on their backstory and playstyle. The more you limit players, the more creative they get within their "bubble" for form functioning lists and armies. Why I say this is that right now there is no incentive to pick anything besides the most broken legion/craftworld/trait, the best relics, so-on and so forth.
As an example of what I'm thinking:
Lets say you want to play World Eaters. In order for your detachment to be considered a World Eaters detachment, they could place a limit:
** this army cannot contain any models without the Mark of Khorne, and may not contain any models with the "Psyker" keyword. All models in this detachment may reroll any failed charges, and gain +1 attack when it charges, is charged, or heroically intervenes. Khorne Berzerkers may be taken as a troop choice in this detachment.
Fluffwise, World Eaters is a Khorne legion, and they hate psykers. This places a limit on model choice (no plague marines or sorcerers, for example), but gives you a massive benefit for playing the army as intended.
Now lets take Alpha Legion. They're sneaky as hell, but the legion is generally Unmarked and has very few mutations/signs of chaos. In order to be considered Alpha Legion you could place this limitation:
**** All models in this detachment may not have a Mark of Chaos other than Undivided. Models with the Infantry or Walker keywords in this detachment are -1 to hit at distances greater than 12". As well, Alpha Legion detachments may choose units of Raptors and Warp Talons as Troops.
This gives you access to the legion strat, but removes the relatively "broken" combo with Berzerkers, but in a fluffy way. It doesn't remove things like Alpha Obliterators, but it does remove Alpha Slanesh Obliterators.
You could apply this thinking to each army really that isn't a specific legion/army like Death Guard or Blood Angels. It doesn't fix a lot of the other fundamental problems, but it indirectly adds a cost to picking certain traits and chapters. Relics can then be based off certain chapters (maybe 2-3 per), then have a small handful of "universal" relics.
I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.
A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.
Only problem is that this limitation would require a new codex or a specific supplement that you must buy. I don't really see GW give out pages and pages of fluff limitations that are this specific for free.
Eldarsif wrote: Only problem is that this limitation would require a new codex or a specific supplement that you must buy. I don't really see GW give out pages and pages of fluff limitations that are this specific for free.
I would think it would be more a Codex 8.5 or maybe even 9th edition.
This wouldn't really upset competitive players, they'll buy whatever works anyway, but brings the game back in line with fluff (makes the narrative people happier) and places more limitations to force people to think more when they form an army. I don't think you can ever address spam, its always been an issue, but I think its a step in the right direction
Reemule wrote: I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.
A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.
It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?
I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.
Reemule wrote: I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.
A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.
It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?
I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.
I would argue there is definitely skill involved, but I do agree that the pool of players that attend multiple large events is relatively small. Unlike E-sports, or other competitive "geek games" (Magic), you can't really make good money playing it; so the incentive to be the best is pretty small, other than the notoriety.
Reemule wrote: I believe that the fact you can show the same people winning events again and again, year after year means that there is something about the game being skill based.
A truly RNG game would show a lot more variety in who makes the top tables.
It does seem to be true that the same names pop up as the big winner all the time. However, how many people are actually out there going to multiple large tournaments per year (in America), less than 200?
I guess my point would be that it's much more likely for the cream to rise to the top when the cream is such a significant portion of the milk.
I'm sure your right to some extent. The more chances you have to win the better your chances are to win. But is it going to help the argument that the game is all RNG, or is it going to help the argument that the game is skill based?
You could argue that the guy who goes to 5 events and wins 3, is the better player as they saw such a wider range of opponents, and still managed to maintain a winning record?
When I was competitive in another game, if was felt that if you could get to top 8 in a 64 man tourney, anyone of those guys could win, and it was down to luck for them at that point. Perhaps 40k is the same. Skill takes you to the top 16? The top 8? then its coin flips?
As skill gets closer to even, it's less of a deciding factor. So the game gets closer to a coin flip.
If I play whoever won the last GT, even in a mirror match, he's got way more than a 50% chance to win. Because he's that much more skilled than I.
If I were to play a clone of me in a mirror match, my win chance is obviously 50%.
If I were to clone myself, I played the last GT winner, then I played the clone, my chance of winning is probably about 51%.
I'd imagine two random individuals in the top 10 of most things would be much closer in skill than two random individuals from the population at large.
Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.
But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.
If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.
Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.
Who's the better player?
The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.
Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.
But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.
If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.
Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.
Who's the better player?
The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.
So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.
The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.
This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.
Yet it's still widely considered fair. You play enough games, and randomize who's first, and the bias works itself out.
But moving the first white pawn doesn't kill 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop and your queen. On the black player's first turn, he's not sitting with his 9 pieces left to your 16.
If you want to know who the best player is, you have to have a tournament with identical table terrain and identical lists. You have to eliminate all variables except dice roll and the person rolling them. 2 players can take identical list and one might get 5 opponents with lists that have a tough time facing that list, and the other might face a series of hard counter lists.
Player 1's Rock beat scissors 5 times to get the finals table.
Player 2's Rock played paper 3 times, then rock twice to sit in the middle of the pack.
Who's the better player?
The only thing we can determine from the current ITC tourney scene is who has the best skill at min/maxing lists in the meta and who got the better luck of the draw in the bracket.
So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.
The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.
This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.
Part of the problem with the tourney scene is pre-event Ranking. I have noticed that the "Top Players" rarely, if ever, face each other on the first day/day and a half, that is the first 3 or so rounds. If you randomize the draws in the first few rounds, you may see some of these 'Top Players" dropping to the middle of the pack due to facing each other earlier.
This brings into question whether they are really that good or are they, like in the College Basketball Tourny, just facing the play-in #16 seed who has almost no chance of winning.
For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
If that's the case I'm expecting a Sunday announcement and hopefully a Tuesday release or Saturday release. I believe the last one was released on a tuesday
But they always do their announcements on Sundays it seems
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.
This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.
As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....
I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.
FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.
It makes it sound like there is a lot of stuff in it, if they are having to spend a fair chunk of time on layout...
I am interested in seeing these changes, but, i'm also betting that someone will find a contradiction between this faq and one of the previous ones within 30 minutes or so - because of those people that ARE great at writing rules seem to often have brain meltdowns when it comes to rules intentions.
Spoletta wrote: So your conclusions make your argument wrong by definition.
The same guys are winning the events.
Everyone can bring the top lists, since netlisting is a thing.
This means that with equal lists, the chances of winning are not random. Better players win more often.
Everyone can bring the top lists, but not everyone will bring the top lists. Remember, 40k is a hobby, not a job or a professional sport. Relatively few people are willing to buy a whole new army, pay to have it painted (since you can't do it yourself quickly enough to keep up with the meta), and pay $$$$ in travel and hotel costs to make it to a major tournament. Most people are going to show up with less-optimized lists, and many players aren't going to be able to make the trip at all regardless of skill. Just by being one of the few people willing to commit to playing 40k to win you're going to show up at the top of events over and over again, simply because the group you're in is so small. And that makes 40k events less a test of skill and more a test of willingness to do what it takes to win.
Kdash wrote: This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.
As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....
I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.
I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment
But linking it to power level would just mean more book keeping, not saying that the idea of scaled of CP cost of stratagems is a bad idea, people don't use Powerl levels and hate to use them.
Again am not saying I disagree, 10 infiltrating cultists for 1 CP and 20 zerkers for same cost is crazy.
Also there would be a problem for factions like BA where the codex working are build around CP use, at the same time factions where stratagem are just a nice bonus to stock rules they get for free would get a buff of sorts.
Maybe CP regen should be fixed on the army level. You could still make an army out soup detachments, but your army would be decided by the warlord with a big buff to mono armies. So a BA or custodes army would get a lot more CP each turn or pre game, then an army consisting of 3 different factions. You could even balance it for each army, so that the choice when to use CP would be there for all armies, but someone picking a more elite mono army wouldn't be gimped at the level of list building.
This would also keep soup as an option. For example a knight player would have to make a choice, between playing a ravellan fueled most turns of the game or not having it fueled efficient, but getting a screen of some IG dudes. This would also fix the whole eldar soup problem.
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
This along with the FLG guys saying it will be out this month makes me about 95% sure it will be dropping this month. The other 5% is the off chance it takes a few days longer than expected.
FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.
grouchoben wrote: For those wondering whether it'll drop in September, I recko it will, right at the dying breath of the month.
Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
If only they put that much effort into the books they print, you know the ones that we pay for.
It makes it sound like there is a lot of stuff in it, if they are having to spend a fair chunk of time on layout...
I am interested in seeing these changes, but, i'm also betting that someone will find a contradiction between this faq and one of the previous ones within 30 minutes or so - because of those people that ARE great at writing rules seem to often have brain meltdowns when it comes to rules intentions.
They should probably just hire some of the people who are great at writing rules as independent contractors for a one-off CA or something like it. Would likely help the game a lot.
Kdash wrote: This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.
As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....
I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.
I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment
But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.
grouchoben wrote: Here's a post from their FB team about what stage it's at from today:
"Luckily, the people who ARE great at writing rules updates have finished it, and it's just being checked/ translated/ laid out etc.. so you haven't got long to wait! "
So, who've they hired in to do this particular round of "FAQ"/errata, then? After all, that description seems to rule out the usual Studio...
Anyone running a book on how many actual FAQs get dealt with in this release, whenever it drops, as opposed to errata?
But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.
Well unless you make money with playing they will do so most of the time, there is the case though of armies being play unfun to play with. It is one thing to have an unoptimised list and a different thing being forced to ask people to buy a separate army just to play against you.
But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.
Well unless you make money with playing they will do so most of the time, there is the case though of armies being play unfun to play with. It is one thing to have an unoptimised list and a different thing being forced to ask people to buy a separate army just to play against you.
It's rather easy to just bring a soft list.... or just simply spot someone x- points to cover the difference. We used to do that constantly back when my group played fantasy. There 101 ways to play a fun game without having to toss out every model that gets hit with the nerf bat.
It is easy in parts of the world where people can afford to buy a normal list and a soft list. In places where people earn less money, no one is going to spend a month of salary just that someone else can have fun. Specially as you would have to buy multiple soft armies against different opponents. Soft vs an orc army, or some sort of tempestus with knights list, is much different then the soft you need to play vs GK. In some cases you can't even get a soft enough list, and that is ignoring models people may like or not like to play with.
As the points go, the first thing I learned when I was starting was that I can have as many less points as I won't in my army, but I can never have more points then agreed. And people actually check the lists of people here. And if you cheat you may soon find yourself without people to play.
As the tosing away thing goes, It is a joke right? I am rather bad at getting those. If not then I can't imagine someone doing it unless they are either mental, or too rich. In both cases the bad army problem either doesn't exist or the person in question has bigger problems then a not working army.
Karol wrote: It is easy in parts of the world where people can afford to buy a normal list and a soft list. In places where people earn less money, no one is going to spend a month of salary just that someone else can have fun. Specially as you would have to buy multiple soft armies against different opponents. Soft vs an orc army, or some sort of tempestus with knights list, is much different then the soft you need to play vs GK. In some cases you can't even get a soft enough list, and that is ignoring models people may like or not like to play with.
As the points go, the first thing I learned when I was starting was that I can have as many less points as I won't in my army, but I can never have more points then agreed. And people actually check the lists of people here. And if you cheat you may soon find yourself without people to play.
As the tosing away thing goes, It is a joke right? I am rather bad at getting those. If not then I can't imagine someone doing it unless they are either mental, or too rich. In both cases the bad army problem either doesn't exist or the person in question has bigger problems then a not working army.
So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.
So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.
Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OPGK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.
Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?
So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.
Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OPGK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.
Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?
One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.
Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win
So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.
Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OPGK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.
Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?
One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.
Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win
This is all well and good for you, but it's not how everyone chooses armies Bor how tournament play should be structure's (i.e. it should be balanced).
So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.
Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OPGK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.
Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?
One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.
Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win
Don't bother getting into this. A while back I got into a discussion with Karol regarding the specifics of their list, and long story short they made an exceedingly poor purchasing decision and bought a completely non functional army for several times more than they were worth.
For some reason he is fixated on army balance rather than this decision point as the cause of his problems, and does not get that if he had went and bought an old eldar army with Eldrad, Yriel, 4 howling banshees, 30 guardians, a fire prism, an avatar, and a double-ML wave serpent instead of his GKs his experience would be any different.
No FAQ will make blowing a huge amount of money on an editions out of date army into a thing you can play games successfully with.
If you're going to be chasing the meta, then you have to accept you'll be spending hundreds, if not thousands, each year. That's the price of entry into the "competitive" scene.
Collect an army that you actually like the look of, the lore and will enjoy painting and hobbying and you might surprise yourself of actually having more fun playing than winning.
Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.
Kdash wrote: This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.
As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....
I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.
I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment
But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.
It’s not so much about the models not being “useable”, more, that I don’t have as much spare money as I’d like to expand my current collection in the ways I want to. Making a purchase now on 2 or 3 kits might not make a difference in the long run, but, short term it does potentially have an impact on my hobby and motivation, if my brand new models get used once or twice, then put on the shelf for another 3 months while we wait for CA to hopefully fix them again. To me, that is just a waste of time and money, especially in an environment where I don’t get many casual games in, but end up playing a lot more fairly competitive games.
FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.
That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.
FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.
That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.
GW wrote on their own FB page, that it's finished and they're just doing layout, editing and translations. Takes time to proofread the Japanese version , especially if (as this spring) it's updating FAQs for all Codexes, the BRB, etc.. as well as a file for new and old beta rules, etc...
FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.
That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.
I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.
Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.
But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.
I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.
Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.
But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.
Thing is THEY set up schedule and at least here when at work you set up deadline you make sure you follow it. Sign of professionality.
Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific on the schedule. "Spring/Fall FAQ" would have been much more flexible for public deadline. Then have internally deadline as march/september. This way you don't have to break your own deadlines in case it is delayed.
But if I can't keep up with deadlines at my work it's not good. Too much of that and...well certainly would be reason for boss to start giving me warnings and if I still ignore them eventually get fired.
I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.
Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.
But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.
Thing is THEY set up schedule and at least here when at work you set up deadline you make sure you follow it. Sign of professionality.
Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific on the schedule. "Spring/Fall FAQ" would have been much more flexible for public deadline. Then have internally deadline as march/september. This way you don't have to break your own deadlines in case it is delayed.
But if I can't keep up with deadlines at my work it's not good. Too much of that and...well certainly would be reason for boss to start giving me warnings and if I still ignore them eventually get fired.
Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.
It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.
Apple said they'd release HomePod in June 2017 .. it went on sale February 2018.
Duke Nuke Em Forever video game was famously sheduled for a release in 1997, again in 98, again in the early 2000s, etc.. before being released in 2011 or 2012 or so?
Kickstarters that aren't a year late are almost the exception.
Stux wrote: Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.
It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.
Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific with deadlines..."Spring/Fall FAQ". Done. How hard that was? As it is plenty of their customers already thought them as spring/fall faq rather than specific month...
GW made mistake of painting themselves to the corner for no real benefit. Had they originally set up them as spring/fall FAQ the lashback at spring would have been avoided and there would be people asking where's the september faq. As it is if it comes tomorrow now it's going to be "phew barely in september" rather than "yey we got it early"(how anybody can be happy about getting new models forcefed to be bought while still leaving game just as unbalanced though....). Win-win!
Stux wrote: Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.
It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.
Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific with deadlines..."Spring/Fall FAQ". Done. How hard that was? As it is plenty of their customers already thought them as spring/fall faq rather than specific month...
GW made mistake of painting themselves to the corner for no real benefit. Had they originally set up them as spring/fall FAQ the lashback at spring would have been avoided and there would be people asking where's the september faq. As it is if it comes tomorrow now it's going to be "phew barely in september" rather than "yey we got it early"(how anybody can be happy about getting new models forcefed to be bought while still leaving game just as unbalanced though....). Win-win!
Just sounds like you're looking for problems at this point to be honest.
They told us the plan was September. Everyone who knows anything about it knows that could get pushed back, but I appreciate knowing that September is the target.
I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.
If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?
gwarsh41 wrote: That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.
It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.
Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?
Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?
Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.
Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.
I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?
you said it was larger but I felt it was very VERY clear that you meant "more working parts" which is certainly true, Star craft 2 has 59 units spread across 3 factions. 40k has over a dozen distinct factions and codex space marines ALONE has as many units.
Dysartes wrote: I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.
If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?
Dysartes wrote: I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.
If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?
Because it doesn't matter that much?
It's also dirt easy to do. GW seems to love to do things more convoluted way. Good example being how they officially clarified Da Jump etc working on T1 putting it on FB with very condensing picture made to boot. And that post in their FB which is long buried is STILL only place for the official source...When for far quicker and less effort they could have done it like professionals and have it in centralized official location...Let's call that section say....FAQ's and Errata's...What a novel concept!
Try and find that post from FB. It was not easy month after it and it is not easy now. And since it's there I need to make sure every time I play with new face they ARE aware of that to ensure I don't end up again in arqument mid turn 1 can I do it or not...
Why not do things properly first time out rather especially when it's easy and time consuming rather than have it backfire?
Sure hope september FAQ doesn't introduce yet another debacle of that kind. Having to go through once due to GW designers not even attempting to do things like professionals is annoying enough. No more TYVM.
Vector Strike wrote: After the March > April delay, I was fully expecting the September FAQ to only hit the net in October...
This is very much what I thought aswell. I do hope that the reason for the delay is because it contains larger changes and it would take a longer time to ensure it's precisely the changes that they want to put out.
Dysartes wrote: I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.
If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?
Because it doesn't matter that much?
It's also dirt easy to do. GW seems to love to do things more convoluted way. Good example being how they officially clarified Da Jump etc working on T1 putting it on FB with very condensing picture made to boot. And that post in their FB which is long buried is STILL only place for the official source...When for far quicker and less effort they could have done it like professionals and have it in centralized official location...Let's call that section say....FAQ's and Errata's...What a novel concept!
Try and find that post from FB. It was not easy month after it and it is not easy now. And since it's there I need to make sure every time I play with new face they ARE aware of that to ensure I don't end up again in arqument mid turn 1 can I do it or not...
Why not do things properly first time out rather especially when it's easy and time consuming rather than have it backfire?
Sure hope september FAQ doesn't introduce yet another debacle of that kind. Having to go through once due to GW designers not even attempting to do things like professionals is annoying enough. No more TYVM.
But that just sounds like more of an argument for delaying until they're certain it's ready, rather than rushing it out to meet a somewhat arbitrary deadline.
Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.
So true. Sadly some people only have fun if they win.
That's my philosophy. As an avid WE player. I don't win a lot these days. But I still have fun playing with the big boys at tournaments.
Well, I guess most people complain because it is not easy to find fun in being shot of the table without even having a chance of doing meaningful things. Playing my Slaanesh Daemons is an example of this. I set up, lose 30-50% of my army turn 1. Then get to kill a few models cause Slaanesh models hit like wet towels despite being glass cannons. This goes on for a few turns. Then game is over.
Stux wrote: But that just sounds like more of an argument for delaying until they're certain it's ready, rather than rushing it out to meet a somewhat arbitrary deadline.
Which is why having wider deadline(at least for public deadline) would give them more room. Unless you go idea of "we give FAQ when we feel like it" then idea of spring/autumn FAQ with internal goal of releasing it march/september gives them 2 more months to fine tune as needed while still sticking to their deadlines.
So they would have time to publish it when it's ready. Imagine they now find something they need to add. Odds are it would delay it past september after all. If they had just said "autumn FAQ" originally they would still have ~2 months to tweak it! 2 month leeway is so huge it's hard to imagine FAQ missing even that deadline(and if THAT is worry then forget about having any regular FAQ's known to customers to begin with. Which is even worse idea).
Basically all they needed to do is write "spring/fall" rather than "march/september" and hey presto job done they would have all the time they need to finetune it until it's really ready for release. It's the current way that pressures them to release non-ready document. And there's no real downside to GW for that...
(another bonus. takes less typing to write spring faq and autumn faq than march faq and september faq!)
Stux wrote: But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.
As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.
Thing is september IS the goal. That's what they said. It's not players who decided it's september. IT IS THEMSELVES! Goal is september because GW decided goal is september. Players then just have to see if GW are professionals(it comes on september) or bunch of amateurs(it does not)
If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different? Lol at white knights.
Stux wrote: But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.
As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.
I do kind of agree that they should be sticking to their goals. It would be a clear way to showcase that they're committed to retaining their goals. However, if they have a reason for delaying it, such as to include some other larger changes within it, then I'm fine with it. I say let's wait to see, and decide if the delay was worth it when it does release.
Stux wrote: But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.
As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.
I do kind of agree that they should be sticking to their goals. It would be a clear way to showcase that they're committed to retaining their goals. However, if they have a reason for delaying it, such as to include some other larger changes within it, then I'm fine with it. I say let's wait to see, and decide if the delay was worth it when it does release.
Agreed. There's still a few days of September left too!
It should be noted, GW was very open and upfront in March about delaying the March FAQ to April, because they thought it would benefit to include Adepticon-Feedback, which was am event on the last weekend of March.
I am surprised about the vitriol about that delay, because, at the time, the delay was announced early on and came with a sound reasoning, that, I felt, was largely well received. It certainly wasn’t some random, unexplained late publication and there was no announcement that the September FAQ would be late.
Infact, while the September FAQ remains the September FAQ, they said the other FAQ would drop in April in future years as well, precisely for that reason. Unless Adepticon changes dates, it‘ll be April and September next year as well.
I don't get all this talk about GW and not respecting deadlines.
We have indications that they are probably going to meet it, and in the worst case they are going to be a few days late. Doesn't seem to me like there is anything to discuss here.
The last time that they didn't meet the deadline, we got an official announcement for it.
Spoletta wrote: I don't get all this talk about GW and not respecting deadlines.
We have indications that they are probably going to meet it, and in the worst case they are going to be a few days late. Doesn't seem to me like there is anything to discuss here.
The last time that they didn't meet the deadline, we got an official announcement for it.
Yeah, more or less, they can still meet the September FAQ deadline. Though translating the FAQ might take longer than some people might think, it could still release this month. Though I think they should probably just do a post or something about what they've been up to in regards to the content, what they see as the issues that they're solving, some weird rules questions that arose, etc that would allow them to show legitimately the effort they've put into it and their commitment to keeping quality above speed. It's strange to me that they haven't done such a thing.
Spoletta wrote: I don't get all this talk about GW and not respecting deadlines.
We have indications that they are probably going to meet it, and in the worst case they are going to be a few days late. Doesn't seem to me like there is anything to discuss here.
The last time that they didn't meet the deadline, we got an official announcement for it.
Yeah, more or less, they can still meet the September FAQ deadline. Though translating the FAQ might take longer than some people might think, it could still release this month. Though I think they should probably just do a post or something about what they've been up to in regards to the content, what they see as the issues that they're solving, some weird rules questions that arose, etc that would allow them to show legitimately the effort they've put into it and their commitment to keeping quality above speed. It's strange to me that they haven't done such a thing.
They basically did that last time with the stream, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something similar. Though personally I'd prefer a written document for commentary.
It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
Back on topic:
Whether or not a FAQ is late isn't the end of the world and GW probably just needs some extra time, so people should chill out because it just doesn't matter that much. We can wish for better communications or timely delivery, and we should let GW know when we're unhappy with them. But we can be civil about it.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
Back on topic:
Whether or not a FAQ is late isn't the end of the world and GW probably just needs some extra time, so people should chill out because it just doesn't matter that much. We can wish for better communications or timely delivery, and we should let GW know when we're unhappy with them. But we can be civil about it.
Well, the FAQ isn't late thus far. Getting upset about the possibility that it might be late, which in turn wouldn't be a big issue (and far from Genocide, lol), is silly. Yes.
Besides, if the September FAQ lands in October, that's more egg-on-their-face than waah-terribad-company. Especially if it were the first week.
After all, last FAQ they showed they'd rather miss their date and do something about a problem they saw than be able to say they made their date. That's a *good* thing. Should they have seen the problem earlier? Definitely. Are there better ways to handle it? Almost certainly. But they decided to fix more rather than meet the letter of their commitment. For that, I applaud them.
I'm confused, why are we complaining about them missing September? Its still September. There's still 4 days left. They could release the FAQ on the 30th at 23:59:59 and it would still be the September FAQ.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm confused, why are we complaining about them missing September? Its still September. There's still 4 days left. They could release the FAQ on the 30th at 23:59:59 and it would still be the September FAQ.
Basically someone said they'd be annoyed if it was late, and it spun out from there.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm confused, why are we complaining about them missing September? Its still September. There's still 4 days left. They could release the FAQ on the 30th at 23:59:59 and it would still be the September FAQ.
Complaining that it's not October in September is the new black. You should see the ork threads!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Here's why you don't make it an "Autumn" FAQ - when you manage projects you set your deadline so that you can manage to that expectation.
I guarantee that you people would bitch MORE if there was a wishy washy season it could be released in.
September 21st: AUTUMN FAQ WHEN?
October : AUTUMN FAQ WHEN?!
November : AUTUMN FAQ WHEN?!!!! (HURR DURR SNOW SO IT'S WINTER NOW!)
December: AUTUMN FAQ WHEN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We all know they wait until after the big tournaments to assess the changes. This will happen each year. Get over it.
You missed the part where people would do a 24 hour count-down on August 26th for the FAQ announcement on warhammer-community.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
Back on topic:
Whether or not a FAQ is late isn't the end of the world and GW probably just needs some extra time, so people should chill out because it just doesn't matter that much. We can wish for better communications or timely delivery, and we should let GW know when we're unhappy with them. But we can be civil about it.
Well, the FAQ isn't late thus far. Getting upset about the possibility that it might be late, which in turn wouldn't be a big issue (and far from Genocide, lol), is silly. Yes.
Obviously. I was just ranting about the general notion that if you can't change something you shouldn't be upset by it.
Removed - BrookM Noone will take that as serious and worthwhile feedback, because it isn't. It's just a temper tantrum.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't hold GW to a very high standard. Can't be annoyed that we don't have the FAQ yet. Nor do I have very high expectations for what is inside it.
While I am slightly more optimistic, at least I can fully understand this position.
Nekooni, what do you think anxiety, rage and testiness about something that is completely out of your control are going to achieve? Honest question. Do you get furious with rain clouds? Apoplectic with wrinkles?
If we can avoid a catastrophising reaction towards events out of our control, we become better agents, because we can deal with them better, more calmly and with better proportion. We also become happier and more resilient people.
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
Back on topic:
Whether or not a FAQ is late isn't the end of the world and GW probably just needs some extra time, so people should chill out because it just doesn't matter that much. We can wish for better communications or timely delivery, and we should let GW know when we're unhappy with them. But we can be civil about it.
Well, nothing bad has happened yet, so getting angry about something that hasn't happened yet is actually pretty fething stupid.
I can't believe I read that not being angry about the FAQ is the same as not being angry about genocide.
Ya'll need to chill out.
Conjecture meets hyperbole in the perfect blend. Specific scenarios lead to predictable results. End of sept-> GW must have missed sept faq-> this is so wrong its social injustice-> equivocates to.. to.. genocide! Lolz. Once the FAQ is released the same people can be upset about the results. Its like all of whingeseer relocated here.
The good news is this thread is really just to identify those kids so you can avoid ever playing them. Fething funny I can't believe I took a break from this sort of drama for so long.
Maybe it is just me, but I just noticed that currently the GWFAQs are acting a bit squirrely when trying to load, so maybe something being added is the cause...
False alarm. About 10 minutes after I posted it was discovered that we were having some network issues in our office.
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
I just woke up, logged on, and WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS?
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
I just woke up, logged on, and WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS?
Nothing really - some people are arguing about the timeliness of the FAQs - the rest of us just waiting to see what they do in due course.
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
I just woke up, logged on, and WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS?
Basically we're out of stuff to get annoyed about in the run up to the FAQ, so we're getting annoyed at each other either for getting too annoyed about things or not getting annoyed enough about things.
Basically just passing the time! *Twiddles thumbs*
There should be a timer counting down to the FAQ on the site, but it resets just when its about to hit 0. When it resets there would be a message - "Someone asked about the FAQ. Reset the Clock"
ChargerIIC wrote: If I were GW Community Team, I'd take this as the as an excellent opportunity to troll the trolls.
"New FAQ! Click >Here<"
*Clicks*
'Warhammer Community FAQ Timing FAQ'
Q: Is the FAQ Here Yet?
A: No, but it's coming soon!
That's exactly the kind of mentality a company should have - trolling it's own customers lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Looks like not today - they have posted a necromunda article.
Excellent resource allocation from GW right here. Flag ship game that makes 80% of the money taking back seat to a mini game that 1/100 customers are interested in. Amazing.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
Back on topic:
Whether or not a FAQ is late isn't the end of the world and GW probably just needs some extra time, so people should chill out because it just doesn't matter that much. We can wish for better communications or timely delivery, and we should let GW know when we're unhappy with them. But we can be civil about it.
Well, the FAQ isn't late thus far. Getting upset about the possibility that it might be late, which in turn wouldn't be a big issue (and far from Genocide, lol), is silly. Yes.
Obviously. I was just ranting about the general notion that if you can't change something you shouldn't be upset by it.
And even if it ends up late we should have a more reasonable reaction than autistic screeching. Noone will take that as serious and worthwhile feedback, because it isn't. It's just a temper tantrum.
grouchoben wrote: It's a good opportunity for us to work on our attitude to things that are out of our control. FAQ dates definitely fit that bill! Why let something that you have no say over disturb, anger or upset you?
The big point is that being disturbed, angry or upset are things that are under our control, unlike the vagaries of translating technical gaming terms into 20 languages. Don't let GW have a say over your wellbeing or character.
So just because you can't do anything about something that is wrong means you shouldn't be angry about it happening? Just because you were unable to help prevent a genocide means it shouldn't disturb you that it happened?
Dude.
I just woke up, logged on, and WHAT THE HELL DID I MISS?
Basically we're out of stuff to get annoyed about in the run up to the FAQ, so we're getting annoyed at each other either for getting too annoyed about things or not getting annoyed enough about things.
Basically just passing the time! *Twiddles thumbs*
I really can't wait to be annoyed by the FAQs content rather than it's non existence.
ChargerIIC wrote: If I were GW Community Team, I'd take this as the as an excellent opportunity to troll the trolls.
"New FAQ! Click >Here<"
*Clicks*
'Warhammer Community FAQ Timing FAQ'
Q: Is the FAQ Here Yet?
A: No, but it's coming soon!
That's exactly the kind of mentality a company should have - trolling it's own customers lol.
Worked for Wendy's.
Seriously, the occassional cheekiness is better than being given the silent treatment because it at least shows that someone is listening. That said, to really sell the joke "soon" should be TM'd.
I wonder if how chill you are about FAQ/errata is correlated in anyway with how good your faction is, or how big your budget for gaming is. Would be fun to find out that people get les chill the worse they faction are doing or if they are stuck with what they have no matter what the changes are.
ChargerIIC wrote: If I were GW Community Team, I'd take this as the as an excellent opportunity to troll the trolls.
"New FAQ! Click >Here<"
*Clicks*
'Warhammer Community FAQ Timing FAQ'
Q: Is the FAQ Here Yet?
A: No, but it's coming soon!
That's exactly the kind of mentality a company should have - trolling it's own customers lol.
Worked for Wendy's.
Seriously, the occassional cheekiness is better than being given the silent treatment because it at least shows that someone is listening. That said, to really sell the joke "soon" should be TM'd.
If I get trolled at wendies - I'll just troll them back. GW is like the ultimate troll - you can't troll them back.
Spoletta wrote: I don't get all this talk about GW and not respecting deadlines.
We have indications that they are probably going to meet it, and in the worst case they are going to be a few days late. Doesn't seem to me like there is anything to discuss here.
The last time that they didn't meet the deadline, we got an official announcement for it.
Yeah, more or less, they can still meet the September FAQ deadline. Though translating the FAQ might take longer than some people might think, it could still release this month. Though I think they should probably just do a post or something about what they've been up to in regards to the content, what they see as the issues that they're solving, some weird rules questions that arose, etc that would allow them to show legitimately the effort they've put into it and their commitment to keeping quality above speed. It's strange to me that they haven't done such a thing.
They basically did that last time with the stream, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something similar. Though personally I'd prefer a written document for commentary.
Didn't someone check the stream schedule earlier in the thread, and all the slots for the week were already filled with things?
ChargerIIC wrote: If I were GW Community Team, I'd take this as the as an excellent opportunity to troll the trolls.
"New FAQ! Click >Here<"
*Clicks*
'Warhammer Community FAQ Timing FAQ'
Q: Is the FAQ Here Yet?
A: No, but it's coming soon!
That's exactly the kind of mentality a company should have - trolling it's own customers lol.
Worked for Wendy's.
Seriously, the occassional cheekiness is better than being given the silent treatment because it at least shows that someone is listening. That said, to really sell the joke "soon" should be TM'd.
If I get trolled at wendies - I'll just troll them back. GW is like the ultimate troll - you can't troll them back.
I meant more the Wendy's twitter than the restaurants themselves. That said, you can troll their FB page!
Seriously though, I have to ask, did the last big FAQ come out on a weekend or a weekday? I was in hiatus at the time so I don't know exactly when it dropped.
Dysartes wrote: I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread it was a Tuesday, but I could be wrong.
Quick! Someone summon M.Bison!
If it was a weekday then I have no idea what we're waiting for unless they're having last minute proofing to deal with involving other languages or something like that.
Dysartes wrote: I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread it was a Tuesday, but I could be wrong.
Quick! Someone summon M.Bison!
If it was a weekday then I have no idea what we're waiting for unless they're having last minute proofing to deal with involving other languages or something like that.
It was a Monday, apparently. GW claims, as of yesterday, they're just working on layout and translating.
Dysartes wrote: I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread it was a Tuesday, but I could be wrong.
Quick! Someone summon M.Bison!
If it was a weekday then I have no idea what we're waiting for unless they're having last minute proofing to deal with involving other languages or something like that.
It was a Monday, apparently. GW claims, as of yesterday, they're just working on layout and translating.
Considering good translation takes a bit I can understand if that caused some delays, especially if the game got reworked to better match RAI following Nova.
Yeah the thing is those translations end up being horrible in the end anyway. I only read the german and french ones, and those are horrible. The rules work in different way.
Karol wrote: Yeah the thing is those translations end up being horrible in the end anyway. I only read the german and french ones, and those are horrible. The rules work in different way.
Well here's to hoping that the translations are getting better!
Either way, I feel like if they have a delay on this stuff a little more open communication would be nice just so we can temper our impatience a bit with the information.
Karol wrote: I wonder if how chill you are about FAQ/errata is correlated in anyway with how good your faction is, or how big your budget for gaming is. Would be fun to find out that people get les chill the worse they faction are doing or if they are stuck with what they have no matter what the changes are.
I play Tyranids and take care of my brother's Dark Angels and Thousand sons (rubrics). The FAQ impact on me is probably zero, i'm just waiting it to snack on some popcorns.
Karol wrote: Yeah the thing is those translations end up being horrible in the end anyway. I only read the german and french ones, and those are horrible. The rules work in different way.
Well here's to hoping that the translations are getting better!
Either way, I feel like if they have a delay on this stuff a little more open communication would be nice just so we can temper our impatience a bit with the information.
Again, which is what they did in March. They posted that there would be a delay, said it's because they decided to include Adepticon feedback, and that was that.
Given they didn't post anything about a delay, it seems reasonable to assume that there is no delay and that it'll presumably be out late Saturday or Sunday as to not steal any thunder from the new Shadespire in GW stores and the various Shadespire Nightvault launch events across the world on Saturday.
A lot get's lost in translation I am sure. Heck - a lot gets lost in translation In the English version too. Really - without understanding the rules themselves - it should be impossible to translate them into another language. lol.
That is the grand big FAQ 1. A document which could be created in about 30 minutes and probably was created in about 30 minutes.
WTF are you talking about a delay - this isn't a 200-300 page report we are talking about. This is just putting ideas onto paper that get jabbered about all over the place.
Plus this can be a compete living document.
You know I just had a mind blown type epiphany. What if the reason GW rules suck so bad is that they are first written in some language that is not English and then translated into English?
Xenomancers wrote: A lot get's lost in translation I am sure. Heck - a lot gets lost in translation In the English version too. Really - without understanding the rules themselves - it should be impossible to translate them into another language. lol.
That is the grand big FAQ 1. A document which could be created in about 30 minutes and probably was created in about 30 minutes.
WTF are you talking about a delay - this isn't a 200-300 page report we are talking about. This is just putting ideas onto paper that get jabbered about all over the place.
Plus this can be a compete living document.
You know I just had a mind blown type epiphany. What if the reason GW rules suck so bad is that they are first written in some language that is not English and then translated into English?
You know the "Big FAQ" wasn't just that one document, but an update to all FAQs for all Codexes, the BRB, Chapter Approved, etc.. at the same day. A lot of impactful changes were actually in the individual codex FAQ updates, the BRBFAQ update, etc.., etc.. It'll be so again this time around, almost certainly, because the Space Wolves one is being held, apparently, to go live at the same time, instead of being updated again a week or two after it's normal release by the "Big FAQ".
That said, I don't think it is just translation, but also timing to not interfere with the Saturday releases of Nightvault.
Xenomancers wrote: A lot get's lost in translation I am sure. Heck - a lot gets lost in translation In the English version too. Really - without understanding the rules themselves - it should be impossible to translate them into another language. lol.
That is the grand big FAQ 1. A document which could be created in about 30 minutes and probably was created in about 30 minutes.
WTF are you talking about a delay - this isn't a 200-300 page report we are talking about. This is just putting ideas onto paper that get jabbered about all over the place.
Plus this can be a compete living document.
You know I just had a mind blown type epiphany. What if the reason GW rules suck so bad is that they are first written in some language that is not English and then translated into English?
You know the "Big FAQ" wasn't just that one document, but an update to all FAQs for all Codexes, the BRB, Chapter Approved, etc.. at the same day. A lot of impactful changes were actually in the individual codex FAQ updates, the BRBFAQ update, etc.., etc.. It'll be so again this time around, almost certainly, because the Space Wolves one is being held, apparently, to go live at the same time, instead of being updated again a week or two after it's normal release by the "Big FAQ".
That said, I don't think it is just translation, but also timing to not interfere with the Saturday releases of Nightvault.
That is true - but those updates to individual FAQs and codex was not all released at once. It was updated over time. After the big FAQ date. Also with 0 reference to what changes were made. Seems more like the work of a summer intern than a game balance crew of a multi million dollar game which is also the leader in the industry. I wish Gordon Ramsey played 40k so we could get his take on this. I would love to hear him rant about what a bad job they are doing.
Ramsey:
"This FAQ is Gak" "I can't serve this Gak in my store? Throw it out - Start over - Find a new job you hack" "You are Gak" LOL.
Gak Night-vault. Who cares? Too many mini games. Make 40k models and they will sell 10x faster...This is the crap I am talking about.
Xenomancers wrote: A lot get's lost in translation I am sure. Heck - a lot gets lost in translation In the English version too. Really - without understanding the rules themselves - it should be impossible to translate them into another language. lol.
That is the grand big FAQ 1. A document which could be created in about 30 minutes and probably was created in about 30 minutes.
WTF are you talking about a delay - this isn't a 200-300 page report we are talking about. This is just putting ideas onto paper that get jabbered about all over the place.
Plus this can be a compete living document.
You know I just had a mind blown type epiphany. What if the reason GW rules suck so bad is that they are first written in some language that is not English and then translated into English?
I assume playtesting the changes, or at least running them by playtesters for feedback on clarity is a step they now take. Then you'd give them over to a translation team, then from there they're given over to a team than handles the layouts and makes the documents before being put up for mass release.
At least that's how I assume it could work. I always reserve the right to be wrong or for GW to be trolling everyone by waiting for a Sep 30 release for no real reason.
Dysartes wrote: I'm not angry or stressed about the FAQ - just quietly amused at the potential own goal of missing their own deadlines twice in a year...
Doesn't matter a jot to me if it's a bit late. The content is what matters.
ChargerIIC wrote: If I were GW Community Team, I'd take this as the as an excellent opportunity to troll the trolls.
"New FAQ! Click >Here<"
*Clicks*
'Warhammer Community FAQ Timing FAQ'
Q: Is the FAQ Here Yet?
A: No, but it's coming soon!
That's exactly the kind of mentality a company should have - trolling it's own customers lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Looks like not today - they have posted a necromunda article.
Excellent resource allocation from GW right here. Flag ship game that makes 80% of the money taking back seat to a mini game that 1/100 customers are interested in. Amazing.
Are you under the impression that the warhammer community article writer should have been writing the 40kFAQ instead? Something tells me the rules writers should probably be the better choice
Yeah. Necromunda isn't even done by the main GW game studio.
It's a product from the Specialist Game Studio (formerly Forge World).
If (if!) some actual game designer was involved in this article over and above the community page writers/marketing guys, it wasn't a designer from the studio doing 40K, AoS, etc.., but from the Necromunda/Blood Bowl/Titanicus/Heresy/etc.. team.
I'm *fairly* sure many of the faction FAQs were updated same-day with the Big FAQ - not over time, one at a time. Other edits to them did happen, but there was a slate of updates with the FAQ.
Also, if they only spent 30 minutes on the big FAQ, why was it so much better at helping balance the game than 90% of what we see in Proposed Rules?
I'm not saying GW is great. I'm saying balance isn't as trivial.
Stux wrote: Yeah I'm sure they put everything at head office on hold to rush this Necromunda article out
What if the studios are separate and have separate testers etc, but the interns that do the web updating, making of the pdfs are the same people for whole GW
I wonder which faction is going to get the most changes, or will it just be that the trail rules that everyone has been using since spring are just going to be made official, and that ends up being the whole FAQ.
Stux wrote: Yeah I'm sure they put everything at head office on hold to rush this Necromunda article out
What if the studios are separate and have separate testers etc, but the interns that do the web updating, making of the pdfs are the same people for whole GW
I wonder which faction is going to get the most changes, or will it just be that the trail rules that everyone has been using since spring are just going to be made official, and that ends up being the whole FAQ.
WARHAMMER CORE RULES ERRATA 09/27/2018
Q: Why is this page blank?
A: Because the game, like you, is perfect.
Stux wrote: Yeah I'm sure they put everything at head office on hold to rush this Necromunda article out
What if the studios are separate and have separate testers etc, but the interns that do the web updating, making of the pdfs are the same people for whole GW
I wonder which faction is going to get the most changes, or will it just be that the trail rules that everyone has been using since spring are just going to be made official, and that ends up being the whole FAQ.
WARHAMMER CORE RULES ERRATA 09/27/2018
Q: Why is this page blank?
A: Because the game, like you, is perfect.
Are you making fun of me because I have asperger? Or is this a joke?
Stux wrote: Yeah I'm sure they put everything at head office on hold to rush this Necromunda article out
What if the studios are separate and have separate testers etc, but the interns that do the web updating, making of the pdfs are the same people for whole GW
I wonder which faction is going to get the most changes, or will it just be that the trail rules that everyone has been using since spring are just going to be made official, and that ends up being the whole FAQ.
WARHAMMER CORE RULES ERRATA 09/27/2018
Q: Why is this page blank?
A: Because the game, like you, is perfect.
Are you making fun of me because I have asperger? Or is this a joke?
Excellent resource allocation from GW right here. Flag ship game that makes 80% of the money taking back seat to a mini game that 1/100 customers are interested in. Amazing.
Are you trying to be serious? Because all you're doing is making yourself sound ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I'm *fairly* sure many of the faction FAQs were updated same-day with the Big FAQ - not over time, one at a time. Other edits to them did happen, but there was a slate of updates with the FAQ.
Also, if they only spent 30 minutes on the big FAQ, why was it so much better at helping balance the game than 90% of what we see in Proposed Rules?
I'm not saying GW is great. I'm saying balance isn't as trivial.
You are correct. Don't let him gas light you. A couple of factions came in late, but everything was on the same day.
tneva82 wrote: If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?
The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.
Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".
Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.
As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...
So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...
tneva82 wrote: If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?
The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.
Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".
Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.
As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...
So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...
Nothing of that makes it more important.
The only thing that would make it more important is of another company came along that made a better game with better minis
I think it's important for their business to make clear policy regarding erratas.
Firstly, they should stop calling it "FAQ". We do not need our questions answered (it's not the point to explain rules) but rules/balance changed - we need an errata.
Secondly, clear date should be provided. Check out each competititve, semi competitive and even facebook pages where even new players and casuals are asking what to buy and the most common answer now is "wait for FAQ".
It holds sales (i don't know how much but it is). Tournaments have deadlines. Moreover people are tired to play vs broken armies when they know it will change soon so can stop playing now, waiting for "FAQ".
So it's not funny how they wait till end of month without any update or info if it will be delayed or not because it is creating a huge stop both in playing and shopping decisions now.
Instead of "Big updates" system of more hot-fix and point adjustments with some beta-stage would be much better but that would require a huge change from "codex-like" point system updates provided in some sources like CA to online/scroll/app system that GW still don't want to provide for 40k. Their list builder "only for narrative/open play" is a joke.
That's just the nature of the beast. You'll get lulls before a system changes, just as you'll get upticks when the changes arrive and everyone scrambles to adjust.
You'll get delays because it's a thing that's complicated, with many moving parts, and many chefs in the kitchen.
You'll have slower sales because people will hold fire and see what the new hotness is.
None of this is really avoidable, all of this is fine.
Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GWFAQ.
In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.
A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.
Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.
The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".
Jidmah wrote: Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GWFAQ.
In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.
A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.
It’s as simple as this, honesty.
If you say you will do something, then do it, if you can’t do it, say so, if you just ignore the problem it shows dishonesty, personally I want expecting the FAQ in September anyway so I’m not really bothered too much, I understand that as with the last one it was likely to be delayed and that’s where managing your own expectations comes in.
Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.
The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".
Lol.
So back to 7ed where they were unable to fix problems regarding invisibility, deathstars etc. and there was no any ETA regarding FAQ/updates so we had massive drop in playerbase. Yeah, good way to go.
Jidmah wrote: Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GWFAQ.
In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.
A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.
Good to know you are so unprofessional at your work you don't make it point to stick at your deadlines. Hopefully I never have to deal any business with you.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.
The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".
Lol.
So back to 7ed where they were unable to fix problems regarding invisibility, deathstars etc. and there was no any ETA regarding FAQ/updates so we had massive drop in playerbase. Yeah, good way to go.
No. Back to June 2017 to December 2017, when they released FAQs and Errata (for 8th Edition) without a fixed schedule and people complained.
Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.
Long story short, that's exactly what they did in March and thus (presumably) would have done the same now, if they'd think the FAQ wouldn't be published in September.
Jidmah wrote: Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GWFAQ.
In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.
A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.
Good to know you are so unprofessional at your work you don't make it point to stick at your deadlines. Hopefully I never have to deal any business with you.
I'm very sure that you are not qualified to judge the professionalism of my work
A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.
That said, its still September, and GW will most likely release it the next hours/days. So its fine.
Cinderspirit wrote: A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.
That said, its still September, and GW will most likely release it the next hours/days. So its fine.
Yeah but they don't even call it a deadline, that's a term the community have put on it. Deadline in itself means there are consequences for not hitting it, which there aren't.
September is the window their aiming for, no more no less.
tneva82 wrote: If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?
The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.
Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".
Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.
As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...
So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...
Nothing of that makes it more important.
The only thing that would make it more important is of another company came along that made a better game with better minis
There are lots of better games. Better minis? Not so many.
None of which matters a gnats chuff if 40k is the only game your LGS is playing and the next LGS is over an hour away.
Cinderspirit wrote: A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.
There is difference between going over a speed limit and theft. I go over the speed limit all the time, but I never steal anything.
No one can force you to deliver work at a deadline - you just have to live with the consequences that are connected to missing a deadline. I can happily accept getting fined 10-40€ for being too fast, but I won't be going to jail any time soon.
There are companies which have entire departments dedicated to whether it is more profitable to pay contract fines or fulfill contracts. There are even companies which provide this service to other companies.
GW definitely hasn't said anything about deadlines, which makes this more of a release window being hit or not. If we're missing them for the sake of better translations and consistency between languages then it's not as big of a problem in my book as just missing it because of laziness.
Also there was a comment about not calling these "FAQs" anymore. Looking at the actual FAQ page the individual documents are labelled "errata" (also AoS has a bunch of Dev Commentary which I'd like to see more of for 40k to be honest).
ClockworkZion wrote: GW definitely hasn't said anything about deadlines, which makes this more of a release window being hit or not. If we're missing them for the sake of better translations and consistency between languages then it's not as big of a problem in my book as just missing it because of laziness.
Also there was a comment about not calling these "FAQs" anymore. Looking at the actual FAQ page the individual documents are labelled "errata" (also AoS has a bunch of Dev Commentary which I'd like to see more of for 40k to be honest).
Has there been any mention of how precisely the Militarum Tempestus and Advisors and Auxillia rules interact?
Doesn't increasing the Command Point cost of the Imperial Knight stratagems just make the army MORE dependant on Command Point sharing from allied detachments? Did I miss something?
Darsath wrote: Doesn't increasing the Command Point cost of the Imperial Knight stratagems just make the army MORE dependant on Command Point sharing from allied detachments? Did I miss something?
Yes. You will still see Imperial Guard everywhere for the 5/12 extra points. Just less regen.
BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword
cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no
effect on your Army Faction.
It says all units in each detachment. Doesn't that mean you can't have a space marine detachment and a guard detachment?
Darsath wrote: Doesn't increasing the Command Point cost of the Imperial Knight stratagems just make the army MORE dependant on Command Point sharing from allied detachments? Did I miss something?
Yes. You will still see Imperial Guard everywhere for the 5/12 extra points. Just less regen.
Yeah this is kind of what i expect we'll see. We might see a different relic run for IG, but Imperial Knights will continue to be reliant on specifically Imperial Guard for the volume of Command Points that make them a lot more powerful. We'll see though.
Disappointed to see no nerf to massed command points being shared, especially now that my elite type armies (that generally have fewer command points to spend) might have to spend 2 CPs to be protected in the first battle round!
Nah, same for my Necrons. I guess they want you to pay for Chapter Approved in December for any fixes. Gotta wait 'till then.
Except necrons got a FAQ though. GK received nothing, not even a document. Unless I'm just blind. Huh, admech, CSM, and Thousand Sons didn't get it either.
Q: Can a unit with the Fortifications Battlefield Role control an
objective marker?
A: Yes, so long as it is considered to be a friendly
unit (such as a Building). Note that this means that
Fortifications like Feculent Gnarlmaws cannot control
objective markers.
So it looks like I need to get a Fortress of Redemption to squat on an objective marker in my deployment zone then.
Only 1 command point generated per round max for regen traits (they are basically worthless now) Meanwhile. IG still generate 5 cp and 32 bodies for 180 points.
BA captain is barely touched. Only costs 1 more CP potentially to kill 500 point models for 130 points.
Can't deep strike turn 1 at all anymore. Garbage.
All infiltrate stratagems turned into scout moves. (This might actually be a good change but it just means these armies won't be played anymore - pretty hilarious Admech and Ravengaurd are on the list of MUST NERF)
Moving a unit twice and assaulting turn 1 is totally fine though. Eldar still reign supreme.
Oh and agents of vect goes up 1 CP - I'm sure that will stop it from competely removing some armies from that game still.
Q: Can a unit with the Fortifications Battlefield Role control an
objective marker?
A: Yes, so long as it is considered to be a friendly
unit (such as a Building). Note that this means that
Fortifications like Feculent Gnarlmaws cannot control
objective markers.
bullyboy wrote: Disappointed to see no nerf to massed command points being shared, especially now that my elite type armies (that generally have fewer command points to spend) might have to spend 2 CPs to be protected in the first battle round!
Wouldn't elite type armies get the first battle round anyway, due to their smaller number of units?
Definitely surprised more wasn't done about the Guard/Castellan. Nothing really breaking that up, but I will be curious to see how the extra cost mixed with the regen nerf plays out.
LunarSol wrote: Definitely surprised more wasn't done about the Guard/Castellan. Nothing really breaking that up, but I will be curious to see how the extra cost mixed with the regen nerf plays out.
BATTLE BROTHERS
All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition, this keyword
cannot be Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids, unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no
effect on your Army Faction.
It says all units in each detachment. Doesn't that mean you can't have a space marine detachment and a guard detachment?
The way I read it this rule didn't change. This is the rule that prevents you from taking multiple armies in the same detachment. You can still take allies in other detachments.
Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
Page 27 – Chaplain Dreadnought
Add the following ability to this datasheet:
‘Dreadnought Character: This model may not be given any relics.‘
Did I miss a broken combo here? Suprised this was even a problem considering how few relics it could even take to start with.
Valkyrie wrote: Damn, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion and all other "DS during deployment" shenanigans got shafted hard.
To be fair, they were VERY strong and needed a change to be more balanced with the idea of not having players getting mass locked into their deployment zones by a massed alpha strike. You can still kite a single unit into your opponent's lines, but those are usually CP driven or psychic power driven and either way don't usually work on more than 1 unit a turn meaning that you don't get pinned in as hard, making the game less of a passive "roll dice, remove models" simulator for people going second.
Darsath wrote: Q: Can a unit with the Fortifications Battlefield Role control an
objective marker?
A: Yes, so long as it is considered to be a friendly
unit (such as a Building). Note that this means that
Fortifications like Feculent Gnarlmaws cannot control
objective markers.
Valkyrie wrote: Damn, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion and all other "DS during deployment" shenanigans got shafted hard.
To be fair, they were VERY strong and needed a change to be more balanced with the idea of not having players getting mass locked into their deployment zones by a massed alpha strike. You can still kite a single unit into your opponent's lines, but those are usually CP driven or psychic power driven and either way don't usually work on more than 1 unit a turn meaning that you don't get pinned in as hard, making the game less of a passive "roll dice, remove models" simulator for people going second.
I think a one-use limit would have been better personally, and I say this as an RG player who only ever used it on one unit anyway.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
My main point is that Imperial Knights will still require extra Command Points from another source, such as Imperial Guard, to operate at the maximum power that they can. They might not use all their Command Points at once now, and the CP regen is now down, but the army will still need that injection of Command Points to really be operational. I don't really see how this changes things overall.
And yeah, I called out the turn 1 deep strike thing when 8th was revealed.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
Page 27 – Chaplain Dreadnought
Add the following ability to this datasheet:
‘Dreadnought Character: This model may not be given any relics.‘
Did I miss a broken combo here? Surprised this was even a problem considering how few relics it could even take to start with.
IDK about you guys. For my gaming group - turn 1 deep strike was liked very much. If you asked people their favorite part about the edition - they would probably say "I like the new deep strike rules". IDK if my community is widely different than other ones - this seemed to be a something most people liked about 8th at the beginning. Deep strike is useless now except in a few situations.
Ok, well that's really weird because I just don't see it on my screen. I see the Rulebook, Necrons, xenos 1, nids, knight, imperial armor, craftworlds, deathguard, big faq, kill team, Dark Eldar and Demons.
But not Space Wolves, Space Marines, Chaos, Grey Knights, or Tau.
Edit : Oh now it does. I have to manually refresh the page for it to show, not just go to the link. Crappy site is crap.
40k September FAQ wrote:‘Use this Stratagem when you set up a Raven Guard Infantry unit from your army during deployment. At the start of the first battle round but before the first turn begins, you can move that unit up to 9". It cannot end this move
within 9" of any enemy models.
Is this treated as a normal move, ie; my Marines with a 6" move can only move up to 6"? Can they advance as part of this move?
IDK about you guys. For my gaming group - turn 1 deep strike was liked very much. If you asked people their favorite part about the edition - they would probably say "I like the new deep strike rules". IDK if my community is widely different than other ones - this seemed to be a something most people liked about 8th at the beginning. Deep strike is useless now except in a few situations.
Um. No. I think it was widely hated.
1st turn stuff in your face is just no game at all. 1st turn shooty stuff like Ravagers in your own zone now has the opportunity cost of losing a turn of shooting. I like the new rule a lot. Slightly random reserves as in 7th would be best, but most people don't like the randomness, I suppose.
Valkyrie wrote: Damn, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion and all other "DS during deployment" shenanigans got shafted hard.
To be fair, they were VERY strong and needed a change to be more balanced with the idea of not having players getting mass locked into their deployment zones by a massed alpha strike. You can still kite a single unit into your opponent's lines, but those are usually CP driven or psychic power driven and either way don't usually work on more than 1 unit a turn meaning that you don't get pinned in as hard, making the game less of a passive "roll dice, remove models" simulator for people going second.
I think a one-use limit would have been better personally, and I say this as an RG player who only ever used it on one unit anyway.
Was that unit Aggressors? I would have been happy with a 1-3 unit limit (1 CP per unit) but honestly RG likely only got dragged in to match the other armies who were benefiting from it a lot more.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
My main point is that Imperial Knights will still require extra Command Points from another source, such as Imperial Guard, to operate at the maximum power that they can. They might not use all their Command Points at once now, and the CP regen is now down, but the army will still need that injection of Command Points to really be operational. I don't really see how this changes things overall.
And yeah, I called out the turn 1 deep strike thing when 8th was revealed.
The CP IV turned into a CP booster shot. You get a splash of extra CP which gets things going, but you're not going to be getting to go full tilt on CP expenditure and take that past turn 2. It means the amount of CP spent per turn will either go down or the army will be left without the ability to rotate ion shields.
It also means that the Smashcaptain/Knight combo is basically dead in the water because you'll burn up all your CP basically turn 1 if you go all in on the combos right off the bat.
Only 1 command point generated per round max for regen traits (they are basically worthless now) Meanwhile. IG still generate 5 cp and 32 bodies for 180 points.
BA captain is barely touched. Only costs 1 more CP potentially to kill 500 point models for 130 points.
Can't deep strike turn 1 at all anymore. Garbage.
All infiltrate stratagems turned into scout moves. (This might actually be a good change but it just means these armies won't be played anymore - pretty hilarious Admech and Ravengaurd are on the list of MUST NERF)
Moving a unit twice and assaulting turn 1 is totally fine though. Eldar still reign supreme.
Oh and agents of vect goes up 1 CP - I'm sure that will stop it from competely removing some armies from that game still.
Weak changes - GW needs new leadership.
Glad to see we went from hyperbolic sky is falling whining all the way to vitriolic crybaby whining without once actually playing a game with the changes.
Valkyrie wrote: Damn, Raven Guard, Alpha Legion and all other "DS during deployment" shenanigans got shafted hard.
To be fair, they were VERY strong and needed a change to be more balanced with the idea of not having players getting mass locked into their deployment zones by a massed alpha strike. You can still kite a single unit into your opponent's lines, but those are usually CP driven or psychic power driven and either way don't usually work on more than 1 unit a turn meaning that you don't get pinned in as hard, making the game less of a passive "roll dice, remove models" simulator for people going second.
I think a one-use limit would have been better personally, and I say this as an RG player who only ever used it on one unit anyway.
Was that unit Aggressors? I would have been happy with a 1-3 unit limit (1 CP per unit) but honestly RG likely only got dragged in to match the other armies who were benefiting from it a lot more.
.
Funnily enough no, I've never owned Aggressors. It was a unit of 10 Reivers, saves 20pts on Grav Chutes, and they can get stuck in straight away.
Xenomancers wrote: IDK about you guys. For my gaming group - turn 1 deep strike was liked very much. If you asked people their favorite part about the edition - they would probably say "I like the new deep strike rules". IDK if my community is widely different than other ones - this seemed to be a something most people liked about 8th at the beginning. Deep strike is useless now except in a few situations.
A lot of people liked it, but with how the game worked it too heavily skewed who went first and punished armies that lacked proper chaffe unit options. It was fine in the index days when we had less ways to drop an entire army in the opponent's table half turn 1, but now the game needs to rebalance that.
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden Change the last sentence of this ability to read: ‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
So does this mean that: A) They no longer appear at the end of the deployment? and B) I cannot even bring in my Rangers unit the end of my 2nd turn movement phase?
I am actually ok with this considering how important they are any my only Troop option.
Also, do Battalions still give 5CPs? If this FAQ overrides the previous one, then maybe CPs are back to BRB default.
BA captain is barely touched. Only costs 1 more CP potentially to kill 500 point models for 130 points.
BA Captain is super easy to screen out now. He can't jump over units during his charge. You'll have to drop in a screen clearing unit alongside the captain if you wan't him to make it into combat.
BA captain is barely touched. Only costs 1 more CP potentially to kill 500 point models for 130 points.
BA Captain is super easy to screen out now. He can't jump over units during his charge. You'll have to drop in a screen clearing unit alongside the captain if you wan't him to make it into combat.
Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
rollawaythestone wrote: Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
They did it to bring the smashcaptains down a notch (it also knocks jetbike units down a peg as well, so Shining Spears and Custodes bikes won't be quite as strong either).
Plus they wanted to get rid of things like the 2" charge from the top of a building.
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden
Change the last sentence of this ability to read:
‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on
the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
So does this mean that:
A) They no longer appear at the end of the deployment? and
B) I cannot even bring in my Rangers unit the end of my 2nd turn movement phase?
I am actually ok with this considering how important they are any my only Troop option.
Also, do Battalions still give 5CPs? If this FAQ overrides the previous one, then maybe CPs are back to BRB default.
-
You can still do it Turn One I think as it has it's own rule rather than using the deep strike rule. It does mean that you are giving up some of the battlefield in deployment though, which might make me think about other troop choices over all rangers (Good, now I don't have to buy anymore Rangers).
rollawaythestone wrote: Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
They did it to bring the smashcaptains down a notch (it also knocks jetbike units down a peg as well, so Shining Spears and Custodes bikes won't be quite as strong either).
Plus they wanted to get rid of things like the 2" charge from the top of a building.
And harlequins get hit hard...since we won't be able to charge through walls and avoid overwatch. Not a terrible change IMHO, will just rely more on the relics and vehicles to absorb or ignore overwatch.
rollawaythestone wrote: Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
They did it to bring the smashcaptains down a notch (it also knocks jetbike units down a peg as well, so Shining Spears and Custodes bikes won't be quite as strong either).
Plus they wanted to get rid of things like the 2" charge from the top of a building.
They could have changed the vertical distance measurement without changing the ability to move over units. I agree it tones down those overly strong units, but it hurts things that didn't need the nerf like Harlequins.
I think they also wanted to get rid of consolidating/pile-ins (and heroically intervening) over models to lock them in place.
Makes it much more interesting if you actually can try to defend against it with model-placement, rather than being helpless. Makes it .. well ... a game.
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden
Change the last sentence of this ability to read:
‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on
the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
So does this mean that:
A) They no longer appear at the end of the deployment? and
B) I cannot even bring in my Rangers unit the end of my 2nd turn movement phase?
I am actually ok with this considering how important they are any my only Troop option.
Also, do Battalions still give 5CPs? If this FAQ overrides the previous one, then maybe CPs are back to BRB default.
-
It doesn't override. The previous one is still up, and the new one even references the rules changes made in it.
Only 1 command point generated per round max for regen traits (they are basically worthless now) Meanwhile. IG still generate 5 cp and 32 bodies for 180 points.
BA captain is barely touched. Only costs 1 more CP potentially to kill 500 point models for 130 points.
Can't deep strike turn 1 at all anymore. Garbage.
All infiltrate stratagems turned into scout moves. (This might actually be a good change but it just means these armies won't be played anymore - pretty hilarious Admech and Ravengaurd are on the list of MUST NERF)
Moving a unit twice and assaulting turn 1 is totally fine though. Eldar still reign supreme.
Oh and agents of vect goes up 1 CP - I'm sure that will stop it from competely removing some armies from that game still.
Weak changes - GW needs new leadership.
Glad to see we went from hyperbolic sky is falling whining all the way to vitriolic crybaby whining without once actually playing a game with the changes.
Dakka gonna dakka.
You know what I think this response needs? More adjectives.
Wasn't expecting much but no changes at all sucks hard.
December my friend.
The copypasta can be made longer!
The history of Grey Knights, starting from the 7e update:
> After 7e codex: "They're not too good now, maybe in a later FAQ they'll improve!"
> After later FAQ: "They didn't get better, but I'm sure they'll get better in 8th edition!"
> After 8e index: "They're awful now, but they'll get fixed in the FAQ!"
> After index FAQ: "They're still awful, but they'll be good when they get a codex!"
> After codex: "They're really bad, but they'll get fixed in their FAQ!"
> After codex FAQ: "They're awful. However, they'll get fixed for sure in Chapter Approved!"
> After Chapter Approved: "They just got worse. However, I'm sure they'll get better in the March FAQ!"
> After March FAQ: "They got worse again, and didn't even receive any specific fixes despite overwhelming feedback. Just wait until the September FAQ, they're sure to improve!"
And now:
> After September FAQ: "They didn't get any fixes at all despite heavy feedback? Just wait until CA, that's when they'll be fixed!"
GK are stuck with a 2017 FAQ, well at least stuff got changed for other armies. what I don't get is, if they are doing errata to more or less only the stuff that is being played at top tables. No orc errata, no GK, no ad mecha.
Wasn't expecting much but no changes at all sucks hard.
December my friend.
The copypasta can be made longer!
The history of Grey Knights, starting from the 7e update:
> After 7e codex: "They're not too good now, maybe in a later FAQ they'll improve!"
> After later FAQ: "They didn't get better, but I'm sure they'll get better in 8th edition!"
> After 8e index: "They're awful now, but they'll get fixed in the FAQ!"
> After index FAQ: "They're still awful, but they'll be good when they get a codex!"
> After codex: "They're really bad, but they'll get fixed in their FAQ!"
> After codex FAQ: "They're awful. However, they'll get fixed for sure in Chapter Approved!"
> After Chapter Approved: "They just got worse. However, I'm sure they'll get better in the March FAQ!"
> After March FAQ: "They got worse again, and didn't even receive any specific fixes despite overwhelming feedback. Just wait until the September FAQ, they're sure to improve!"
And now:
> After September FAQ: "They didn't get any fixes at all despite heavy feedback? Just wait until CA, that's when they'll be fixed!"
Except that this isn't a moving target. This has been known before this FAQ that GK is getting an overhaul in CA.
rollawaythestone wrote: Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Hummm - that doesn't say anything about the assault phase though. In any case - that is a bad rule.
It doesn't have to say anything about the Assault Phase. You only get your Fly ability in the Movement phase. Therefore, you can't jump over units etc during charges or consolidates.
rollawaythestone wrote: Fly rules have changed. You only move over intervening models and terrain in the MOVEMENT phase.
I don't like the change, personally.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Hummm - that doesn't say anything about the assault phase though. In any case - that is a bad rule.
The change is restricting the benefit to just the movement phase.
This also means you can't charge a Heldrake over a screening unit into an opponent's flyer despite you both being aircraft and not being actually on the ground.
Wasn't expecting much but no changes at all sucks hard.
December my friend.
The copypasta can be made longer!
The history of Grey Knights, starting from the 7e update:
> After 7e codex: "They're not too good now, maybe in a later FAQ they'll improve!"
> After later FAQ: "They didn't get better, but I'm sure they'll get better in 8th edition!"
> After 8e index: "They're awful now, but they'll get fixed in the FAQ!"
> After index FAQ: "They're still awful, but they'll be good when they get a codex!"
> After codex: "They're really bad, but they'll get fixed in their FAQ!"
> After codex FAQ: "They're awful. However, they'll get fixed for sure in Chapter Approved!"
> After Chapter Approved: "They just got worse. However, I'm sure they'll get better in the March FAQ!"
> After March FAQ: "They got worse again, and didn't even receive any specific fixes despite overwhelming feedback. Just wait until the September FAQ, they're sure to improve!"
And now:
> After September FAQ: "They didn't get any fixes at all despite heavy feedback? Just wait until CA, that's when they'll be fixed!"
Except that this isn't a moving target. This has been known before this FAQ that GK is getting an overhaul in CA.
Do you have a reliable source on this? To my knowledge the same thing has been said with a few previous upcoming updates.
Codex: Craftworlds, pages 91 and 94 – Illic Nightspear and Rangers, Appear Unbidden Change the last sentence of this ability to read: ‘At the end of any of your Movement phases, this unit can emerge from the webway – set this unit up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.’
So does this mean that: A) They no longer appear at the end of the deployment? and B) I cannot even bring in my Rangers unit the end of my 2nd turn movement phase?
I am actually ok with this considering how important they are any my only Troop option.
Also, do Battalions still give 5CPs? If this FAQ overrides the previous one, then maybe CPs are back to BRB default.
-
You can still do it Turn One I think as it has it's own rule rather than using the deep strike rule. It does mean that you are giving up some of the battlefield in deployment though, which might make me think about other troop choices over all rangers (Good, now I don't have to buy anymore Rangers).
It doesn't seem to matter if they have their own rule as everything has it's own rule. Anything that isn't set up on the table during deployment is Tactical Reserves and thus cannot arrive turn 1 I'm pretty sure that includes Ranges now too.
ClockworkZion wrote: Guard giving extra CP at the start of the game wasn't as much of an issue as them giving 2-3 extra turns of maxed out CP usage due to regeneration.
We couldn't turn 1 deep strike for several editions. It was basically broken the way it worked with being able to charge out of DS and made the completely game into "roll dice, remove models" if you went second and got locked into your deployment zone.
Page 27 – Chaplain Dreadnought
Add the following ability to this datasheet:
‘Dreadnought Character: This model may not be given any relics.‘
Did I miss a broken combo here? Suprised this was even a problem considering how few relics it could even take to start with.
Space Wolves could do some nice stuff with it I believe.
