The Bay Area Open is a pedigreed event and the one that started everything for Frontline Gaming. We’re pleased to announce the 7th year of this premiere 40k tournament! We’ll be at Game Kastle again this year, and will be hosting the tournament in their event center, located at 550 Showers Dr, Mountain View, CA 94040.
We’ll be reducing our total attendance to 150 from 200 this year in order to make the event more spacious and enjoyable! This also means that this event will likely sell out extremely quickly as it sold out in just over a week last year.
What: A Warhammer 40k Tournament
When: July 29th and 30th
Where: Game Kastle: Mountain View, 550 Showers Dr., Mountain View, California 94040
Why: Because 40k tournaments are awesome!
We can’t wait to see who puts their name on the coveted Belt of Russ this year! Brandon Grant was the champ last year, who will don the belt this year?!
Format:
8th edition Warhammer 40k Tournament 2,000pts Battle-Forged Armies
3 Detachments total
All models must be painted to a tabletop standard, with at least 3 colors per model and fully based.
Eternal War Missions
Schedule: Saturday, July 29th
Registration: 8am to 10am.
Round 1: 10am
Lunch: 12:30pm
Round 2: 1:30pm
Round 3: 4:15pm
Day 1 Finished: 6:45pm
Schedule: Sunday, July 30th
Travel and Logistics: There are a ton of hotels near the event venue in every price range. Just Google “Hotels Mountain View California” and you’ll see the wide variety of options nearby.
For those of you flying in, the San Jose Airport is only 12 miles away and the San Francisco Airport and Oakland Airport are also close options, as well.*
Ticket Refund Policy: All tickets are fully refundable up until 30 days from the event, June 29th, 2017. After June 29th, 2017 all sales are final and refunds for ticket will not be issued. Tickets are transferable up until the day before the event, July 28th, 2017.
Are my priorities straight? My first question was, 'what are the drinking options?' 2nd question was 'what list do I bring?'
Such is the life of the Beer Hammer team captain.
On the serious note:
Very cool of you guys to consider the spacing of the venue in reducing the number of players. It goes to show you guys are not just straight out going for a cash grab, but making an event enjoyable.
Thanks! And yeah, we we definitely have less money to play with for the event but it will be more enjoyable for everyone that comes which is worth the sacrifice.
Annnnnd, down to just 30 or so tickets left! Grab dem tickets!
So long as the rules are out more than 30 days before the event which seems fairly probably given what GW is telling us, we will play NewHammer. If it is less than 30 days out, current rules.
8th edition Warhammer 40k Tournament 2,000pts Battle-Forged Armies
3 Detachments total
All models must be painted to a tabletop standard, with at least 3 colors per model and fully based.
Eternal War Missions
Reecius wrote: 8th edition Warhammer 40k Tournament 2,000pts Battle-Forged Armies
3 Detachments total
All models must be painted to a tabletop standard, with at least 3 colors per model and fully based.
Eternal War Missions
Just to clarify, do models with flying bases (e.g., skimmer tanks and jetbikes) also need to be based or can you leave those bases clear?
We decided to keep it as simple as possible, and most folks in our experience are more familiar with Eternal War missions.
Some of the objective eternal war missions are flawed and unfair. Like the last player to place a objective gets to choose the deployment zone, which essentially can allow them to have more objectives in their deployment zone.
By the way, can we post rules questions here or is there a better place to do that? The rules overall seem very well written and straightforward, I think we really have to hand it to GW for putting together such a clear and succinct set of rules. However, some things can probably be clarified as the concepts are a bit counter-intuitive coming into 8th from 7th. I mean, it took me a while to realize that I had to manually add every, single, individual, piece of wargear to the points cost of every, single, individual, model...
A few examples worth pointing out for clarification that come to mind (in light of the above post):
(1) it seems like you can't just put anything in "reserves" anymore unless the unit's dataslate specifies an alternate manner of "setting up" a unit. For example Swooping Hawks can either be "set up" normally with your army during deployment or it can be "set up" and come down at the end any of your movement phases. Warp Spiders, on the other hand, cannot be "set up" in any other manner since their dataslate doesn't provide that option. Take away: Warp Spiders can't deep strike anymore!?
(2) Some abilities say that a "wound" can be ignored on a certain roll but mortal wounds can only be ignored by such rules/abilities if those rules specifically say so (e.g., Avatar ability specifically mentions ignoring wounds *or* mortal wounds whereas the Nurgle "disgustingly Resilient" rule only mentions "wounds".
(3) Does the Hemlock Wraithfighter have to pay for Spirit Stones? The Dataslate only says it is equipped with 2 Heavy D-Scythes and it doesn't have the option to purchase anything from the vehicle equipment list. Spirit Stones are listed under abilities rather like the Powerfield for War Walkers (which War Walkers don't pay extra for). This is kind of confusing as their "ability" shares the name with a piece of wargear some vehicles can purchase from the vehicles equipment list.
That has not been our experience, but YMMV. We want to play out of the book at first to let folks get used to it. We can change in time.
@Mortetvie
There are a lot of questions, we're compiling an FAQ. But in general it is a well written edition.
1.) No you cannot put anything in reserves anymore.
2.) FnP style saves stop mortal wounds (usually).
3.) Many abilities like that are free.
@Reece
Thanks, looking forward to the FAQ.
@sonsofvulkan
Because this is a new edition I definitely appreciate what appears to be a prudent approach by the ITC leadership in implementing any "ITC" changes. I mean, the game straight out of the rulebook in 7th edition was a mess and needed a cohesive, community driven set of rules and guidelines to make sense of how to apply it to a competitive setting.
the current rules seem to have been designed/play-tested with a competitive setting in mind so it just makes sense to play a few games/events and get community feedback as far as what should be changed, if anything.
With that said, if anything will be changed before any major events, I would imagine the manner in which first turn is determined might be tweaked but otherwise we'll just have to wait and see... I mean, it is now a part of list building strategy and may invariably be fine...
Regarding your criticism of missions, ALL of the missions that have objectives have an even number of objectives (except for the Relic but no player chooses where the Relic is placed). Therefore, every player places an even number of objectives and you will know before placing objectives which player will choose deployment zone/type. So if you know you are not picking deployment zones, why would you put all of the objectives in one area? If you place the first objective you'll just have to be cautious and strategic about where to place it, which is cool.
Also, as an aside, I'd love to see a Knight army play the Relic against an Ork or Tyranid horde army (since only INFANTRY can pick up the relic) lol...
I'm gonna start playing 40K and would consider coming to the BAO (well, get on the wait list, at this point!), but I am concerned about how the Eternal War missions handle objectives placement and deployment zone picking. Are you using that straight out of the book, or modifying it at all?
Because having one person know they are going to get to choose the deployment zone type AND pick the deployment zone means they can always have a massive advantage in any multiple objective marker mission.
For example, say there are 4 objective markers being used.
Example 1: The guy placing his objective marker first is new to the game and doesn't really get that his opponent will get to pick deployment type & zones. So he places one objective marker kind of near the long table edge where he's standing. His opponent, a veteran knows he will get to pick deployment type & zones, so immediately places a second objective marker on that same side of the table (just 12" away from the other one). The first player now kinds of figures out what is happening, so he places the 3rd objective marker on the opposite side of the table away from the existing 2 objectives. The second player then finishes up by placing the 4th objective marker 12" away from the other 2, and then picks a deployment type that allows him to start with all 3 objectives already in his deployment zone.
Example 2: Both players are already vets of 8th edition, so the the guy placing first smartly puts the 1st objective marker in the center of the table. The second player then places the 2nd marker close to his own long table edge. The first guy then places the 3rd objective marker on the opposite side of the table from where his opponent placed the 2nd objective marker. The second player then finished up by placing the 4th objective marker near one of the existing objective markers and picks a deployment zone where he starts with 2 objective markers in his zone, while his opponent starts with only one in his zone (and one is in the center of the table).
In every case, if the person placing last understands the system, it will result in one player having 2-3 objective markers in their deployment zone while their opponent only gets 1 in their deployment zone, all just based on a single roll-off.
Please tell me you guys are doing something to fix this?
Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!
It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.
I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.
As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.
There are no clear multi-level combat or charging rules in the rulebook.
Player A fills 2nd level with models until there's absolutely no space. Player B is on the ground, There is nothing in the rulebook that permits him to charge and/or attack.
Since there is a caveat of being within 1" and distances are measured base to base, aside from vehicles without basing.
From the BRB.
"Distances in [40k] are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measruing to and from. If a model does not have a base, such is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead. You can measure distances whenever you wish."
So.... nobody can fight vertically except vehicles and stuffs like Defilers/Lord of Skulls without bases.
I won't be in the tournament and I hope I missed something clearly written in the book, but good to point out first before 10001 disputes come out.
Reecius wrote: Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!
It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.
I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.
As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.
Reece I understand you guys did a lot of play testing along with other TOs.
But how many 2k games did you guys play?? Unless you can tell me it is "hundreds" using every factions and with different mixtures of detachments and deployments... you can't just make that generalized statement. And remember FW units hasn't even been released it.
I can tell you this, 8th Ed will not be as balanced as most people think it is(more balance than 7th) certain factions will dominate over others base on deployment types and going first for alpha strike.
NOVA is already considering having the deployment zones picked prior to obj placement
Reecius wrote: Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!
It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.
I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.
As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.
One consideration is, 3 of the 6 deployments are much harder to measure with terrain on the board than the other 3. That's not really a balance thing just a practicality thing.
Reecius wrote: Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!
It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.
I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.
As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.
Ultimately you guys gotta do you, and like I said, I'm not signed up yet and I'd only be on the waiting list, so obviously what I have to say is just one person's opinion but I wouldn't consider playing at an event that is using the book objective and deployment zone setup.
I understand that players can certainly overcome the disadvantage with skill, luck and certain (good) army builds, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire system is ridiculously unfair and swings on a single D6 roll-off.
I mean just to reiterate it again, one single D6 roll-off gives one player:
• 2-3 objectives in his deployment zone while his opponent gets a max of 1 in his deployment zone (for 4 objective marker games, with roughly the same ratio occurring for 6 a objective marker game).
• The same player gets to choose the deployment zone type that best suits his army and disadvantages his opponent the most.
• The same player gets to choose which of the 2-4 deployment zones available best suits his army (usually the one where the objectives are) and disadvantages his opponent the most (usually the one that has the fewest objectives).
• The same player gets to deploy his first unit after his opponent, thereby getting a slight advantage of seeing where his opponent is choosing to deploy his units.
I just don't see how anyone can look at that and figure that it is balanced at all for matched play. In fact, it is the opposite of balanced. The player who doesn't get all of that doesn't even get anything in return (like getting the choice of whether to go first or not). The only reason I can fathom why GW even chose to write the missions this way is because it takes up the absolute minimum space on the page.
I'm sure players can and do overcome it, but that doesn't make it any less unfair and it certainly doesn't make it not a big deal. I mean, I'm sure every now and then a good player with a good army could overcome and win a game where their opponent was allowed to deploy their army for them, but it would obviously be unfair and therefore not fit for matched play.
IMHO:
• Objective markers should be placed before deployment zone type is chosen. This is the only way to get even remotely fair objective placement.
• The player that gets to choose the deployment zone type should not be the one that gets to choose which deployment zone to take. Those are both massive advantages, so there's simply no reason the same player should get to choose both of them.
I suppose the missions could determine placement of objectives and deployment type... Like if 4 objectives, they are in the center of each quarter and 6 objectives would be in the center of every 24"x24" section, etc. Then roll for sides.
First turn mechanics are interesting, makes me think of warhammer fantasy or 9th age which is kinda fun. I remember how in 3rd we all had to deploy heavy supports first and go from there, was unique.
I guess this BAO is going to be a huge test case, eh?
It doesn't help that the rules are contradictory. On the maps page it tells you that for matched play players MUST randomly select a map with a roll, but then all of the missions say Player X just gets to pick.
Reecius wrote: Yeah, the wording in the missions makes it seem like you pick but you actually don't, you pick your zone but the map is randomly determined.
Really mitigates the objective marker issue.
That definitely changes things quite a bit! I hadn't noticed that bit in the rules, plus a couple guys on a stream the other day definitely said that one player got to pick the deployment type (I had to go back and re-watch the stream to make sure I wasn't crazy).
BTW, great job on that stream. You guys were amazing (I watched the whole thing live), and you obviously get full passes from me for any little tidbit you may have gotten wrong, cause lord knows there's no way I could have even stood and talked continuously on camera for as long as you did, let alone be perfect rattling off a million new rules!!!
I know in the stream you mentioned maybe introducing a roll-off to determine who goes first. Is that something you're doing for the BAO?
---
Also, I do want to say that even with deployment types being randomly rolled for, having one player know they are going to get to pick their deployment zone does allow a canny player to clump the objectives in a corner knowing that they can pick a deployment zone that will be closer to that clump (if not have the clump fully in their deployment zone), while keeping their opponent as far as possible away from it.
I know you don't see it as a big deal, but is there any downside to adding one more roll-off after objectives are placed and deployment type is rolled for, to determine which player gets to pick their deployment zone? Is it just that it doesn't match what is in the rulebook?
Because I certainly can't think of any upside of having one player get to place their objectives knowing ahead of time they'll be able to choose their deployment zone (even if the deployment type is random), but I can think of unfair downsides to this method (and I can explain in detail if you'd like). So why not change it? It would be an incredibly easy fix.
So I just reread the rules. Deployment types are still randomly determined. In the left margin of pg 216 it says the player who placed the last objective rolls a dice to determine deployment type. The mission selection pages says to reference pg 216 and the mission selection only says the player who places the last objective 'determines' the mission. It's supposed to be random.
Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.
Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.
Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.
I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.
What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.
This is the organized thread of FAQs on dakka.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727559.page They likely explain them better then I do. However as mentioned in the charging section regarding charging a unit that has the entire level filled is one. Just as someone asked here. Probably a good read just to get ahead of any questions that may pop on during BAO.
Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.
Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.
Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.
I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.
What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.
Yep, I'd be busting out my Orks and seeing what they can do as-is in a tournament before figuring out what things, if any, I'd want to add.
However, I've been pretty high on the 8e hype train, watching all your twitch streams and such and then all a sudden at the end of one of your battle reports which kind of shook me. You were responding to someone about how it seemed like most games in 8e are simply decided by one side being completely decimated and you said something along the lines of: 'that's why I've been kind of trying to explain to the people that have been worrying about objective placement, that's its really not that big a deal.'
I presume you were more or less referring to what we've been talking about, and based on the battle reports that you've done so far on Twitch, I'd pretty much have to agree: the objective placement doesn't really matter because in high-level tournament games the armies are so deadly that it most of the time comes down to one side nearly (or completely) wiping out the other side. Unfortunately, that makes me really sad about 8e.
As fun as the game may be and as many tactical options as there seem to be to kill the other side's models, I'm not really interested in playing games where the missions are really just a footnote most of the time. And while correcting the objective placement rules to make them more balanced would have been a fairly trivial fix to implement, if the design of the entire game makes missions mostly irrelevant, then that's a problem that can't really be fixed by anything except for new codexes.
So while I'm not going to throw in the towel here before I even get started trying it out myself, what you've said (and I've seen) has definitely derailed my personal hype train!
Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.
Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.
Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.
I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.
What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.
Yep, I'd be busting out my Orks and seeing what they can do as-is in a tournament before figuring out what things, if any, I'd want to add.
However, I've been pretty high on the 8e hype train, watching all your twitch streams and such and then all a sudden at the end of one of your battle reports which kind of shook me. You were responding to someone about how it seemed like most games in 8e are simply decided by one side being completely decimated and you said something along the lines of: 'that's why I've been kind of trying to explain to the people that have been worrying about objective placement, that's its really not that big a deal.'
I presume you were more or less referring to what we've been talking about, and based on the battle reports that you've done so far on Twitch, I'd pretty much have to agree: the objective placement doesn't really matter because in high-level tournament games the armies are so deadly that it most of the time comes down to one side nearly (or completely) wiping out the other side. Unfortunately, that makes me really sad about 8e.
As fun as the game may be and as many tactical options as there seem to be to kill the other side's models, I'm not really interested in playing games where the missions are really just a footnote most of the time. And while correcting the objective placement rules to make them more balanced would have been a fairly trivial fix to implement, if the design of the entire game makes missions mostly irrelevant, then that's a problem that can't really be fixed by anything except for new codexes.
So while I'm not going to throw in the towel here before I even get started trying it out myself, what you've said (and I've seen) has definitely derailed my personal hype train!
Thats why developing well balanced missions are very important!
In 7ed, my Gladius still beat a deathstar army even though I barely killed anything and lost 75% of my army all largely thanks to how that specific NOVA mission was setup.
In 8ed because of the change to the new AP system, cover, morale and etc... units do die a lot faster. But with a well-balanced mission a good player can still score enough points for a minor win or draw even if he lost 90% of his army.
My point with armies obliterating one another is more in line with what will happen in the early meta.
Folks will go nuts because they can charge first turn, can deep strike without scattering, etc.
So, early on the meta will be mutual annihilation, the survivor scoops up the objectives. Where they are doesn't really matter. Plus, as things are so fast, they're rarely out of reach, anyway.
However, as players mature into the edition, you get less and less of the wipe-out games. The reason being that often the outcome of the wipe-out, brave-heart style headlong rush at one another games comes down to a luck y die roll here or there. There's less tactical choice, less player agency involved.
As you all get better, and play opponents that don't just smash one another, you will see games going the distance and the missions mattering more as people wait to let things develop before committing.
I have no doubt in my mind that within a relatively short period of time, folks will want to go back to tournament style missions. However, due to the timing of the BAO, we want folks to get a taste for the game as it is, then make choices as to how they want to modify things, if at all (but I think the missions will likely change).
I wouldn't get to bent out of shape about it, honestly. 8th is like, the golden era of 40k. No bs. You can play themed lists that are good. Everyone's going on about silly spam lists but those will largely come and go, IMO. Give the edition time, everyone is still uploading information. I think when you play it a few times, you will love it.
Check in tonight for another game for those interested!
Glad you're enjoying the games! We've got another tonight, Eldar vs. Space Wolves!
I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.
I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.
This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.
As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.
Any thought given to allowing properly based (i.e. 30mm) Secondus Marines/Adeptus Astartes being able to stand in for Adeptus Restartes/Primaris marines?
mortetvie wrote: I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.
I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.
This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.
As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.
I don't get it mortetvie.... so what you are saying is instead of adding "a single dice roll to the game" to deal with the inbalance of the missions, its better that everyone will need to adjust the "Meta" ?! how is that even a fair way to judge the missions then ? Why not let the missions stand on their own ? you acknowledge its not a "big" deal.. but its a deal.. and we know it gets bigger as things get more competitive.
The game is new for everyone.. lets let everyone play armies of all kinds...not just ones that are built around a glaring issue of the GW missions.
My point with armies obliterating one another is more in line with what will happen in the early meta.
Folks will go nuts because they can charge first turn, can deep strike without scattering, etc.
So, early on the meta will be mutual annihilation, the survivor scoops up the objectives. Where they are doesn't really matter. Plus, as things are so fast, they're rarely out of reach, anyway.
However, as players mature into the edition, you get less and less of the wipe-out games. The reason being that often the outcome of the wipe-out, brave-heart style headlong rush at one another games comes down to a luck y die roll here or there. There's less tactical choice, less player agency involved.
As you all get better, and play opponents that don't just smash one another, you will see games going the distance and the missions mattering more as people wait to let things develop before committing.
I have no doubt in my mind that within a relatively short period of time, folks will want to go back to tournament style missions. However, due to the timing of the BAO, we want folks to get a taste for the game as it is, then make choices as to how they want to modify things, if at all (but I think the missions will likely change).
I wouldn't get to bent out of shape about it, honestly. 8th is like, the golden era of 40k. No bs. You can play themed lists that are good. Everyone's going on about silly spam lists but those will largely come and go, IMO. Give the edition time, everyone is still uploading information. I think when you play it a few times, you will love it.
Check in tonight for another game for those interested!
Glad you're enjoying the games! We've got another tonight, Eldar vs. Space Wolves!
The leaks has been out since May 29th, it really doesn't take too long for competitive players it figure out which factions are the most point efficient, offensively and/or defensively effective.
For example 2 IG gun line army faced off in a mirror match, both sides bring crap tons of Conscript blobs, I guarantee you obj positions will matter!
mortetvie wrote: I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.
I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.
This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.
As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.
I don't get it mortetvie.... so what you are saying is instead of adding "a single dice roll to the game" to deal with the inbalance of the missions, its better that everyone will need to adjust the "Meta" ?! how is that even a fair way to judge the missions then ? Why not let the missions stand on their own ? you acknowledge its not a "big" deal.. but its a deal.. and we know it gets bigger as things get more competitive.
The game is new for everyone.. lets let everyone play armies of all kinds...not just ones that are built around a glaring issue of the GW missions.
Zed, you are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you are missing the points given and are operating under quite a few (potentially false) assumptions.
First of all, you are missing the point that BAO will be a test case to provide meaningful data to determine what truly needs to be changed (if anything). Therefore, tainting the data by changing the missions may not be in anyone's best interest in the long term. Now unless I am mistaken, ITC leadership has not said they refuse to adopt changes as necessary so no need to get so up in arms. BTW, are you even going to BAO?
Second of all, there are only PERCEIVED imbalances based on how people CURRENTLY are used to playing the game and build armies.
Third, the way armies are constructed now and the way units move/function means that any real or perceived imbalance is likely to be minimized or non-existent.
So don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing how things develop for the competitive scene but right now it can't hurt to just test things out so we can know what and how things need to be changed.
I don't think anybody in this thread is asking FLG to create highly modified missions like NOVA is doing. If they want to use the book missions that fine, but all me and yak recommended was changing the part of the player choosing deployment zone base on who places the OBJ last.
SonsofVulkan wrote: I don't think anybody in this thread is asking FLG to create highly modified missions like NOVA is doing. If they want to use the book missions that fine, but all me and yak recommended was changing the part of the player choosing deployment zone base on who places the OBJ last.
It is a common sense suggestion....
exactly... its a pretty easy fix.
and mortetvie your welcome to your opinion as well. However our club has been testing out the missions for the past couple of weeks and its not PERCEIVED that the mission has a level of imbalance with the objective placement and deployment zone choosing. We have seen the imbalance. Is it game shattering ..no, am I some expert who has months of experience testing the game ?..no. But it is a problem and my experience having played NOVA and ITC missions are that both formats go out of there way to remove any Mission/Deployment and terrain imbalances.
So if you want to try to convince me that this small mechanic ... (that clearly causes some issues) is going to remain in any decent Mission pack, go ahead. I don't agree or buy it.
mortetvie wrote: I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.
I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.
This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.
As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.
I don't get it mortetvie.... so what you are saying is instead of adding "a single dice roll to the game" to deal with the inbalance of the missions, its better that everyone will need to adjust the "Meta" ?! how is that even a fair way to judge the missions then ? Why not let the missions stand on their own ? you acknowledge its not a "big" deal.. but its a deal.. and we know it gets bigger as things get more competitive.
The game is new for everyone.. lets let everyone play armies of all kinds...not just ones that are built around a glaring issue of the GW missions.
Zed, you are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you are missing the points given and are operating under quite a few (potentially false) assumptions.
First of all, you are missing the point that BAO will be a test case to provide meaningful data to determine what truly needs to be changed (if anything). Therefore, tainting the data by changing the missions may not be in anyone's best interest in the long term. Now unless I am mistaken, ITC leadership has not said they refuse to adopt changes as necessary so no need to get so up in arms. BTW, are you even going to BAO?
Second of all, there are only PERCEIVED imbalances based on how people CURRENTLY are used to playing the game and build armies.
Third, the way armies are constructed now and the way units move/function means that any real or perceived imbalance is likely to be minimized or non-existent.
So don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing how things develop for the competitive scene but right now it can't hurt to just test things out so we can know what and how things need to be changed.
The player base can not agree if the player choosing the deployment type is broken or not. It's all speculation until a major 8th edition tournament provides evidence as to whom speculated correctly.
I love the idea of choosing the deployment type after objectives are placed , but I hate the randomness of it being a single roll. My recommendation is to allow players to spend command points for a bonus to that roll before rolling, but I don't think any changes should go into effect until we beta test 8th edition as is in a major tournament.
zedsdead wrote: I'm sorry... but any tournament that allows the player placing the last objective .. the ability to pick the side is making a huge mistake.
Its an advantage no matter what anyone says. Don't kid yourself. Having played a bunch of games now.. I know it is.
Side choice should be random role of the dice.
Alternatively you could keep it as only one roll. But have the winner place all objectives and the loser roll for deployment and pick the their zone. Doing this would almost always result in fairly even objective placement as you know any side you overload is likely going to your opponent.
Thanks for the input guys but a LOT of people are coming to the BAO playing 8th only a few times. Playing to the book makes it easier for them to upload the information.
In the many, many, many games of 8th Frankie and I have played, I can say with total honesty this objective placing and then choosing deployment zones issue has not been as big of a deal as it is being made out to be by some of you. I am not dismissing your opinions in the slightest, you are welcome to them, but for this first event, we're running with it. After people get a chance to try it in a tournament setting, we can start looking at making adjustments.
As stated, I am sure the missions will evolve, but for now, let's keep it simple and start from a baseline that is common to everyone.
Possibly. That is the one rule we are leaning towards changing for tournament play as in our games it is problematic and ultimately not fun nor balanced. We are looking at altering that rule to the player that finishes deploying first gets +1 to go first.
100% of the play testers mirrored this sentiment and most of the events associated with each group are going this way.
Hopefully you guys (ITC) implement that change soon! I also like the unintended tactic it will have! Knowing you have less units to deploy will you deploy aggressively or not? Right now if you know you have less units to deploy most people just deploy very aggressively and pray a "6" is not rolled hahaha.
Reecius wrote: Thanks for the input guys but a LOT of people are coming to the BAO playing 8th only a few times. Playing to the book makes it easier for them to upload the information.
In the many, many, many games of 8th Frankie and I have played, I can say with total honesty this objective placing and then choosing deployment zones issue has not been as big of a deal as it is being made out to be by some of you. I am not dismissing your opinions in the slightest, you are welcome to them, but for this first event, we're running with it. After people get a chance to try it in a tournament setting, we can start looking at making adjustments.
As stated, I am sure the missions will evolve, but for now, let's keep it simple and start from a baseline that is common to everyone.
Reece,
In all the games you played, did either of you specifically think about how objective placement system could be gamed to give your side a major advantage on objectives and then try to implement that plan? Because the system can absolutely be gamed, even with random deployment type thrown in. And unless you guys were specifically trying to game that particular system, then it obviously wouldn't show up as any kind of problem.
You've said that when players don't just try to smash each other, the missions matter more. If that's the case, then one player automatically knowing they're going to have at least one more objective (maybe 2) in or really near to their deployment zone than their opponent undeniably gives them an advantage.
So just asking again: in your testing, has the player who gets to place the last objective specifically tried to game the system by setting up all his objective near a single corner? Has that player also capitalized on an initial corner placement by their opponent (to essentially get an extra objective marker near/in their deployment zone)?
Because again, I can show you a system where the player that gets to place the last objective (in a 4 objective game) has either 2 or 3 of the objectives in or really near his deployment zone when the opponent only ever gets 1 in or near their deployment zone.
I just honestly don't understand how adding one extra roll-off after objectives have finished being placed screws anything up, especially when it definitively does make it at least a huge 50/50 gamble for a player to game the objective placement as described above.
alextroy wrote: Would it be more tactical if the rule was turned on its head?
The player that didn't place the last objective chooses deployment zone.
Can this be gamed like the opposite?
Nope. As long as the objectives are always an equal number (like they are in the rulebook), then having the player that places the first objective be the one that chooses deployment zones pretty much fixes that particular issue. That would be another really easy fix to implement as well.
Doubtful, Reece, the AdeptiCon guys, and I have been playtesting and planning rules / etc. together for months as part of the 8th ed playtest team. We also worked together to match our point scales so BCP works for both formats and mission sets interchangeably, allowing ITC missions to be used from NOVA, Renegade, and LVO/BAO with ease. It'll remain similar with event rulings and the like. Mr. one-poster
I appreciate the opportunity, however, to talk about how tightly Reece and I have been and will continue to be working together to support the community.
As long as I've made one useful suggestion, I shall suggest another.
If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!
alextroy wrote: As long as I've made one useful suggestion, I shall suggest another.
If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!
The issue with that is that winning ties (because of not getting those re-rolls) is about 8% worse of a chance to go first (58% to 66%). I almost feel like depending on the difference in army size that more than a +1 could be justified. But that would need testing on how effective low drop armies could be. Having more drops than your opponent is a pretty significant deployment advantage.
ITC and NOVA have been doing that for years. I looked at the missions and in all honesty the missions using 4 and 6 just go to 5. I don't see it effecting anything.
Do we really believe "Randomly" placed Objectives are going to start being a thing ?!
Any thought to adding limits on wounding, like range and los? Currently if a whole units only sees and is in range of 1 of out 50 guardsmen, the firing unit could in theory wipe the target unit given enough dice. On that same line of though, limiting artillery to not targeting units concealed entirely under ruin roofs/skyshields an so on.
I understand fully your point, my friend and it has merit. However, I believe your concern is not going to be something that needs to be addressed for long as I am willing to bet money that the BAO will be one of the only Major events to run book missions. NOVA is already going NOVA missions, and we plan to roll out ITC missions again very soon. If enough folks attending the BAO want to run ITC style missions, we will. The plan for now is to keep it simple to let folks upload the game.
@Tautastic
Yeah, and last night's live game illustrates the point well, I think. You can take a powerful 3 drop army that chooses first or second turn in 5/6 games. It's not super awesome for competitive play, IMO. And conversely, you take a high unit count army and you don't ever get to choose first or second turn.
@Primark G
NOVA vs. us? Lol, we work very closely together and are friends. As Mike noted, our missions are all integrated with one another to mix and match and have fun, competitive games.
@Zedsdead
Yeah, we will have something like that in the ITC missions when we roll those out.
@Crablezworth
No, no plans to change any of that. It is different than what everyone is used to, but it's fine, IMO. Just takes time to acclimate to it.
@Thread
So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.
If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.
Reecius wrote: So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.
If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.
Wow, that KP solution is great! Although it does make the ancillary objectives (First Blood, etc.) almost pointless. Maybe make those objectives worth 3 or 5 pts. for that one mission?
Yeah, we were going to multiply them by 5 or so, I had to do some math to figure out where the sweet spot was on that. But, you are right.
@RabbitMaster
We do have all the factions ready to rock. I am trying to get all the ITC stuff updated this week but I have been buried. I will do everything possible to get all of that info updated by Friday.
@Tautastic
Haha, fair enough! Yeah, I will get everything done this week by hook or by crook. It's actually not too much as we mostly just go off the book now, thank the Emperor! GW has been so awesome about getting stuff taken care of on their end.
Can a player during deployment when its their turn to deploy a unit, designate a unit of Terminators, decide they will deepstrike and therefor count as their "unit deployed".
Essentially the opponent(w/non reserve units) ends up deploying several units to an empty table. Provided the above happens a few times.
With the announcement of the release of Codex: Space Marines by "the end of the month", I'm curious as to whether that Codex will be allowed at BAO, considering SM would likely be the only faction with an actual Codex at that time.
Primark G wrote:Reece really helped make Forgeworld much more accepted and mainstream.
I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement. I'm also not sure I think the prevalence of FW models is a good thing.
Jackal444 wrote:With the announcement of the release of Codex: Space Marines by "the end of the month", I'm curious as to whether that Codex will be allowed at BAO, considering SM would likely be the only faction with an actual Codex at that time.
The old policy was a codex has to be out for 30 days before the tournament to be legal. (Which is not possible at this point)
With the best of intentions (so if Reece asks that I remove this, I will. Also, MODs might decide this is a YMDC post, but, really, it's BAO specific).
Given this from the BAO participant email:
"Ruins: For this event, the bottom level of all ruins terrain are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so."
I ask, which mopey eldar are going to get nailed by the Ravager's nasty Dark Lances?
a. Two Fire Dragons are on the ruin's second floor. They're screwed.
b. Two Guardians are in the 'footprint' of the ruin, but should also be in LOS of the lances.
c. The lone Windrider jetbike is behind the ruin, and, I ask, is out of LOS, yes?
Are all these statements correct?
With the *best* of intentions ....
Automatically Appended Next Post: First round of looks easy enough, right? Okay, so second round, because I know there's based terrain out there that will cause questions.
Here is the same set up of models and ruins before, only this time, there's a base to the ruin (let's go with the foot square of masonite) and I've added two more models.
Another angle:
The scorpion in line behind the jetbike is out of the Ravager's LOS. But the really big Question that pops up, is that Wraithguard in or out of the Ravager's LOS?
The PL limit should be 33+ as the 31-32 pl units aren't difficult to deal with. It's beyond that point you get into titans and space marine super heavy tanks that are ridiculously powerful.
Here's another question in regard to the KP mission: if a unit worth let's say 10PL splits into 2 different unit (combat squad, squadron of vehicles, artillery+crew, etc...), how much PL do they each award ?
5 each ? This kills the basic concept of the KP mission since killing both will grant you as much as killing one (10PL either way) whereas in a basic KP mission you would get twice as much as killing one (2KP vs 1KP if no split).
10 each ? This can create some quasi auto-lose situations (see below)
Here's an example of auto-lose: a friend of mine plays squads of 5 mek guns. They each comes with a crew of 5 grots and after deployement each gun and each grot crew splits and become their own unit.
The PL cost of the unit is 3 for the initial gun/crew, and +2PL for each additional. So total unit is worth 11PL and splits into 10 different units (5 guns and 5 crew of 5 grots) after being deployed.
If each of those units awards the total amount of PL initially paid for the unit, then killing say 4 grot crew would be worth a wooping 44PL. That's a bit extreme.
I know in a regular KP mission it is also extreme since each grot crew is worth 1KP, but with the change from KP to PL, the balance seems to be a lot worse cause 44PL will usually represent way more than 4 units.
There's an easy fix for my friend: instead of paying a unit of 5 guns he can pay 5 units of 1 guns, each gun/crew being now worth only 3PL each. But that only works if he knows in advance how KP/PL are handled for splitting units.
Khoren Mower wasn't the target or what was causing the concern. The concern was other models--mostly Forge World--causing the issues. This was an easy short term solution for the BAO.
And are you coming to the event? Location says you are in Singapore?
@Rabbitmaster
The entire unit (crew and gun) must be destroyed to get the PLKP. Simple.
Same for Combat Squading (although does anyone do this any more?), you have 2, 5 man units of Marines now. Simple.
@Thread
Any other questions?
Excited to see everyone!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Further Clarification on the ruins issue:
Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.
The entire unit (crew and gun) must be destroyed to get the PLKP. Simple.
Same for Combat Squading (although does anyone do this any more?), you have 2, 5 man units of Marines now. Simple.
Sounds simple. Let see if I got it right with a couple example then.
Take a 10 man tactical squad that is worth 9PL (5 for the initial unit, +4 for the 5 additional marines, cf index). My opponent combat squad it up in two 5-man units:
- I kill one of the two units => no PL earned.
- I kill both units => 9PL earned.
Same for a unit of 2 mekgun and 2 5-man grot crew that is worth 5PL (3 for initial gun+crew and 2 for the additional gun+crew). After deployment they become 4 distinct units (as per their special deployment rules):
- Killing 2 mekgun and 1 grot crew (3 units killed in total) => no PL earned.
- Killing all 4 units => 5PL earned.
Did I got that right ? If yes then it ironically makes splitting units very good in the KP mission (it's harder to get their PL value whereas before each sub-unit would contribute to the mission) We ended up playing it intuitively with each subunit granting the base PL cost of the unit (ie the two 5-man tactical squad would each be worth 5PL, and each gun+crew would be worth 3PL). It slightly inflate the PL gained compared to a non-split unit, but so did the KP mission in the first place so it wasn't shocking or anything.
Anyway, thanks for updating the ruins wording ! Makes it pretty clear now
Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.
Thanks for the reply.
At the least, it saves me and my opponent a few minutes each, discussing terrain next weekend.
At best, it saves everyone the discussion.
Thank you, Reece.
Contextually, I believe he's inferring people do not prepare things like dice buckets / rollers / baggies with the right # of dice for their mass dice units. I.E. a prepared tournament conscript player should have a couple of dice bags with the # of dice necessary for a full squad to fire, and remove dice as models die, so that they can easily roll during game, instead of counting up hundreds of dice over and over again at extreme time delay during play.
Which, if I'm accurately interpreting, is a really vital thing.
MVBrandt wrote: Contextually, I believe he's inferring people do not prepare things like dice buckets / rollers / baggies with the right # of dice for their mass dice units. I.E. a prepared tournament conscript player should have a couple of dice bags with the # of dice necessary for a full squad to fire, and remove dice as models die, so that they can easily roll during game, instead of counting up hundreds of dice over and over again at extreme time delay during play.
Which, if I'm accurately interpreting, is a really vital thing.
Thank you Mr Brandt for understanding what I mean. Most people who are in these tournaments at the level of vying for title are not new people. They should be prepared to get through the minimum amount of turns required since the dawn of time in 40k gaming, and if they are not then some shame should be lumped upon them.
The interview I saw with the Winner was on the BoK facebook feed, dont know if it is on the website yet. It was the interview with Brandon Grant on the BoK FB page
Vector Strike wrote: I've downloaded the app, but I cannot see the lists. 'Events' tab is blank. How can I see the lists?
I don't believe you can search it. But it is on the events list.
Looks like Horde Guard plus Scions vs. Tau Commander Spam was the Final with the Guard player winning. So this pretty much confirms that the units people thought were powerful, are.
hmm so 5 of the top 10 lists were guard horde variants w plasma spam (including the GSC list).
Lucy we got a problem!
In all seriousness its nice to see the other 5 lists are all varied. Even if those armies competitive options tend to be 1 dimensional (tau commander spam, etc)
Uriels_Flame wrote: Again - this was an index only tourney. So I assume items will change as the new codex creep sets in.
Um codexs aren't coming out for a while AND codexs aren't drastically changing armies. a single relic, a different warlord trait, a small chapter tactic buff, and a unique stratagem isn't going to radically change what is overpowered or underpowered in the game (in fact you will only see people choose which tactics/strategems makes the best most efficient units BETTER). Furthermore you are talking at least 2 years worth of releases.
People within the first 3-4weeks were able to accurately predict (both mathematically and in playtested battlereports) which units were already overpowered. Conscript spam and plasmagun/pistol spam is predominantly in half the top 10 lists and in both undefeated lists. That is a HUGE outlier that needs to be addressed. There are other units that are slightly undercosted (FW basilisk carriages, guilliman, tau commanders, brimstone horrors, etc) and I wouldnt mind seeing those units playtested a little longer but nothing that was as drastic and clearly an issue as the above two units. if you want to see real balance without 1 army type taking over half the top 10 rankings we need to see those items adjusted sooner then later.
MVBrandt wrote: Codexes are much more impactful than you're inferring.
Discounting any balance changes related to points adjustments and unit options being added for balance reasons.
All a codex adds are a single relic, a different warlord trait, a small chapter tactic buff, a unique stratagem (and new psychic powers). Using the Space marine codex as the ONLY example units that were good are still good and units that were bad are still bad... nothing really changed.... Except for rebalancing with point adjustments on certain choices like power fists going down 8 pts, which should be happening constantly according to the devs. Psychic powers are honestly the most drastic changes as they can completely change an army, given that the initial psychic power selection was limited.
MVBrandt wrote: Codexes are much more impactful than you're inferring.
Discounting any balance changes related to points adjustments and unit options being added for balance reasons.
All a codex adds are a single relic, a different warlord trait, a small chapter tactic buff, a unique stratagem (and new psychic powers). Using the Space marine codex as the ONLY example units that were good are still good and units that were bad are still bad... nothing really changed.... Except for rebalancing with point adjustments on certain choices like power fists going down 8 pts, which should be happening constantly according to the devs. Psychic powers are honestly the most drastic changes as they can completely change an army, given that the initial psychic power selection was limited.
SM troops gained obsec. That is huge and something that will come to a lot of codexes if hints from FLG and others are to be believed. That alone will adjust the meta a good deal from devestators all day every day to at least a choice to be made.
There's 16 SM non-chapter specific strategems + 1(x7) that are chapter specific. So lot more than 1.
Lots of units got better because of the new combinations of rules tweaks, strategems and chapter tactics. Vanguard with hit and run. Sternguard with bolter drill or +1 to wound. etc etc.
Chapter Approved is coming at the end of the year also. Will shake things up just like General Handbook did for AoS more than likely.
Already several meta changing errata and rules re-writes, suspect more will continue to come.
So yeah its one event, 6 weeks after edition launch. Meta will adjust and rules releases are gonna be part of that, as well as changes to what people are bringing.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Again - this was an index only tourney. So I assume items will change as the new codex creep sets in.
Um codexs aren't coming out for a while AND codexs aren't drastically changing armies. a single relic, a different warlord trait, a small chapter tactic buff, and a unique stratagem isn't going to radically change what is overpowered or underpowered in the game (in fact you will only see people choose which tactics/strategems makes the best most efficient units BETTER). Furthermore you are talking at least 2 years worth of releases.
People within the first 3-4weeks were able to accurately predict (both mathematically and in playtested battlereports) which units were already overpowered. Conscript spam and plasmagun/pistol spam is predominantly in half the top 10 lists and in both undefeated lists. That is a HUGE outlier that needs to be addressed. There are other units that are slightly undercosted (FW basilisk carriages, guilliman, tau commanders, brimstone horrors, etc) and I wouldnt mind seeing those units playtested a little longer but nothing that was as drastic and clearly an issue as the above two units. if you want to see real balance without 1 army type taking over half the top 10 rankings we need to see those items adjusted sooner then later.
Have you seen the new chaos ones that came out today? CSM that are Slaanesh marked/legion will always strike first in combat, a new psyker power that gives Slaanesh Troops a 5+ FNP on all wounds (mortal included) and a new stratgem that for 2CP allows a slaanesh unit to fire AGAIN.
Primark G wrote: "What is worrisome is that folks are not planning properly for their dice and not making it through at least 3 full turns a player."
The new slow play army. :(
I continue to think major tournaments should play using chess clocks. Having a significant fraction of games end early is IMO basically unacceptable from a competitive standpoint, and has been a thorn in the side of the 40k scene for a long time.
Primark G wrote: "What is worrisome is that folks are not planning properly for their dice and not making it through at least 3 full turns a player."
The new slow play army. :(
What do you guys mean by "not planning properly for their dice"? I don't follow...
I'm 99% certain he means that people weren't using all the tricks to playing super fast, like having their dice organized into lots of a specific amount to make rolling quicker and easier.
Kingsley wrote:
Primark G wrote: "What is worrisome is that folks are not planning properly for their dice and not making it through at least 3 full turns a player."
The new slow play army. :(
I continue to think major tournaments should play using chess clocks. Having a significant fraction of games end early is IMO basically unacceptable from a competitive standpoint, and has been a thorn in the side of the 40k scene for a long time.
And chess clocks will only ever make a real difference if most people not finishing their games are intentionally slow-playing, which is absolutely not the case. So you introduce chess clocks to punish the rare intentional slow-player and you instead end up making the event completely miserable for the people who are genuinely trying to finish on time but can't because the games aren't given the proper time for their point value, which eventually just drives more people out of attending tournaments and/or pushes them towards playing small model count armies (which reduces the diversity of armies people will face, which is a bad thing).
As always for 40k, the right way to handle this is to lower point values/raise round time limits and to track players that don't finish games over multiple events to really target the true slow-players while getting the point level/round times 'right' for the majority.
Without knowing any firsthand details, if a lot of people weren't finishing their games, then it sounds like the point level, especially for the first event featuring entirely new rules, was too high. Eventually events can probably handle that amount of points in that amount of time, but for now you still have a LOT of people that are still probably really learning the new game, and that should have been taken into consideration.
Primark G wrote: "What is worrisome is that folks are not planning properly for their dice and not making it through at least 3 full turns a player."
The new slow play army. :(
What do you guys mean by "not planning properly for their dice"? I don't follow...
Planning for having to roll large chunks of dice for a single unit, putting them in sets ahead of time to not have to waste time counting out dice. Like myself, I dont have 80+ conscripts but I do run 30+ so I have 120 dice, bagged in 20s so that i can get going faster and then when the opponent starts moving I can rebag them so they are ready for my next phase. We all should be doing something like this, it helps out alot in making things go faster.
My games averaged 1.5-hours only out of 2.5 time limit.
8th is definitely faster to play than 7th, but you still need to practice. It's just that a lot of players still aren't very familiar with 8th rules and their armies yet.
jy2, how important would you say first turn alpha strikes are and does it need balance?
I know a lot of people are concerned about it and so far the T8 lists seem to be built around that alpha strike, so I'm wondering if we need more to balance it out. Strategems do seem like they could be easily added to make T1 go a lot more fairly, either by making night fight a more universally available strategm and/or (preferabbly and) allowing for alternating activation of a single unit. Something like:
2CP, counter shooting offensive
This Strategem is used in the first battle round right after an enemy unit has
made a shooting attack. Select one of your own units that has not yet made a
shooting attack this battle around and make a shooting attack with it next. The
unit cannot make a shooting attack again in this battle round.
That way you get alternating activation for a single unit before it dies and balance out the power of alpha strike. But you dont get to shoot twice or do any other shanangins with that unit.
Kingsley wrote:I continue to think major tournaments should play using chess clocks. Having a significant fraction of games end early is IMO basically unacceptable from a competitive standpoint, and has been a thorn in the side of the 40k scene for a long time.
And chess clocks will only ever make a real difference if most people not finishing their games are intentionally slow-playing, which is absolutely not the case. So you introduce chess clocks to punish the rare intentional slow-player and you instead end up making the event completely miserable for the people who are genuinely trying to finish on time but can't because the games aren't given the proper time for their point value, which eventually just drives more people out of attending tournaments and/or pushes them towards playing small model count armies (which reduces the diversity of armies people will face, which is a bad thing).
As always for 40k, the right way to handle this is to lower point values/raise round time limits and to track players that don't finish games over multiple events to really target the true slow-players while getting the point level/round times 'right' for the majority.
Without knowing any firsthand details, if a lot of people weren't finishing their games, then it sounds like the point level, especially for the first event featuring entirely new rules, was too high. Eventually events can probably handle that amount of points in that amount of time, but for now you still have a LOT of people that are still probably really learning the new game, and that should have been taken into consideration.
Oh, I'm not just interested in punishing intentional slow play. I don't care if it's intentional or not - if you can't play your army in the time allotted, you shouldn't be taking that army to a tournament.
Now, I do also think time limits and points values should be appropriately calibrated. But once that's taken care of, I'm still in favor of chess clocks at competitive events in order to get people playing the game at a proper speed.
Wow, another awesome BAO on the books! Thanks to everyone that came, we had a great time. Loved seeing all our old friends and making new ones! 8th is stupid easy to T.O., lol, hardly any rules questions and most of it was just clarifications, not actual rules conundrums.
Big shout out to Brandon Grant who won it again this year!
@Thread
The vast majority of games finished early or on time. Only a few games each round went long and that was almost entirely due to players, not the game or lists.
Codexes have a MASSIVE impact on the game, lol. Trust me on this. Things are going to get very interesting, very fast. I can't wait until the meta catches up to them a bit, the game will be so much more fun, and it is already a huge hit.
Fair enough! Just the fact that we've gotten, what, 2 faqs in a couple of weeks tweaking and updating things is pretty awesome.
The fact that we're *only* quibbling about conscripts, potential flyer spam (but even thats way better with the FAQ, and would probably be totally solved if they couldnt block wounds for chars) and brims is a big deal.
So thank you Reecius for all your work in helping balance this edition! Now that that's out of the way.. LISTEN TO ALL MY STUFF NOW PLEASE. I MUST BE HEARD.
The vast majority of games finished early or on time. Only a few games each round went long and that was almost entirely due to players, not the game or lists.
I disagree. I had 2 games that ended in 3 rounds and others on my team had games end on 3 as well. My one loss was to Paul McKelvey (who came 4th) and we were right in the middle of a slobber knocker when we timed out after round 3, and I was off all of the objectives. My other game that ended early was against Andrew Ford who is leading the overall ITC standings, so the games were quite critical.
Most of the time a lot of people are playing alpha strike or beta strike lists and they were tabling, or being tabled in about an hour and a half and had plenty of time. I know I did in the 3 games that I tabled my opponent. The problem is that my army is very resilient, and does not go gently into the night. So there are a ton of dice rolls and a lot of back and forth and the game ends up going long. Paul had a ton of shooting with a million drones and commanders and a lot of moving. Andrew had a smallish harlequin army that had a lot of shadow specters that shot like crazy and with Strength from Death had a lot of extra shooting rounds. For the most part my army is small, but I operate heavily in the psychic, shooting and assault phases.
I do not feel like we played slow, but certain armies take a while to play if they do not get crushed. I heard that orks and some other games went long as well.
Primark G wrote: "What is worrisome is that folks are not planning properly for their dice and not making it through at least 3 full turns a player."
The new slow play army. :(
I continue to think major tournaments should play using chess clocks. Having a significant fraction of games end early is IMO basically unacceptable from a competitive standpoint, and has been a thorn in the side of the 40k scene for a long time.
But how many of the players have a real issue with it? If they want to play tournaments that average turn 3 games and are happy then leave it be. If most are angry then something should be done within reason but honestly attendance doesn't seem to suffer from it, and it's an added expense to organizers to buy and maintain clocks and I am not sure it wouldn't slow the game down with arguments anyway. I mean, the only real problem with games not finishing naturally in a times event is the results, nobody takes a tournament win as seriously when it finished 5 3 round games as a tournament that had most of it's games conclude naturally for the top tables. Maybe a better solution is to start every one with a set number of points as a final modifier to scores but that one bonus pool is docked X amount for each turn the game fell short of whatever mark you want to meet. That way people can see how well a player does, but that they may not have progressed in the later rounds due to games not finishing.
Some would say this punishes horde armies but honestly I would suggest that if a player knows how to prepare for a large army and is practiced with it they can easily finish and those are the players that deserve to play said armies rather then meta jumpers chasing whats strongest on paper. It's difficult to juggle but as I started off saying, it's only really a problem if attendees are unhappy, if as an outsider you are annoyed with tournament results from short games I'd suggest not bothering with tracking them to begin with, tabletop gaming wins are not very important in the grand scheme of things after all.
Largo39 wrote: jy2, how important would you say first turn alpha strikes are and does it need balance?
I know a lot of people are concerned about it and so far the T8 lists seem to be built around that alpha strike, so I'm wondering if we need more to balance it out. Strategems do seem like they could be easily added to make T1 go a lot more fairly, either by making night fight a more universally available strategm and/or (preferabbly and) allowing for alternating activation of a single unit. Something like:
2CP, counter shooting offensive
This Strategem is used in the first battle round right after an enemy unit has
made a shooting attack. Select one of your own units that has not yet made a
shooting attack this battle around and make a shooting attack with it next. The
unit cannot make a shooting attack again in this battle round.
That way you get alternating activation for a single unit before it dies and balance out the power of alpha strike. But you dont get to shoot twice or do any other shanangins with that unit.
This edition is very alpha-strikey.
However, the best lists are not only the alpha-strike lists, but they can beta-strike as well.
5 of the 6 opponents I played against brought alpha-strike armies. 3 of them were hardcore alpha- and beta-strike armies. I myself brought an alpha-strike army. Unfortunately for me, in 5 out of 6 games, I wend 2nd.
You make some good suggestions. However, every time FLG comes out with a house-rule, they get a lot of blowback. (Take, for instance, the +1 to 1st-turn roll.) So they don't do anything about it and people complain about the meta. They make a change to make the meta more balanced and then people complain about them. Lol. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
It is what it is. So far, this edition has been very 1st Turn alpha-strike oriented in the competitive scene. That appears to be the norm. If your army does not have the capability for an alpha-strike, then you better make sure it is especially resilient, because you will be playing with a handicap. On the other hand, if your army has the flexibility to do an alpha-strike or beta-strike, then you've got a top-tier tournament army.
cant see the list. I know BOA is a sponsored event on BCA, but you still have to pay in order to search past events. Again I am on an Iphone, is there a way to pull it up?
Also I have a question. Since this person made top 8 I'm going to make an assumption his list was checked over again and verified. But the top Ynarri player did not pay for the spirit stones on his hemlock, is there a reason for this? I thought it was covered in the space marine company champion FAQ.
Chancetragedy wrote: Also I have a question. Since this person made top 8 I'm going to make an assumption his list was checked over again and verified. But the top Ynarri player did not pay for the spirit stones on his hemlock, is there a reason for this? I thought it was covered in the space marine company champion FAQ.
Probably because it isn't listed as a wargear. Rather, it is an ability for the Hemlock unless the FAQ says otherwise (and I don't see it changed in the FAQ).
Chancetragedy wrote: Also I have a question. Since this person made top 8 I'm going to make an assumption his list was checked over again and verified. But the top Ynarri player did not pay for the spirit stones on his hemlock, is there a reason for this? I thought it was covered in the space marine company champion FAQ.
Probably because it isn't listed as a wargear. Rather, it is an ability for the Hemlock unless the FAQ says otherwise (and I don't see it changed in the FAQ).
That's kind of what I was trying to figure out. In the index imperium 1 FAQ it says the company champion has to pay for his combat shield even though its listed under the abilities section. Then GW refers to all "other wargear" needing to be paid for the ability has a points cost in the wargear section. Since Reece prides himself in being a play tester and this is the first real major event I was curious to find out if I'm reading that wrong or what the actual deal is. Thanks for the response though Jim!
Yeah, the Imperium FAQ shows the intent of GW. However, until it is also applied to the FAQ of the Xenos army, RAW-wise, the Hemlocks get a freebie.
It's also a brand new edition and even the FAQ's are not all complete. Last season (and throughout the tournament history), ITC and third-party TO's have had to supplement GWFAQ's with their own for more completeness. Well, we haven't quite gotten there yet. We need to fix the mistakes that GW's corrections didn't fix. Give it some time and I am sure we will.
One more thing, this is a gray area of list-building that I think most TO's will forgive. When I'm building an army, it is my responsibility to check the relevant books and FAQ's. Outside of that, do I need to check other irrelevant documentation? For example, if I am building an Eldar army, yeah, I need to check the Eldar codex, the Eldar FAQ's and probably the BRBFAQ as well. But do I really have to check the Tyranid/Ork/SM/Astra Militarum/etc. FAQ's as well? Do I need to check Forgeworld FAQ's as well to see if my army is truly legal? I think most TO's would forgive the player if they didn't because it just isn't reasonable to expect the player to know everything about everything else just to build their army. They just need to know everything about their own army.
Thing is the house rule came out right when 8th edition was first started to be played publicly. Why wasn't it caught by GW's playtesters? It's too early to make a change that has such a huge impact.
Primark G wrote: Thing is the house rule came out right when 8th edition was first started to be played publicly. Why wasn't it caught by GW's playtesters? It's too early to make a change that has such a huge impact.
You do realize gw didn't take all the playtesters advice.
Like I'm fairly sure playtesters would have told gw; hey your missions have sucked the last 20 years how about we just change them to the layered missions everyone uses in tournaments.
And gw was like ya no we like them simple and unbalanced.
Primark G wrote: Thing is the house rule came out right when 8th edition was first started to be played publicly. Why wasn't it caught by GW's playtesters? It's too early to make a change that has such a huge impact.
There was plenty of House Ruling during 7th. This is by no mean something new.
And like others said, GW does not always listen to the playtester feedback.
Also keep in mind that given the timing of everything, it is very likely GW looked for playtesting after having already wrote and printed the Rulebook/Indexes.
jy2 wrote: All the lists are on BestCoastPairings.com and its free to use/see. You should download it onto your phone.
Wow now i need to pay money to see the lists as well? pfff... dont feel like paying 50 euro every year just to see the player lists... (old events i cant see in normal app an searching requires you to pay...)
Chancetragedy wrote: Also I have a question. Since this person made top 8 I'm going to make an assumption his list was checked over again and verified. But the top Ynarri player did not pay for the spirit stones on his hemlock, is there a reason for this? I thought it was covered in the space marine company champion FAQ.
Probably because it isn't listed as a wargear. Rather, it is an ability for the Hemlock unless the FAQ says otherwise (and I don't see it changed in the FAQ).
I believe that they do have to pay for them even though it is listed as an ability, just like the Autarch has to pay for his forceshield even though it is listed as an ability. If they have a point cost for it, you have to pay it.
The BCP app shows the lists in sponsored events for a few days but then they become available only to those who pay for the service.
And yes, this is intent. The BCP app was created by skilled professionals who've been working on the software for well over a year. They're building a valuable database of information and it is totally reasonable for them to get compensated for their hard work. And of course, if access to that isn't worth the money to you then you don't have to pay =) The subscription to BCP comes with a lot of other perks, too though, by the way, not just access to lists.
@Blackmoor
Then play faster, bruh =P
I'm teasing of course, but yes, players have to keep an eye on the clock. It is a part of the game. To that end, we're working on a time journal to go along with our format where players notate when they begin and end their turns and their opponent verifies it. This data will then be made public most likely, so those who actually play slow will see it. It is interesting as we have started tracking time, players almost always think it was their opponent that played slow when in fact it is almost always both of them. But, we need to build up more data first to show everyone but in the short term, this is our plan.
@Thread
The +1 to go first rule was a known issue prior to 8th launch. I cannot disclose the details but your assumptions on the topic are inaccurate. I can see how you draw them given the information available to you, but they are still off the mark in regards to us just finding it after release or GW not listening to us or anything like that.
You will just have to wait and see on that, time will make it evident what hapenned and why but no, it is not just something we made up in the last month or whatever.
At any rate, thanks for coming to an awesome BAO! We had a great time and the buzz around 8th is awesome.
In regards to units that cause some concern, as Frnakie and I have been saying, anything that seems too good or too weak will probably get altered sooner than later. So, just hang in there a bit =)
Primark G wrote: So you are asking us to just take your word for it now?
Yes. He's bound by a NDA when it comes to discussing playtesting info. So if you don't think he's a chronic liar, then give hm the benefit of the doubt.
I had a great time, though did not do well overall.
No issues finishing on time as yes - the first two rounds in 8th play a little long, but by the 3rd/4th round you won't have enough left on the table for things to take long.
Excellent event, and I am glad the store is in my backyard.
Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.
And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.
If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.
As to missions
We brought the Nova/ITC missions to our club, alot of people, especially new ones, did not understand it.
Having simple missions in the main book, even if they are unbalanced will help newbies.
Tournaments will continue doing their own missions thats fine.
Reecius wrote: Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.
And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.
If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.
What is a rough time frame when this will become self evident to the public?
Reecius wrote: Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.
And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.
If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.
The ATC organizer has talked about there may, or may not be, an NDA for him as well. I'll take your word for it.
Reece and Yakface have articulated it well. It should also bear some weight that every TO who is also a play tester has used and/or advocated the +1 to go first rule since Day 1.
Following BAO was a blast this year, and it's been good to hear a lot of feedback on the missions. Looking forward to knockin' back beers and rolling dice with some of these West Coasters at NOVA and LVO.
Reecius wrote: Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.
And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.
If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.
What is a rough time frame when this will become self evident to the public?
He can't answer that question. Anything to due with future releases or methods is forbidden. The best you're going to get is generalities too vague for your satisfaction.
Reecius wrote: I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy
What about when you said I was special and could be anything I wanted to be when I grew up... and that Mom was taking her special medicine when the house smelled funny and the Pink Floyd kept skipping on the record player.... remember that?
I understand how #1 overall player Grant's Astra Militarum list worked, with Scions, conscript mobs, firebase.
I understand how #2 overall player Pelham's list that was similar but fewer conscripts, Elysians, and a Stormlord worked.
However, I am completely baffled by #3 overall player Johnson's Astartes/Soup list worked. Lord Commissar with 2x20 Conscripts, ok. Apothecary and Culexus I get. But the rest of the list is just like, Guilliman, a Jump pack Librarian, 15 Scouts with sniper rifles, 3 Centurions, a Basilisk Platform, a Stormraven, and a Vulture.
I don't understand how this list won. Or how its firebase actually worked. 40 conscripts, 15 scout snipers, 3 centurions, and 3 vehicles. And that's it? That's the whole firebase? Maybe I'm underestimating the dakka here but this list seems very strange to me. This list and its success intrigues me and shows me I have much more to learn.
Are there any battle reports of Johnson's list? Did anyone play against this list? How did it operate and what made it strong?
Doug is a very good player and frequently on the top tables of any tournament he goes to. His list shoots your pants off and has resiliency, mobility and Bobby G. Pretty straightforward to me, actually.
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Still, sounds great
Better to make us all pay for it it would seem. I've already been told to quote "stfu" for lamenting that fact on frontline's facebook page. Yay.
Obsec is fine and all, just not sure why it wouldn't be there initially.
We told you to STFU? What? lol. No, that did not happen.
Again, while I understand why it seems strange given your perspective, in order to understand this you'd have to know when the BRB was finished and printed. The timing as it appears may not align with the actual timelines.
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Still, sounds great
Better to make us all pay for it it would seem. I've already been told to quote "stfu" for lamenting that fact on frontline's facebook page. Yay.
Obsec is fine and all, just not sure why it wouldn't be there initially.
You act as if it's a hard rule to remember. The only reason I think the rule was added was to diversify lists away from spam.
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Still, sounds great
As Reece mentioned, you have to keep in mind the extremely long lead time for making something like the 40k rulebook.
If you read between the lines a bit we can probably surmise that most of the playtesting feedback GW could have gotten for 8th edition wouldn't have been useful except to make changes to the game AFTER the rulebook was already finished and off to the printers. That's just the reality of having a product that both takes a very long time to make but also has a pretty strict time frame for when it needs to be released. Since they were making such massive changes to the ENTIRE game, by the time they had the rules fleshed out to the point where they were comfortable sharing them with a wider breadth of outside playtesters, the feedback they got back likely couldn't have changed the core rules in any meaningful way, if at all.
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Still, sounds great
Better to make us all pay for it it would seem. I've already been told to quote "stfu" for lamenting that fact on frontline's facebook page. Yay.
Obsec is fine and all, just not sure why it wouldn't be there initially.
You act as if it's a hard rule to remember. The only reason I think the rule was added was to diversify lists away from spam.
Well here's hoping it has that effect on spam
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yakface wrote: by the time they had the rules fleshed out to the point where they were comfortable sharing them with a wider breadth of outside playtesters, the feedback they got back likely couldn't have changed the core rules in any meaningful way, if at all.
Yeah it's entirely possible that GW took the feedback without ever intending to apply it simply as a PR/act of good faith. But it's hard to square the whole "most tested edition evar" and have stuff like this chapter approved drop, especially so soon on the heels of said well tested ruleset. It's hard to have mistakes remedied when the whole time you're being told it's not a bug but a feature and so on. The book leaves a bad taste but if those are the only changes to matched play at least from the sounds of it it's not hard to remember the changes. Here's hoping even if they are cash grabs they might put back other good rules from 7th.
Yeah, just saw that. Sorry for that, that wasn't a staff member, obviously.
But this is not a cash grab. 100% certain of that, lol.
This edition was--for sure--heavily, heavily play tested by people that took it very seriously. However, in a dynamic system, things change and things get missed and sometimes things get caught when it is too late to fix them on release. That's just the reality of the situation.
If you don't like the edition, which judging from your comments on FB it sounds to be the case--then that is fine. That does not mean the edition is objectively bad as you presented it. It just means you don't like it, which while that sucks, is subjective.
The game is incredibly popular with 8th ed. Like, so popular that it is hard to get product to sell! It's not perfect, but it most certainly is a hit with a huge swathe of the gaming community, FWIW.
I hope in time you come back to the game and enjoy it, but if not, then I hope you have fun playing whichever game does tickle your fancy.
@Yak
Yeah, you understand as you are in the industry. I understand why people draw the conclusions they do (I probably would have, myself a while back). But in learning how things work, I see how incredibly difficult it is, and how much timing comes in to play.
GW is going out of their way to address issues in a timely fashion which is awesome.
Once things settle down a bit, these changes will come much slower I would imagine.
Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?
Still, sounds great
As Reece mentioned, you have to keep in mind the extremely long lead time for making something like the 40k rulebook.
If you read between the lines a bit we can probably surmise that most of the playtesting feedback GW could have gotten for 8th edition wouldn't have been useful except to make changes to the game AFTER the rulebook was already finished and off to the printers. That's just the reality of having a product that both takes a very long time to make but also has a pretty strict time frame for when it needs to be released. Since they were making such massive changes to the ENTIRE game, by the time they had the rules fleshed out to the point where they were comfortable sharing them with a wider breadth of outside playtesters, the feedback they got back likely couldn't have changed the core rules in any meaningful way, if at all.
That makes sense of course, and I am really happy GW is addressing things like this, in case that wasn't clear!
However, it's also pretty clear they probably knew this change was coming (as did the TOs) before 8th was actually released, so it kinda sux that they weren't more forthcoming about it previously. Reading between the lines is hard to do
Still positive though, and can't wait until FW puts out Fires of Cyraxus so I can actually use my army with the new rules
The meka dread is definitely one of the better dreads. I'm just hoping for a cheaper mega dread with mega charga and supa skorcha arm option. Which will give me reliable 24in shooting even at bs5 and extra choppy action. The meka dread is more kff support with bs4 rattler kannon. They should pair well together if the rules are similar to last edition and should make dread lists stronger since they provide greater threat range and better shooting on a more durable platform.
Doug is a very good player and frequently on the top tables of any tournament he goes to. His list shoots your pants off and has resiliency, mobility and Bobby G. Pretty straightforward to me, actually.
Interesting, I figured it was a list that required a lot of skill to play. Stormraven, Vulture, and Centurions all put out lots of shots. It'd probably have been very interesting to watch in action.
This edition was--for sure--heavily, heavily play tested by people that took it very seriously. ...
Once things settle down a bit, these changes will come much slower I would imagine.
I dont want to be mean, but if this edition was so heavily tested, I cant image how is it possible that those over-efficient units just slipped under/over/around the testers scope (you know, the units that are spammed a lot, I dont want to name them to avoid any possible quarrel)...makes me sad, I really had high hopes for the edition :(
Lothar wrote: I dont want to be mean, but if this edition was so heavily tested, I cant image how is it possible that those over-efficient units just slipped under/over/around the testers scope (you know, the units that are spammed a lot, I dont want to name them to avoid any possible quarrel)...makes me sad, I really had high hopes for the edition :(
When you're dealing with a major project like 40k 8th edition (which was massive: writing all new core rules AND all new rules for the tons of different factions 40k has), it takes a very, very long time to do all that work. But then you've also got a set-in-stone release window that you have to hit. On top of that, you have to get the rules to a polished enough place where outside playtesters can even be of use...if you release rules to playtesters when the rules are still too early in development, then you get a bunch of feedback that's more or less useless because you're still making tons of changes every single day.
So you have to get the rules to a decent (close to done) state, before you can give them to external playtesters, but then you don't really have enough time to correlate and implement all the changes that the external playtesters have because the time between getting those 'polished' rules to them and when you have to print the books (months ahead of the actual release date) in order to get those books done for the official release date means: pretty much all the feedback you get back from external playtesters is only going to start to filter in as codexes are released, FAQs are implemented and 'Chapter Approved' annuals are released.
Unless you want to push the release date of 8th edition back a year to 18 months (which would be bad for the company's bottom line to do so), that's just the sad reality of how a project of his magnitude works.
While we'd all love for the rules to be absolutely perfect the first time around, the fact that they are actually using external playtesters again and the fact that they're actually committed to making improvements/changes via FAQs & Annual releases is a massive improvement over anything we've had before.
Lothar wrote: I dont want to be mean, but if this edition was so heavily tested, I cant image how is it possible that those over-efficient units just slipped under/over/around the testers scope (you know, the units that are spammed a lot, I dont want to name them to avoid any possible quarrel)...makes me sad, I really had high hopes for the edition :(
When you're dealing with a major project like 40k 8th edition (which was massive: writing all new core rules AND all new rules for the tons of different factions 40k has), it takes a very, very long time to do all that work. But then you've also got a set-in-stone release window that you have to hit. On top of that, you have to get the rules to a polished enough place where outside playtesters can even be of use...if you release rules to playtesters when the rules are still too early in development, then you get a bunch of feedback that's more or less useless because you're still making tons of changes every single day.
So you have to get the rules to a decent (close to done) state, before you can give them to external playtesters, but then you don't really have enough time to correlate and implement all the changes that the external playtesters have because the time between getting those 'polished' rules to them and when you have to print the books (months ahead of the actual release date) in order to get those books done for the official release date means: pretty much all the feedback you get back from external playtesters is only going to start to filter in as codexes are released, FAQs are implemented and 'Chapter Approved' annuals are released.
Unless you want to push the release date of 8th edition back a year to 18 months (which would be bad for the company's bottom line to do so), that's just the sad reality of how a project of his magnitude works.
While we'd all love for the rules to be absolutely perfect the first time around, the fact that they are actually using external playtesters again and the fact that they're actually committed to making improvements/changes via FAQs & Annual releases is a massive improvement over anything we've had before.
Yes, People should think of like a videogame. A few weeks after release the first patches start to arrive!
In games like this we get rules erratas and chapter approved instead.. Same same but different! =)
OF COURSE we miss things. I use caps not to simulate yelling but for emphasis. We're talking about a system with essentially infinite variables. It is inevitable that some things get missed. The hard part for the testers is that you all don't get to see all of the things we caught! Haha, you only see things that were missed.
It stinks when that happens but it is what it is. As you all have seen and noted, we're actively fixing errors in a timely fashion.
