Supposedly IG are going to be nerfed in the faq on Saturday with restrictions on command squads and conscripts having a point raise. If this is true what do we think ? Is it a good thing GW knee jerking a change or should they have left it for a while? There could be many other point changes.

If there are points changes in an FAQ/Chapter Approved, I will be so happy. It means we may actually have an opportunity to see things balanced and changed this edition instead of the - "oops, guess it's OP until the next edition! our bad!" philosophy that has been going on forever.

50 Conscripts, along with Heavy Weapons Teams; are so cheap for what they provide, it's not even funny.

Is it just me, or does a lot of what GW is doing in 8th basically make it seem like they've been reading my posts here?

Basically from my "bolters should wound landraiders on 6s" to "I want missile launchers to be better" to "I think that tactical marines should have relentless," much of it is in 8th.

And recently I've been complaining about commissars + conscripts...

Coincidence?

I think probably.

Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

I don't think that much needs to be nerfed. Tyrranids and IG seem the be the biggest outliers in terms of power.

I suspect the point cost for a Dire Avenger Shuriken catapault will be changed. 17ppm for Dire Avengers seems rather high, even with all their abilities taken into account.

Any sort of source for this or is it pure conjecture?

 Nazrak wrote:
Any sort of source for this or is it pure conjecture?

From someone who is very close to the playtesters.

This is a good thing, if they are already moving to try fixing issues. Then i will be all on board

Maybe they will move to fix some of the other silly things picked up on already also. Then it will be awesome !

honestly i would just like to see a points sheet that gets updated regularly for each book.

I hope there will be a FAQ, because many rules aren't clear at all. If GW has been paying attention, they should already know about most of them.

As for erratas on point cost, I would also be glad to see it, and it would be a change in the right direction to change the content of a book on the day of its release.

If true, it doesn't inspire confidence in the playtesting/proofreading though, does it?

On the one hand it's great to see them making these changes quickly. On the other hand, it feels bad to buy a book and have it already be partially obsolete. This kind of the reason I was hoping for online rules.

I would NOT assume the points we've seen are final,

Its good on the one hand, if true, as it shows a concern for balance from the outset. On the other hand, it is a bit of a kick in the balls to people buying the books. If I want to get into 8th and for the record, I'm not, but because of the spread of my armies I need to pay £100 for the main rulebook and the index books. If I had just shelled out £100 for the books only to find one or more obsolete literally the very next day, I would be quite peeved.

BTW the reason why I'm not assuming the points we've seen are final are two fold. 1: those may be "early inital printings" and thus mild changes may have been made at the alst minute. 2: it's possiable GW intentionally made each copy theys ent out have some wrong points so they could pin point the source of any one leaking too much. it's worth noting that GW apparently caught the guy who did the leakings and black listed him from carrying any more GW product (as they should have) very fast

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:
On the one hand it's great to see them making these changes quickly. On the other hand, it feels bad to buy a book and have it already be partially obsolete. This kind of the reason I was hoping for online rules.

the most sensible thing to do imo would have been to release the core rules for free online and as books (with boxed sets & to buy on their own maybe with some other goodies) and then have the advanced rules & codexes accessible online with a yearly subscription fee. that way they still make their money, have incentive to fine tune the rules in a reasonable timeframe and it doesn't piss people off by making their expensive books obsolete in the process.

 Traditio wrote:
Is it just me, or does a lot of what GW is doing in 8th basically make it seem like they've been reading my posts here?

Basically from my "bolters should wound landraiders on 6s" to "I want missile launchers to be better" to "I think that tactical marines should have relentless," much of it is in 8th.

And recently I've been complaining about commissars + conscripts...

Coincidence?

I think probably.

Hopefully not. You have no concept of game design based on your proposed rules track record.

Are there other rumors for point change to other armies?

Better a living edition than waiting five years for an update just to find they didn't fix anything that needed it.

Jpr wrote:
Supposedly IG are going to be nerfed in the faq on Saturday with restrictions on command squads and conscripts having a point raise. If this is true what do we think ? Is it a good thing GW knee jerking a change or should they have left it for a while? There could be many other point changes.

Don't believe it. So you're telling me conscripts point cost is now going to be increased to 4ppm even though at 3ppm in 7th edition IG got absolutely slaughtered? Let me guess, infantry squads are going back up to 5ppm like in 7th edition also? If any of the above happens that will pretty much end all of my excitement for this edition. We haven't even got our hands on the rulebook/index's yet. How can they possibly nerf something before the community has even had a chance to field it? How could their initial internal tests be so inaccurate if they feel these changes are needed?

The game hasn't been released yet, why would they FAQ it before release?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The game hasn't been released yet, why would they FAQ it before release?

Day 1 releases are pretty common. And remember the books have been printed for like few months already. Plenty time they might have noticed errors in the meanwhile not to mention all the questions they must have been got after leaks thanks to the more holes than swiss cheese rules writing.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Jpr wrote:
Supposedly IG are going to be nerfed in the faq on Saturday with restrictions on command squads and conscripts having a point raise. If this is true what do we think ? Is it a good thing GW knee jerking a change or should they have left it for a while? There could be many other point changes.

Don't believe it. So you're telling me conscripts point cost is now going to be increased to 4ppm even though at 3ppm in 7th edition IG got absolutely slaughtered? Let me guess, infantry squads are going back up to 5ppm like in 7th edition also? If any of the above happens that will pretty much end all of my excitement for this edition. We haven't even got our hands on the rulebook/index's yet. How can they possibly nerf something before the community has even had a chance to field it? How could their initial internal tests be so inaccurate if they feel these changes are needed?

Don't compare anything now with 7th. The whole game is *very* different.

Maybe some late playtesting result pulled up a huge problem? I'd rather they fixed the game than left it broken. That's what we want, isn't it? A fixed game?

It doesn't invalidate anyone's books. It's just a points change. This was the whole point of having separate weapon and unit costs per faction - so fine changes can be made. For anyone playing casually, this makes no difference at all.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
If true, it doesn't inspire confidence in the playtesting/proofreading though, does it?

overall the 500+ different units in 40k are really well balanced in 8th as many design philosophies are set. However this is a min max point game and a few points can drastically make something over or underpowered. Conscripts aren't anything that's scary by themselves however they are extremely tedious this edition for the points. If true the playtesters are still doing thier job and with the 3 weeks of open testing since the leaks people are trying to twist things and break things and very few broken combos exist. Furthermore these books were likely sent to the printers over 2 months ago plenty of time left to find errors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
BTW the reason why I'm not assuming the points we've seen are final are two fold. 1: those may be "early inital printings" and thus mild changes may have been made at the alst minute. 2: it's possiable GW intentionally made each copy theys ent out have some wrong points so they could pin point the source of any one leaking too much. it's worth noting that GW apparently caught the guy who did the leakings and black listed him from carrying any more GW product (as they should have) very fast

the leaks were the store copies not exactly earth shattering info when gw sent each store a working copy and people took phone photos and put it online. And with the cost of printing gw isn't just making a few bad copies to send out.

There has never been a rulebook I've played for any game that didn't require SOME errata.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The game hasn't been released yet, why would they FAQ it before release?

Maybe they noticed the glaring points discrepancies like Avenger Shuriken catapults, Angelus Boltguns and probably a few others.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The game hasn't been released yet, why would they FAQ it before release?

Better to be on release day than subsequently surely.

 filbert wrote:
Its good on the one hand, if true, as it shows a concern for balance from the outset. On the other hand, it is a bit of a kick in the balls to people buying the books. If I want to get into 8th and for the record, I'm not, but because of the spread of my armies I need to pay £100 for the main rulebook and the index books. If I had just shelled out £100 for the books only to find one or more obsolete literally the very next day, I would be quite peeved.

We know there are defiantely issues with some bits and pieces and errors will always creep in - see the FAQ compilation thread.

I have pre-ordered all the books - now if tis just points tweeks here and there - not so bothered tbh - I would rather they fix stuff than not.

If however its widespread changes to the units rules - then I will be indeed be irritated - this happens with Dropfleet/Dropzone and makes the books pretty much worthless for rules reference and as these are index books to be pretty much just for that rather than full of fluff and pretty pictures it would be annoying.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Jpr wrote:
Supposedly IG are going to be nerfed in the faq on Saturday with restrictions on command squads and conscripts having a point raise. If this is true what do we think ? Is it a good thing GW knee jerking a change or should they have left it for a while? There could be many other point changes.

Don't believe it. So you're telling me conscripts point cost is now going to be increased to 4ppm even though at 3ppm in 7th edition IG got absolutely slaughtered? Let me guess, infantry squads are going back up to 5ppm like in 7th edition also? If any of the above happens that will pretty much end all of my excitement for this edition. We haven't even got our hands on the rulebook/index's yet. How can they possibly nerf something before the community has even had a chance to field it? How could their initial internal tests be so inaccurate if they feel these changes are needed?

A lot of rules in 8th that didn't exist in 7th that heavily favor mass units. Guard will be fine.

Arachnofiend wrote:
A lot of rules in 8th that didn't exist in 7th that heavily favor mass units. Guard will be fine.

Yeah. Too bad it requires basically shelfing of units guard players used previously and mass buying units that didn't see much point previously like tempestus command squads and mortars.

So short of those massive collectors who have lots of everything prepare to hand out hundreds of euros to get back in game or get hit badly.

Well with xxxxxxx people playing and giving comments about the game is logic that GW could realice about the mistakes (a different thing is that they accept them and fix them (they always have their favorites or comercial Plans).

For example, regular guardmen are very cheap for what they can provide. Possibility the standard gants from the nids are also very cheap.
Or necromancer warriors... They are so absolutely monsters for the price they have.

At same time there are no few overcostered units

tneva82 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
A lot of rules in 8th that didn't exist in 7th that heavily favor mass units. Guard will be fine.

Yeah. Too bad it requires basically shelfing of units guard players used previously and mass buying units that didn't see much point previously like tempestus command squads and mortars.

So short of those massive collectors who have lots of everything prepare to hand out hundreds of euros to get back in game or get hit badly.

What, why? The typical IG units look just fine. Platoons are gone, unfortunately, but conscripts can still be fielded in huge groups.

Meh this rumor has come from nowhere.

It would be nice to believe that GW will be patching up holes in the system from day one though.

The main is the problems they can cause to the enemy as well how much they can kill.
Now S3 is way better than before. And they cost 3 pts and are easily (and cheap) buffable.

To see how op they are just need compare them with gretchins since they have same cost I think. Compare attributes, armor, basic weapon, weapon choices, the orders option....

Conscrips has been 3 ppm for years, and now in 8th you can even snipe the comissar. (Quite easily too, 3 T3 wounds with no invuln isn't hard to deal with.)

The Gretchin comparison is moot, as I said they've been 3 ppm for years.

Calling this rumor bullsh*t, especially since the edition isn't even officially released yet.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Conscrips has been 3 ppm for years, and now in 8th you can even snipe the comissar. (Quite easily too, 3 T3 wounds with no invuln isn't hard to deal with.)

The Gretchin comparison is moot, as I said they've been 3 ppm for years.

Calling this rumor bullsh*t, especially since the edition isn't even officially released yet.

Calling it bs based on conscripts getting their points raised is highly naieve, and shows you haven't been following 8th edition news very closely.

 Rippy wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Conscrips has been 3 ppm for years, and now in 8th you can even snipe the comissar. (Quite easily too, 3 T3 wounds with no invuln isn't hard to deal with.)

The Gretchin comparison is moot, as I said they've been 3 ppm for years.

Calling this rumor bullsh*t, especially since the edition isn't even officially released yet.

Calling it bs based on conscripts getting their points raised is highly naieve, and shows you haven't been following 8th edition news very closely.

Feel free to explain then. Also, whats with the attitude?

I can't personally see conscrips costing the same as regular guardsmen. Feels wrong in more than one way.

Apologies, there was no attitude in my post. It doesn't help I am typing instead of speaking.

Look at the amount of units that have had the same points for years that have changed. There is alot of them.

8th is so very different from 7th, that some points costs do not carry across very well for balance. Expect bigger changes in a year's time when the first rules balance comes out.

if they just did 0-1 unit restriction, or maybe 0-3 and left them at 3ppm, that would be better

While true, it still would be wrong with conscripts costing the same as regular guardsmen.

Personally I don't think the problem with the conscripts is cost, but spammability. They used to require a infantry plutoon before you could take a unit, but now in the index they don't, so AM-players are free to fill their troops with them.

Just make it so you require 2-3 infantry squads for each conscript squad and the spamm is eliminated.

Personally I'd consider ultra-cheap scions with plasma and veterans being elite for some strange reason to be the main issues with AM-troops at the moment.

 MinscS2 wrote:
While true, it still would be wrong with conscripts costing the same as regular guardsmen.

Personally I don't think the problem with the conscripts is cost, but spammability. They used to require a infantry plutoon before you could take a unit, but now in the index they don't, so AM-players are free to fill their troops with them.

Just make it so you require 2-3 infantry squads for each conscript squad and the spamm is eliminated.

Personally I'd consider ultra-cheap scions with plasma and veterans being elite for some strange reason to be the main issues with AM-troops at the moment.

Nice to see someone else who is irked about vets being elites. Also, my theory is mortars get nerfed to d3 shots, like every other small blast right now

God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

tneva82 wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
A lot of rules in 8th that didn't exist in 7th that heavily favor mass units. Guard will be fine.

Yeah. Too bad it requires basically shelfing of units guard players used previously and mass buying units that didn't see much point previously like tempestus command squads and mortars.

So short of those massive collectors who have lots of everything prepare to hand out hundreds of euros to get back in game or get hit badly.

Making units that were totally underpowered previously up to par is something we want GW to do. Complaining about it is ridiculous.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

Not really sure why you think this.
We know that perhaps for the first time in many years GW have playtested this edition.
It is quite possible however they have learned more in the last couple of weeks now that a much wider player base have started experimenting with the system.
Some points are clearly out of balance and a tweak early is probably than one in twelve months time.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

We've seen the rules and the index. We know there are issues.
Now GW can admit it and try to fix it asap, or just ignore it. I don't see how the second option is better.

Tyel wrote:
Not really sure why you think this.

Because the game hasn't even been released yet. There hasn't been time for thorough community playtesting, and what we know now is barely more than what GW's internal playtesters should have known. So we have one of two possibilities: either GW's own playtesters are shamefully incompetent and missed obvious balance problems that the community immediately spotted, or GW is second-guessing their playtesters based on poorly informed first impressions and reflexive forum whines and rushing out a fix to appease the whiners. Neither one of these possibilities is a sign of a healthy development process that is worthy of long-term confidence.

Tyel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

Not really sure why you think this.
We know that perhaps for the first time in many years GW have playtested this edition.
It is quite possible however they have learned more in the last couple of weeks now that a much wider player base have started experimenting with the system.
Some points are clearly out of balance and a tweak early is probably than one in twelve months time.

People underestimate the vast difference between internal testing and live user testing. Even with the best testing department and a huge budget, the hours that you can put in are just the tiniest fraction of what the user base can do in a week. I''m not excusing poor attention to detail that GW has been known for, but there is a good reason that products often get updates very quickly after release.

MaxT wrote:
Making units that were totally underpowered previously up to par is something we want GW to do. Complaining about it is ridiculous.

Making previously underpowered units good choices and previously good units into bad ones smells more like cash grab. "Okay we sold enough X but Y has been not selling much. X market is flooded, Y plenty of potential. Switch the power!"

One thing if they were equally good but now it's more like "take these previously undercosted units, spam them and you are at advantage over somebody who sticks to units who were good before".

You want to be handing out hundreds every time army gets updated? You call THAT balance?

fresus wrote:
We know there are issues.

No, we really don't. We have first impressions, nothing more, and first impressions are very often wrong (both in 40k and in other games). We have no long-term playtesting where people see how their first impressions match real performance and evolve a metagame, and we have no competitive tournament results where balance theories find their ultimate test. If GW lets people jump to conclusions without enough time for significant playtesting and immediately rushes out changes to appease the loudest complainers it's going to be a disaster. They need to have confidence in their playtesters, wait a while to see how things settle out (including tournament results), and then see what needs to be done based on trustworthy data.

I don't particularly trust the rumor, but I'll take back my objections to putting the point costs for things far from the unit cards if it means that GW is now willing to fix some of the more egregious balancing errors quickly post-printing.

I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Can they make it so GK can't perils when casting smite? Each model is so expensive we're literally trading 1:1 for points when you average out succesful smites and perils.

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Catapults CANNOT be 0. For one exarch. For second 6" range increase has to show somewhere. That's one of the 2 big leaps weapon ranges have!
Unique celestine logical enough.
Custodes: Funny catch

I will put a guess in too, patching that hole where technically you can make all your faction keywords the same lol
Name your Chaos Warband, Space marine chapter, and Ork mob as "Cheese", then they can all work together (not that anyone would actually allow this to happen)

 Traditio wrote:
Is it just me, or does a lot of what GW is doing in 8th basically make it seem like they've been reading my posts here?

yeah man only you said those things

you are a visionary thanks for enlightening us

the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

I've always hated playing Guard Blob Tank Spam armies anyway... Just means they havent gotten any better IMO.

I'm fine with Day 1 FAQs if they are simply correcting things that proofreading didn't catch before things went to print.

But if they're actually doing balancing with this then it makes it iffy. Like someone said up there, it feels more like a kneejerk reaction and if they will react this fast to community outcry it could be bad, because it means any nutter with enough people riled up can cause the game's balance to be drastically skewed.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

I really don't know what their internal process is. I suspect their issue is not that they don't do "enough" playtesting, but is instead that they're not involving people who are competent to determine how to playtest and how to think about the results of that playtesting, and often who aren't even competent to come to a decent first impression of units based on math. You see this with lots of games -- often the people who are making decisions about balance are mostly there in the first place not because they're great at working out game balance but because they're great at fluff or overall design or something like that, and further a lot of these companies tend to be pretty unwilling to pay what they'd need to to attract the kind of people who would be best at this (whereas there are almost certainly many of those people in the game's audience). I don't think it's very surprising that when you release the rules to a wide audience, many of whom will be much more comfortable with and capable of a sort of scientific approach to game balance than the people who were actually in charge of that process, some things will quickly be seen to be pretty unbalanced. Often this will be expressible in ways that will make sense to the balance team after the fact, and so it's easy to imagine them changing their minds once a problem is pointed out to them. Now, sure, there will be lots of hyperbole and lots of people who are even more unqualified than the internal people who will have very strong and wrong opinions about lots of things, but this is universal.

A point on the difficulty of playtesting:
I think a lot of people have this notion that you can playtest a unit by putting it in your 2000 point army and seeing how it performs, but, really, this doesn't make much sense. That'll tell you how fun the unit is, sure, and that's important, but if we're talking about a ~200 point unit then even very significant cost issues just won't be apparent. Maybe its true value is only 150 points. That's a 33% overcosting! But it's still only 50 points in a 2000 point game. And the individual unit's performance is obviously going to depend on a lot of things, including dice rolls. You would have to do far more of this sort of playtesting than anyone could think reasonable to figure this stuff out, and even then you'd need a rigorous process for interpreting all your playtest data. You're really not going to get anywhere just going off of the players' comments after the game about which units they felt did a good job.

Well, I've already seen units changing FOC slots between leaks and the Warhammer TV stream (Enginseers and Datasmiths become HQ instead of Elite,) so I'm guessing a release-day errata is likely. Then again, it's possible that GW is just messing with us... I know *I* would have fun intentionally leaking rules that are mostly accurate but have a few mistakes.

...why is there no popcorn Orkmoticon?

 Peregrine wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Not really sure why you think this.

Because the game hasn't even been released yet. There hasn't been time for thorough community playtesting, and what we know now is barely more than what GW's internal playtesters should have known. So we have one of two possibilities: either GW's own playtesters are shamefully incompetent and missed obvious balance problems that the community immediately spotted, or GW is second-guessing their playtesters based on poorly informed first impressions and reflexive forum whines and rushing out a fix to appease the whiners. Neither one of these possibilities is a sign of a healthy development process that is worthy of long-term confidence.

Or playtesting is an ongoing process, not a one-off event and the lead times for printing all the books is likely to be at least 3 months. That means there will be things they've found in the intervening time that they want to change. They'll also have been looking at a lot of feedback in the last few weeks since the rules leaked and advance copies went out to stores and various other people. Testing with that number of people will always be vastly superior to any in-house testing you can do, simply due to the numbers. It's not a question of competence, it's a well-known issue in the field of usability.

I know it's fashionable to hate GW but even the idea of a day zero update is such a step in the right direction I, for one, am willing to cut them some slack here. If it improves the game, what's the problem?

Slipspace wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Not really sure why you think this.

Because the game hasn't even been released yet. There hasn't been time for thorough community playtesting, and what we know now is barely more than what GW's internal playtesters should have known. So we have one of two possibilities: either GW's own playtesters are shamefully incompetent and missed obvious balance problems that the community immediately spotted, or GW is second-guessing their playtesters based on poorly informed first impressions and reflexive forum whines and rushing out a fix to appease the whiners. Neither one of these possibilities is a sign of a healthy development process that is worthy of long-term confidence.

Or playtesting is an ongoing process, not a one-off event and the lead times for printing all the books is likely to be at least 3 months. That means there will be things they've found in the intervening time that they want to change. They'll also have been looking at a lot of feedback in the last few weeks since the rules leaked and advance copies went out to stores and various other people. Testing with that number of people will always be vastly superior to any in-house testing you can do, simply due to the numbers. It's not a question of competence, it's a well-known issue in the field of usability.

I know it's fashionable to hate GW but even the idea of a day zero update is such a step in the right direction I, for one, am willing to cut them some slack here. If it improves the game, what's the problem?

Honestly, it baffles me that people want a balanced game, but if GW tries to balance it they're told they're incompetent. Some people seem to be getting angry that the game might get enough balance updates that they no longer can whine about that.

This wouldn't be the first time there was a Day Zero update. The issue is while they *are* appreciated, you end up asking why it was needed in the first place! ("Shouldn't we have caught this in QA?")

Tau got a Day 0 FAQ back in 6th amusingly enough, and this was just to say "No, you can't give Missile Drones to every squad in your army". Which then begs the question: why make such an option so undercosted to begin with, but then artificially restrict it to only a single unit, while other unit-specific drones were included in unit entry options rather than the main Wargear section?

On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

Wayniac wrote:
On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

And because of attitudes like that, some companies simply hold back things a month or two that they could have fixed day 1, because it looks better to people that don't know better.
"We playtested it" doesn't mean "it's perfect in every way." It doesn't for any company, so why would it for GW that have really had fairly limited playtesting. Acknowledging that isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. Get over the gripe before we lose all the good things they're actually trying to do, just because of the ill will of their user base.

There are zero-day updates for the same reason that Windows has bugs that the testers didn't catch: all non-trivial programs have bugs. GW may have playtested, but they only have just so many playtesters, with just so much time, and they all have their preferred styles. Some interactions and edge cases just plain didn't get caught. Some glaringly obvious things (glaringly obvious to us, that is) aren't so obvious to them for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.

Debugging is a non-trivial process, whether your program is written in C, or in English.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

jade_angel wrote:
There are zero-day updates for the same reason that Windows has bugs that the testers didn't catch: all non-trivial programs have bugs. GW may have playtested, but they only have just so many playtesters, with just so much time, and they all have their preferred styles. Some interactions and edge cases just plain didn't get caught. Some glaringly obvious things (glaringly obvious to us, that is) aren't so obvious to them for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.

Debugging is a non-trivial process, whether your program is written in C, or in English.

As someone who worked in QA for a long time, I second this. Even the most detailed test plans aren't going to pick up on everything, and part of the job is being prepared to catch and quickly fix any defects that get identified once you've gone to production.

Let's give GW credit for being prepared to fix their mistakes rather than drag them for having mistakes in the first place.

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

The other thing is GW has now embraced the Internet as a medium. I'm sure on the release of 3rd edition they had just as many "bugs" to iron out, but back then FAQs could only be reliably distributed through magazines, and you can only imagine how long that took (they have to first hear about it).

Day 1 FAQs isn't a bad thing. At the very least it shows they're attempting to fix things, especially since the community has shown itself to be unable to interpret the written word as anything but literally (coughthewholechapterkeywordthingandrerollingopponentsdicecough).

So early?
This is indeed interesting!

Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

Don't worry. If GW does release an errata, it'll be in the next WD. That way, they can monetize the Rules, the Indexes, AND the erratas.

Wayniac wrote:
On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

One thing we learn very quickly in game design is that true balance will never be achieved in asymmetrical gameplay no matter how much you try and it is nearly impossible for a large game to track every single interaction between each other. Furthermore, any change made to a specific component in an effort to balance it with the rest will probably simply create another imbalance somewhere else in the long run that you will also need to fix. So the best you can hope is to plug any hole one by one to shape the player experience in the way you want them to act and feel while playing your game.

I am glad they're actively looking to make changes where they need to happen. Color me impressed.

Maybe they will change it so that some vehicles with plasma doesn't auto-die on a 1 either (Razorback comes to mind).

 MagicJuggler wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

That Stalin fella sounds like a scrub. He won, but still whines about his opponent's OP units.

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

 Thud wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

That Stalin fella sounds like a scrub. He won, but still whines about his opponent's OP units.

He only plays Open mode and pays to win. Complete WAAC player, puts like 40 times the amount of units up to anyone else.

SilverAlien wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

Termagaunts can easily and cheaply become fearless and aren't restricted to 10 models per squad.
Apples and Oranges.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

Has not one person here played a PC game in the past 5+ years??? Now even more on a console side too.

In the age of the high speed interwebz "patching" and fixing or improving past a release is VERY common and practically a given. A day 1 patch has also become common place.

Its good and bad. Its bad in that it seems developers can get "lazy" and QA is more lax due to the "we can fix it later". Its good because its dynamic and not a static type of process.

I see the TT games the same way. Granted they need to stop with the stupid books (or make it optional) in order to get to the point of being able to add/change/amend things as they add units and rules and distribute to everyone.

One of the things that peeved me about playing 40k is the fact a few "books" was never enough. You had multiple sources that had information you needed....and I hoped was up to date.

I still believe, as someone mentioned, a subscription system in ONE place for all information you purchased...with an army builder like BattleScribe or similar included. Books and hard copies could be purchased as well, but not as a necessity.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

Termagaunts can easily and cheaply become fearless and aren't restricted to 10 models per squad.
Apples and Oranges.

Commissars are what, 30 points, 50 for a lord? Or an morale 10 inquisitor for 70? It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent. Also, having better firepower, armor and options don't really balance out against being able to take a squad of 30, and option that in itself is a tradeoff compared to multiple smaller squads. Conscripts get better guns and armor than termagaunts for less, have access to cheap fearless, and the only downside is lower chance to hit which is going to be fairly balanced out with rapid fire lasguns.

Sorry but no, guard are underpriced right now compared to every other army. Four for a conscript, five for a normal guardsman. That's far more balanced compared to every other army out there.

Conscripts ARE undeniably one of the most efficient units for their points cost I've ever seen. For only 150 points 50 conscripts can throw out 100-200 shots, which is enough to kill just about anything in one or two turns.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

Not at all. But a handful of people playtesting is not the same as thousands of people all over the world playtesting. There's no way they can be as thorough as the combined playtest of every 40k player on the planet.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

You do realise it's been months since the books were finalised for print, yes?

Everyone knows there's only one Day 1 FAQ necessary for Guard.

Sergeants now have Lasguns as well as or instead of Laspistols and Chainswords.
Tempestors and Tempestor Primes now have Hotshot Lasguns as well as or instead of Hotshot Laspistols and Chainswords.

SilverAlien wrote:
It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent

Implying that most nidlists wouldn't have any synapse in them to begin with?
Yeah who want's Tervigons when fielding Termagants? Spawning new units that can charge and/or healing 10 Termagants a turn seems overrated.

Again, apples and oranges.

 Purifier wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

You do realise it's been months since the books were finalised for print, yes?

Although I genuinely would like a source to back that up, Purifier, the fact is that that still doesn't excuse sloppy testing.

But hey, I clearly am one of those who ask too much from GW.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


Although I genuinely would like a source to back that up, Purifier, the fact is that that still doesn't excuse sloppy testing.

But hey, I clearly am one of those who ask too much from GW.

Source: common sense.

You need time for: editing, copywriting, spell checking etc. Then you go on to pre-printing, then there's okaying the print, and then the printers have to have enough time to actually print something. Then stocks need to be filled for what is a world-wide release, which means long shipping times to get to all warehouses.

You're acting like the prints just spring from the ground with whatever they put in them in the past week.

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Also, Typhus is 20 points less than a Lord of Contagion dispite having exactly the same stats, bonus rules, being a Psyker, better weapons, and a shooting attack

C.Straken wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Also, Typhus is 20 points less than a Lord of Contagion dispite having exactly the same stats, bonus rules, being a Psyker, better weapons, and a shooting attack

That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

C.Straken wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Also, Typhus is 20 points less than a Lord of Contagion dispite having exactly the same stats, bonus rules, being a Psyker, better weapons, and a shooting attack

That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

That seems unlikely. Him being Unique doesn't in any way mean he should cost less. He doesn't stop you from taking LoCs. It's not like he stops you from having 2HQs. Psykers being riskier is also not a good reason. He has the option of mind-bulleting you. He doesn't just spontaneously combust, so only if you choose to use this additional option is that a risk.

I think this is very rushed. You shouldn't patch anything. At least let a month for people to play it.

But in the other hand, is very common, for many companies, videogames, etc... to release day 1 patchs. Because in the point a game has ended his "playtesting" and is launched to the market can normally pass 2-4 months or even more, and if in that time they have encounter errors, they should try to fix them as fast as they could. If they are doing this FAQ for that reason, I find it a good move.

If they are doing it for the internet histerya and to answer what whinners are saying before real and extensive playstesting from the playerbase can be done, that is gonna be bad.

I find funny how people just love excuses to bash GW. Playtesting=/= Perfect product.

If they fix it because they fix it, it they don't because they don't.

If they have noticed some balance issues (players certainly have) it is better to patch things ASAP, rather than wait till people build armies based on currently OP stuff and then nerf it.

It is funny that squads of guardsmen are preferable to Space Marine TAC squads. Or, really, any troop choice is preferable to TAC squads at this point.

I really hope they're not doing this to patch out perceived "balance issues". Most of it is just people butthurt that they either no longer have an "I win" button or they didn't get enough power to steamroll people. To salt the wound further, a lot of these people haven't even played with 8th yet, so all of it's just conjecture and fearmongering.

Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

We need lower prices on everything TBH. Also hammers cost too much to the point of being absurd.

hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

 Galas wrote:
I think this is very rushed. You shouldn't patch anything. At least let a month for people to play it.

But in the other hand, is very common, for many companies, videogames, etc... to release day 1 patchs. Because in the point a game has ended his "playtesting" and is launched to the market can normally pass 2-4 months or even more, and if in that time they have encounter errors, they should try to fix them as fast as they could. If they are doing this FAQ for that reason, I find it a good move.

If they are doing it for the internet histerya and to answer what whinners are saying before real and extensive playstesting from the playerbase can be done, that is gonna be bad.

I find funny how people just love excuses to bash GW. Playtesting=/= Perfect product.

If they fix it because they fix it, it they don't because they don't.

I disagree here. We don't know why they are deciding to patch things. Like anything metas take time to develop. There are a ton of units and even more unit combos. Maybe the playtesters didn't catch how good some units were early enough to submit feedback prior to going to printing, then discovered some abusive combos later. We just don't know.

I'd rather see a day 1 patch than waiting a month because people will make monetary decisions based on the rules during that month. Lets just use the conscript example. Say they stay where they are and a bunch of people go out and buy 90 conscript models, then GW comes out in a month and says, "conscripts are way too good, they are now 5 points each" Now these models suck, and the people that paid for them will be pissed. I would rather see day 1 changes then waiting a good long while prior to making any other changes (at least a year) people may still be unhappy when the change comes but at least it would not be super quick.

They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

I agree, I thought initially that the points were going to be in the BRB and then data sheets in the index books, then they could just release new points lists.

I don't know why they don't completely digitize all of the rules content.

What if they want to add -1AP to boltguns. It's a massive reprint.

That would have been better, Breng77.

I've always said that they should just have the bare rules available freely online, while codexes and rulebooks would contain hobby material and lore in addition to being premium "reference" books.

The codex and rules as a barrier of entry was part of the reason people didn't really like to start in 6th and 7th. If GW is still claiming to be a miniature company then it'd make even less sense for them to actually sell rules; free rules makes selling minis a hell of a lot easier.

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

That's the reason matched play points are in the back of the index rather than on the data sheer, because they are going to change, perhaps frequently. They included the points so that you can do matched play without an internet connection on launch day, I'm not sure codexes will even have points for matched play.

As for points changes on launch day, I think it's probably the wrong analogy to call it day one DLC, it's more a like day one patch, which is basically an industry tradition at this point. As for people being mad at the points changes, I don't know what they were expecting, the point of 8th ed is to be a living rules system that adapts to the meta, rather than a system that attempts post hoc fixes like formations. I was thinking it would happen in december in chapter approved, but if it happens sooner that will be interesting.

I only buy digital so I dont care MUAHAHAHAHAHA. I think there are a lot of things where the units themselves were priced fine, it is the special weapons and upgrades that are a bit cheap. I think at least for things like plasma and heavy weapons teams they need to be consistent when in squads and when not as well as a few points more.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

We need lower prices on everything TBH. Also hammers cost too much to the point of being absurd.

Funny how we all have this conversation every codex. We're like the least changed codex ironically.

 Quickjager wrote:

Funny how we all have this conversation every codex. We're like the least changed codex ironically.

I dunno. The 5th edition codex was pretty reasonable.

Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Yeah. The stuff that didn't use to spit pie-plates is pretty decent. The tanks and artillery [Read: the things we like] are crap.

Otherwise, big blobs of unbreakable guys is pretty threatening.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

Yes, and it is.

Hopefully we get a lot of FAQs early on, rebalancing everything.

Then after a year we will get a chapter approved with all relevant updates included.

I would prefer GW to patch points and rules as we go, so things arent broken for potentially years like we have had in the past.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Yeah. The stuff that didn't use to spit pie-plates is pretty decent. The tanks and artillery [Read: the things we like] are crap.

Otherwise, big blobs of unbreakable guys is pretty threatening.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

Yes, and it is.

Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

Or the fact that the limited playpool of testers wernt able to/never did think of exploits and loopholes the general populace has found after the full rules leaked

Its no different than the Alpha/Beta phase of video game testing with a small controlled Alpha finding some things, but the masses in Open Betas finding a majority of the bulk, sometimes these things require day 1 changes, which is a good thing as it means GW is being proactive rather than Reactive as they've been in the past

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

He didn't say superheavy tank heavy build, he said, "tank heavy build".

I expect Steel Fury Co. to be rather overpowered.

I can say that bringing 4 assorted Leman Russ Tanks, a Basilisk, a Manticore, and a Wyvern is less functional,

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

He didn't say superheavy tank heavy build, he said, "tank heavy build".

I expect Steel Fury Co. to be rather overpowered.

I can say that bringing 4 assorted Leman Russ Tanks, a Basilisk, a Manticore, and a Wyvern is less functional,

I... have the dumb.

I saw super tank heavy build and my brain thought it said super heavy tank build.

My mistake.

I'll submit myself to the local commissar, no need to escort me.

Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

 vipoid wrote:
Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

Given that people are saying they simply curb stomp, it's rather depressing if that's what you're after.

Are people really complaining that GW is making an effort to balance their game?

Really?

fe40k wrote:
Are people really complaining that GW is making an effort to balance their game?

Really?

Welcome to the internet!

 Purifier wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

Given that people are saying they simply curb stomp, it's rather depressing if that's what you're after.

Given that the game hasn't even been released yet, it's rather depressing that you're already accusing me of wanting to "curb stomp" people.

My apologies for having an iota of excitement for a build that's been garbage for 2 editions now. I should have realised that that instantly made me a WAAC scrub.

To be clear, do we actually have any reason to expect a day one FAQ, much less a day one rebalancing, besides the OP knowing a guy who knows a guy?

 vipoid wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

Given that people are saying they simply curb stomp, it's rather depressing if that's what you're after.

Given that the game hasn't even been released yet, it's rather depressing that you're already accusing me of wanting to "curb stomp" people.

My apologies for having an iota of excitement for a build that's been garbage for 2 editions now. I should have realised that that instantly made me a WAAC scrub.

When you assume that any nerf to it will instantly make it completely unusable when people that have tested it are saying it's way too strong, yeah, it sorta does. You've found a thing that's being hailed as unbalancved and your first reaction to it maybe being pulled into line is that it'll be unusable again.

 Purifier wrote:
When you assume that any nerf to it will instantly make it completely unusable when people that have tested it are saying it's way too strong, yeah, it sorta does.

What testers are you even referring to? You mean the playtesters who came up with the costs in the first place after supposedly playtesting extensively? Or are there some players who've played a few games and can already declare IG infantry completely broken?

 Purifier wrote:
You've found a thing that's being hailed as unbalancved and your first reaction to it maybe being pulled into line is that it'll be unusable again.

See, if anything, you're the one who sounds gleeful that IG are having anything in their army that might be worth a damn hammered into the ground on day 1.

We have no idea how the leaked points occurred. It could be that the current cost of a conscript was done right before the books went to print, and between then and launch playtesters found that it was a far more powerful change than expected.

It's difficult to be too hard on GW for this when literally every other game developer does the same thing. If you want to call them incompetent for day one patches then you kinda have to do the same for everyone else out there.

Is it only conscripts that are supposedly getting a point increase?

Seems really weird if they end up the same price as regular guardsmen.

Arachnofiend wrote:
We have no idea how the leaked points occurred. It could be that the current cost of a conscript was done right before the books went to print, and between then and launch playtesters found that it was a far more powerful change than expected.

It's difficult to be too hard on GW for this when literally every other game developer does the same thing. If you want to call them incompetent for day one patches then you kinda have to do the same for everyone else out there.

Conscripts weren't changed, that's the problem.

They're good in 7e. Then, in 8e, their natural counters, blast templates, were removed, and now there's basically no efficient way to get rid of them. Also, the Lasgun has been buffed.

In 7e it's basically a wall of models that you can stick a Commissar into to remedy it's crap leadership, that puts down a terrifying amount of firepower. They're mostly used for taking up lots of space. But they lose a lot of models to things like Manticores and Flamers, and are easily killed by every gun in the game.

In 8e, templates are gone, they get their armorsave, weapons are weaker, and they can now damage everything.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
We have no idea how the leaked points occurred. It could be that the current cost of a conscript was done right before the books went to print, and between then and launch playtesters found that it was a far more powerful change than expected.

It's difficult to be too hard on GW for this when literally every other game developer does the same thing. If you want to call them incompetent for day one patches then you kinda have to do the same for everyone else out there.

Conscripts weren't changed, that's the problem.

They're good in 7e. Then, in 8e, their natural counters, blast templates, were removed, and now there's basically no efficient way to get rid of them.

Amusingly blast templates wouldn't do much regardless, it's the power of the Commissar that keeps them powerful.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
We have no idea how the leaked points occurred. It could be that the current cost of a conscript was done right before the books went to print, and between then and launch playtesters found that it was a far more powerful change than expected.

It's difficult to be too hard on GW for this when literally every other game developer does the same thing. If you want to call them incompetent for day one patches then you kinda have to do the same for everyone else out there.

Conscripts weren't changed, that's the problem.

They're good in 7e. Then, in 8e, their natural counters, blast templates, were removed, and now there's basically no efficient way to get rid of them.

Amusingly blast templates wouldn't do much regardless, it's the power of the Commissar that keeps them powerful.

They're like that now. A Commissar Lord is absolutely necessary to keep them in position now, otherwise they'd break and flee or get overrun in melee at the drop of a hat.

It's flamers and blasts that really chew through them. Also, super high rate of fire guns.

Also right now, you have to take a platoon to get them, which is a minimum 135 point additional "tax" on them. If you're running infantry heavy it's not a big deal, since you had those platoons already, but if you're tacking them on as cover for an artillery or tank company list then it's an annoying tax.


One thing worth mention is that, because of the new mechanics of vehicles and the relative characteristics of antitank guns, volume of fire is basically king for killing anything, and conscripts have that in copious quantity,

Jpr wrote:
Supposedly IG are going to be nerfed in the faq on Saturday with restrictions on command squads and conscripts having a point raise. If this is true what do we think ? Is it a good thing GW knee jerking a change or should they have left it for a while? There could be many other point changes.

Where exactly did this rumour come from? I would not be surprised if it happened, but I would like some kind of source before I declare that the IG sky is falling.

Hm, I wonder what the command squad restrictions would be? I hope it would be something simple like "you can only take [# if company commander/tempestor prime] of company/tempestus command squads." That way they cannot simply be spammed left, right, center, and within plasma gun rapidfire range so much - doable, and you'd be able to pull it off, but with a 40 point tempestor added for each one it would make it less of an auto include.

Conscripts...I dunno, a point increase feels kind of knee jerky to me, and puts them on the same price level as regular guardsmen. I'd rather just less spammability out of them than a price hike, or give them a rule that limits orders effectiveness on them. Either dial things back to requiring 2 infantry squads for each conscript blob, or possibly give them a rule that makes it so orders on them specifically don't auto pass? I dunno, it seems to me the unit itself isn't that strong, but its synergies just blow it through the roof as a nearby commissar and a company commander can turn them into a wall of las fire that won't break.

kurhanik wrote:
I dunno, it seems to me the unit itself isn't that strong, but its synergies just blow it through the roof as a nearby commissar and a company commander can turn them into a wall of las fire that won't break.

It's odd to me that an army behaving like it's described in the fluff is considered an issue that needs fixing.

Anyway, conscripts being the same price as Guardsmen wouldn't bother me. With Combined Squad gone, Conscripts are the only Guard unit that can form huge blob squads. That's their trade-off for having a poor statline and options, and since it's a powerful combo in this edition and doesn't require the Platoon tax any more, I think it's appropriate if they're costed about the same.

Limiting command squads to your number of commanders is also just fine. Just let us take Platoon Commanders as HQ, please!

I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

Increase infantry to 6 ppm and conscripts to 5 ppm. Obviously, veterans get bumped up to 7 ppm.

Problem fixed, and not only problem fixed, but CSM players can stop complaining.

Amazing this has gone of for five pages with nothing other than heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

Increase infantry to 6 ppm and conscripts to 5 ppm.

Problem fixed, and not only problem fixed, but CSM players can stop complaining.

Veterans are 6ppm, so Infantry can't move into that slot. It's already occupied by a unit that's better than them. It also wouldn't make sense from an external balance perspective, since Boyz pay 6 points for T4, S4, WS3+ and Mob Rule, so Infantry always have to be cheaper than Boyz. Infantry will also be difficult to budge because they'd have to consider their relation to Gaunts, which are 4pts/model. GW just doesn't have a lot of wiggle room in that bracket.

An alternative way to deal with the problem is increase conscripts to 4 ppm, decrease cultists to 4 ppm and increase infantry to 5 ppm.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
I dunno, it seems to me the unit itself isn't that strong, but its synergies just blow it through the roof as a nearby commissar and a company commander can turn them into a wall of las fire that won't break.

It's odd to me that an army behaving like it's described in the fluff is considered an issue that needs fixing.

Anyway, conscripts being the same price as Guardsmen wouldn't bother me. With Combined Squad gone, Conscripts are the only Guard unit that can form huge blob squads. That's their trade-off for having a poor statline and options, and since it's a powerful combo in this edition and doesn't require the Platoon tax any more, I think it's appropriate if they're costed about the same.

Limiting command squads to your number of commanders is also just fine. Just let us take Platoon Commanders as HQ, please!

I guess I can see where you are coming from there, its just a mental hurdle to me seeing conscripts and basic infantry the same price. Then again, as you said, no more platoon tax, so even with a price increase, they are effectively cheaper than before, since previously you'd need to spend 130 points before taking a single conscript.

And an army behaving like fluff is only an issue if it is too strong - a point increase or a mild nerfing of its rules would fix that. So long as it is brought back to whatever the norm is deemed to be, instead of down to the "why would you take this ever" tier of units.

Even with the current rumors saying my army is the one hit with the nerf bat, I am happy that it means GW is at least trying to balance things out. Hopefully that means low performers will also get a buff too.

 ross-128 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

Increase infantry to 6 ppm and conscripts to 5 ppm.

Problem fixed, and not only problem fixed, but CSM players can stop complaining.

Veterans are 6ppm, so Infantry can't move into that slot. It's already occupied by a unit that's better than them. It also wouldn't make sense from an external balance perspective, since Boyz pay 6 points for T4, S4, WS3+ and Mob Rule, so Infantry always have to be cheaper than Boyz. Infantry will also be difficult to budge because they'd have to consider their relation to Gaunts, which are 4pts/model. GW just doesn't have a lot of wiggle room in that bracket.

Increase gaunts to 5 ppm. Problem fixed.

The problem is everything around guardsmen got nerfed heavily.

They should have kept the keywords for each blast, and had it scale appropriately based on the number of models in the unit that they're targeting.

A unit of 20 models should be hit harder by flamers, and blasts, than a unit of 10 models.

I won't even talk about TAC marines / CSM marines, which are a total and complete joke, moreso than in 7th.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:
We have no idea how the leaked points occurred. It could be that the current cost of a conscript was done right before the books went to print, and between then and launch playtesters found that it was a far more powerful change than expected.

It's difficult to be too hard on GW for this when literally every other game developer does the same thing. If you want to call them incompetent for day one patches then you kinda have to do the same for everyone else out there.

Conscripts weren't changed, that's the problem.

They're good in 7e. Then, in 8e, their natural counters, blast templates, were removed, and now there's basically no efficient way to get rid of them. Also, the Lasgun has been buffed.

In 7e it's basically a wall of models that you can stick a Commissar into to remedy it's crap leadership, that puts down a terrifying amount of firepower. They're mostly used for taking up lots of space. But they lose a lot of models to things like Manticores and Flamers, and are easily killed by every gun in the game.

In 8e, templates are gone, they get their armorsave, weapons are weaker, and they can now damage everything.

I think you're dead wrong. In 7th a conscript blob would hit on a 4+ against 80% of all targets in melee, including total fearless, reroll to hit and reroll saves with a priest. Now they're stuck with a 5+ to hit, no matter what, with no rerolls, no bonus attacks for charging, no rerolls for saves nor hit. Furthermore, I've seen you post in several threads with conscriptis having several hundred shots that will lay waste to most things.... would you be kind to like... stop doing that? You cannot seriously suggest that getting all 50 conscripts in rapidfire range, with zero casualties and in still in range for buffing is something that's honestly going to occur on a regular basis.

This is a knee jerk reaction from butt hurt people who haven't even played the game, conscripts going above 3 PPM is simply unacceptable as they are simply not worth any more than that. They require constant support from several characters, because on their own they cant do anything that can be considered a real threat.

Marmatag wrote:I won't even talk about TAC marines / CSM marines, which are a total and complete joke, moreso than in 7th.

Tac marines and CSM marines are fine.

Yes, they lost legion and chapter tactics. On the other hand, most of the things that were roflstomping Tac and CSM marines got nerfed into the ground.

Tac marines are arguably better now in 8th edition that they can disembark 9 inches from rhinos, double tap bolters, and then charge.

Or you can camp tac marines on terrain and enjoy 2+ armor saves.

Also, universal split-fire is a massive buff for tac marines and CSM.

 totalfailure wrote:
Amazing this has gone of for five pages with nothing other than heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy

Also this

 Zewrath wrote:

I think you're dead wrong. In 7th a conscript blob would hit on a 4+ against 80% of all targets in melee, including total fearless, reroll to hit and reroll saves with a priest. Now they're stuck with a 5+ to hit, no matter what, with no rerolls, no bonus attacks for charging, no rerolls for saves nor hit.

...

This is a knee jerk reaction from butt hurt people who haven't even played the game, conscripts going above 3 PPM is simply unacceptable as they are simply not worth any more than that. They require constant support from several characters, because on their own they cant do anything that can be considered a real threat.

They've lost those bonuses, but are now at least capable of hurting anything and get a save vs. most basic weapons.

That's small beer, though. The main fact is that conscripts aren't meant to be an offensive threat; they're a very cheap defensive block. In 7th they weren't seen because combined Infantry squads gave you the same defensive benefit with more offensive power, you had to take a platoon to get the conscripts anyway, and because high-output weapons wrecked them. Those disadvantages are mitigated or gone, and several mechanics have come around to make hordes more dangerous.

I don't have a dog in this race because I don't plan to use points anyway. But if Conscripts go up a point, it'll be reflecting their now-unique role as a thick defensive blocking unit compared to the Infantry Squad's flexibility.

If anything is done to address Conscripts, the most reasonable solution would be to make the former large blast weapons scale against blobs. Partially because a lot of the mathhammer snags that apply to Conscripts also apply to other horde armies.

Plus, homogenizing small and large blasts was a bad idea in the first place. While small blasts slightly gained (since they rarely got three hits before and certainly never even had the potential to get six), large blasts did suffer pretty badly from that change. Changing large blasts to gain +1 shots for every 5 models in the unit (the Manticore could get +d3 to represent its previously random blast count, and the RFBC would get +2 because it's two blasts) would help restore their anti-horde role.

Conscripts are not unique in their strength, they're only strong because hordes with morale mitigation are strong in general in 8th. Because large blasts are no longer around to keep them in check.

 ross-128 wrote:
If anything is done to address Conscripts, the most reasonable solution would be to make the former large blast weapons scale against blobs. Partially because a lot of the mathhammer snags that apply to Conscripts also apply to other horde armies.

Plus, homogenizing small and large blasts was a bad idea in the first place. While small blasts slightly gained (since they rarely got three hits before and certainly never even had the potential to get six), large blasts did suffer pretty badly from that change. Changing large blasts to gain +1 shots for every 5 models in the unit (the Manticore could get +d3 to represent its previously random blast count, and the RFBC would get +2 because it's two blasts) would help restore their anti-horde role.

Conscripts are not unique in their strength, they're only strong because hordes with morale mitigation are strong in general in 8th. Because large blasts are no longer around to keep them in check.

This is more or less accurate. Conscripts alone are not OP. They are undercosted (I think that they're about equivalent to cultists and should cost the same as cultists), but they're not in and of themselves OP outside of their slight undercostedness.

They're OP because of things like commissars. Yes, conscripts need a points increase. But that's not enough. They need to change the rules for the commissar, or else, massively increase the price of commissars.

Change it from "You may BLAM a guy and autopass" to "You may BLAM a guy and treat the die roll as though it were a 1."

They're definitely not the same as cultists. Cultists have better WS, better BS, and can take flamethrowers in huge blobs. Those three things very much outweigh the downside of having 6+ armor.

 ross-128 wrote:
They're definitely not the same as cultists. Cultists have better WS, better BS, and can take flamethrowers in huge blobs. Those three things very much outweigh the downside of having 6+ armor.

Cultists also have 6+ armor saves and can't benefit from IG orders or IG character buffs, and will usually have a lower "effective" LD than conscripts.

The conscripts pay for the character buffs when they buy the character that is buffing them.

That's why "Mob Rule" has to be factored into the cost of Boyz, but knocking 'eads isn't. Mob Rule is an inherent ability the Boyz have, so it's part of their cost. Knocking 'eads is something the Warboss does, so it's part of the Warboss' cost, not the Boyz.

The cost of orders and blamming is paid by the Officers and Commissars, because those are the models you buy to get them.

 ross-128 wrote:
If anything is done to address Conscripts, the most reasonable solution would be to make the former large blast weapons scale against blobs. Partially because a lot of the mathhammer snags that apply to Conscripts also apply to other horde armies.

Plus, homogenizing small and large blasts was a bad idea in the first place. While small blasts slightly gained (since they rarely got three hits before and certainly never even had the potential to get six), large blasts did suffer pretty badly from that change. Changing large blasts to gain +1 shots for every 5 models in the unit (the Manticore could get +d3 to represent its previously random blast count, and the RFBC would get +2 because it's two blasts) would help restore their anti-horde role.

I'd be in favour of something along these lines.

But then, I don't see why so many weapons need random shots in the first place. Why not just give small blasts 2 shots (modifiers for target size notwithstanding) and save us all a lot of pointless rolling?

Infantry prices are fine, how about instead we buff anti infantry guns?

The biggest problem is that my grey knight purifiers with 4 flamers will get about 14 hits against a squad of gaunts when in last edition it'd get 28. Stuff that was designed to hurt hoard spam doesn't exist anymore, and the best way to get the mass low quality shooting needed is to spam more hoards of Shooty guys because bolter brothers more often than not will do more wounds with bolters than specialized anti infantry guns.

ross-128 wrote:The cost of orders and blamming is paid by the Officers and Commissars, because those are the models you buy to get them.

Put the cost wherever you want, but the fact remains that whether you put the cost on commissars, officers or the conscripts themselves, the points you actually pay are not proportionate to what you get. So there need to be nerfs somewhere.

And the fact also remains that cultists are undeniably inferior to guardsmen.

But they're not THAT much better than conscripts. Again, you're not taking into account that conscripts have a 5+ armor save compared to the 6+ armor save of a cultist.

At the very least, cultists should not be MORE expensive than a guardsmen (which is what we currently have).

4 ppm conscripts and 5 ppm cultists and guardsmen, accompanied by heavy nerfs to commissars and officers, seem right to me.

The conscripts arent the issue, they are fine. its the commisinars that are the issue, changing a -12 model to a -1 model is huge.

if it halved the amount lost it would be far better.

Honestly it'd be better to just make the Commissar's ability not scale as well for larger units.

Only suffering 1 model from failed Battleshock tests is fine for a 10 man or smaller unit, but for 50? That's when it gets out of hand.

If anything it should be kill 1 to get a re-roll (like previously) or (the way I prefer) have them reduced the amount the Battleshock test is failed by X, to a minimum of 1 (which, given the right X value, would change little for the 10 man and smaller squad but could still impact a Conscript Squad that lost 1/4 of their guys in one turn).

EDIT: like if it was -5 on the number of models lost to failed tests to a minimum of 1 - assuming no Ld modifiers - a 10 man unit with Sergeant would have to lose 8 models in one turn and roll a 6 to lose the last 2 guys to Battleshock.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

I think you're dead wrong. In 7th a conscript blob would hit on a 4+ against 80% of all targets in melee, including total fearless, reroll to hit and reroll saves with a priest. Now they're stuck with a 5+ to hit, no matter what, with no rerolls, no bonus attacks for charging, no rerolls for saves nor hit.

...

This is a knee jerk reaction from butt hurt people who haven't even played the game, conscripts going above 3 PPM is simply unacceptable as they are simply not worth any more than that. They require constant support from several characters, because on their own they cant do anything that can be considered a real threat.

They've lost those bonuses, but are now at least capable of hurting anything and get a save vs. most basic weapons.

That's small beer, though. The main fact is that conscripts aren't meant to be an offensive threat; they're a very cheap defensive block. In 7th they weren't seen because combined Infantry squads gave you the same defensive benefit with more offensive power, you had to take a platoon to get the conscripts anyway, and because high-output weapons wrecked them. Those disadvantages are mitigated or gone, and several mechanics have come around to make hordes more dangerous.

I don't have a dog in this race because I don't plan to use points anyway. But if Conscripts go up a point, it'll be reflecting their now-unique role as a thick defensive blocking unit compared to the Infantry Squad's flexibility.

Honestly, what do you mean by a big defensive blocking unit? How are 50 conscripts blocking differently than 5x10 infantry squads? Having worse stats, crap LD cause no sergeant, no acces to any special weapons or heavy weapons somehow makes them same points value as infantry? I'm not seeing that argument. Furthermore, being a blob is also worse in terms of survivability. If you get tons of firepower thrown at you, you're going to suffer each and every wound, while a 5x10 man infantry squad only looses 10 dudes max, cause the rest don't spill over. Lastly if I were to buy the argument that they were somehow defensive, then they should at least have some form of defensive ability then. As it stands, they're simply worse guardsmen and if they're gonna cost the same as a guardsman, I will simply be buying an additional 5x10 naked infantry instead and congaline them so they all benefit from the aura of the commissar.

 Zewrath wrote:
How are 50 conscripts blocking differently than 5x10 infantry squads?

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail.

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial.

Having worse stats, crap LD cause no sergeant, no acces to any special weapons or heavy weapons somehow makes them same points value as infantry? I'm not seeing that argument.

Having 20-50 models in the squad is the benefit. And note I'm not specifically arguing that they should be more expensive- just that it'd make sense if they were.

Furthermore, being a blob is also worse in terms of survivability. If you get tons of firepower thrown at you, you're going to suffer each and every wound, while a 5x10 man infantry squad only looses 10 dudes max, cause the rest don't spill over.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Artificial example, yes. Point is that it's not as clear cut as you make it.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, you're not taking into account that conscripts have a 5+ armor save compared to the 6+ armor save of a cultist.

 ross-128 wrote:
They're definitely not the same as cultists. Cultists have better WS, better BS, and can take flamethrowers in huge blobs. Those three things very much outweigh the downside of having 6+ armor.

???

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Well that isn't such a bad thing sometimes. Remember that a squad that charges can only attack units that it declared a charge on. At least you could get some attacks without taking any back.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five. True, but with worse WS and BS they need orders to be effective, where regular infantry can survive not getting an order from time to time.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch. Mitigated by positioning fairly easily, when needed.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail. This is actually a downside for conscripts. If I'm trying to tie down something scary, I'd rather have 5 chances to get a tarpit in place than 1. It also means the other squads can shoot things if needed instead of them all being used as a speedbump. Then you just charge in additional squads as necessary, making the infantry far more effective.

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible. This is 100% true, and combined with their cheap price, what makes conscripts worth it currently.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial. True but typically we aren't starving for troop slots. KP missions are a definite advantage to conscripts.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding. 100% false, you have 4 other infantry squads there.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Green is me.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Orders. One FRF!SRF! order vs. five. One Get Back in the Fight! order instead of five.

K.

Pile-ins. Five infantry squads stand in coherency of each other. One gets charged and gets to fire Overwatch. The enemy piles in/consolidates and drags in the nearby squads, who don't get Overwatch.

Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Charges. One charge roll vs. five individual charges, some of which can fail.

Remind me again of why I would ever charge with Guard units in general?

Buffs. Fifty conscripts will all get the benefit of a 6" bubble from, say, a priest in the back. 5 individual infantry squads would need to maneuver to make that possible.

But still quite doable, so it's not actually relevant as it's not actually a real advantage.

Slots. 1 Troops slot vs. five. Not as much of a problem as it used to be, I'll give you. But in missions where wiping out Troops units gives your enemy victory points, this can be crucial.

I'll grant you the VP argument here but since Guard is all about filling slots now, to get easy CP, I'd say that's a plus.

Having 20-50 models in the squad is the benefit. And note I'm not specifically arguing that they should be more expensive- just that it'd make sense if they were.

... no offense here, but why? You're just saying the 20-50 models is the benefit, without really explaining why and then proceed to say that it would make sense to increase the point costs for reasons you haven't actually explained?

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to an Infantry squad. They all die. Three shots were wasted. That's not bad, but you've lost whatever position the Guardsmen were holding.

A unit of Havocs does 13 wounds to a Conscript squad. The Commissar adds one for the morale failure, but the squad is still there. Your opponent needs to devote more firepower to take them out. If you're on an objective, that can mean the difference.

Artificial example, yes. Point is that it's not as clear cut as you make it.

No. You're making crucial error here. My argument is that there's 5x10 guardsmen present vs 50 conscripts. You cannot then proceed to construct an argument, using an example were there's only 10 men on an objective (ignoring the rest of the 4x10 guardsmen sitting on the objective). You're proving my point here. The pseudo blob of 5x10 guardsmen only suffered 10 casualties were as the conscripts suffered more...

 Trickstick wrote:

Well that isn't such a bad thing sometimes. Remember that a squad that charges can only attack units that it declared a charge on. At least you could get some attacks without taking any back.

Mm, that's true, but only for the first round. After that you're looking at a lot of awkward decisions depending on the situation and how many squads got pulled in. Altogether I think I'd rather have the full Overwatch.

If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Perhaps because the books still stand and function? Because they're straight up not giving you any of the other rules for free?

I mean, FAQs aren't 'DLC' equivalent. They're patches.

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

You're comparing apples to steak, here.

Unlike tabletop games, video games have a computer crunching the numbers for you. When the day one patch arrives, the computer does all the work replacing the old with the new.

With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

 Zewrath wrote:
Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Hey, you don't get to have it both ways. Either you've got five Infantry squads all conga-lining from the same buff character, sitting on the same objective, or you're separated far enough not to have multiple units pulled in by a charge. I think you're very much underestimating the reach assaulting units have in this edition.

Remind me again of why I would ever charge with Guard units in general?

Because this isn't seventh edition any more, and charging after Rapid Fire, striking first in assault, and then withdrawing/using GBitF can be a viable strategy.

... no offense here, but why? You're just saying the 20-50 models is the benefit, without really explaining why and then proceed to say that it would make sense to increase the point costs for reasons you haven't actually explained?

That you don't accept my explanations is not the same as saying I haven't explained it.

No. You're making crucial error here. My argument is that there's 5x10 guardsmen present vs 50 conscripts. You cannot then proceed to construct an argument, using an example were there's only 10 men on an objective (ignoring the rest of the 4x10 guardsmen sitting on the objective). You're proving my point here. The pseudo blob of 5x10 guardsmen only suffered 10 casualties were as the conscripts suffered more...

And you're forgetting wound allocation. If I have 10 men on the objective, and those ten men die, it doesn't matter if there's forty more standing around them- you don't control the objective any more. A Conscript squad can soak casualties from an unimportant part of the unit.

I feel like we're already deep in some arbitrary, goalpost-shifting territory here, which was not my intention because as I stated before a points change doesn't affect me in any way. So I'll let this drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

I would also find this acceptable.

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

Does any other unit in the game have a number restriction (besides dedicated transports)? I thought that GW was trying to leave restrictions behind somewhat. It would be odd for them to introducethis concept for just a single unit and would really screw with their new, simplified design philosophy.

Just don't play games you don't want to. Don't like playing against 150 conscripts at 1k? Then don't. Tournaments are another matter, but that is really down to finding a tournament that you like. If that includes certain restrictions, then someone should try offering that format. For example, the popularity of highlander tournaments.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Sounds like terrible positioning, but sure that can happen to some degree.

Hey, you don't get to have it both ways. Either you've got five Infantry squads all conga-lining from the same buff character, sitting on the same objective, or you're separated far enough not to have multiple units pulled in by a charge.

One of the big benefits of infantry squads is that you DO get to have it both ways because they are multiple units. When you need to secure an objective no matter the cost, you can clump them up on an objective just as tightly as conscripts, but when you need to receive a charge, you can space them out to mitigate that. It can be a bit tricky to do the conga-lining for orders sometimes, and you can definitely be caught out of position, but it's not like you are stuck doing either one or the other only.

Taking multiple officers, commissars, priests, and other buffing characters should help spread out the orders and the buffs to multiple infantry squads, should you go that route. Don't have to pay for a bodyguard for them anymore, either.

I think that anti horde weapons should have rules like the bombard that adds d3 hits for every 5 models in the unit.

That way, they don't become OP agains't elite or single model units, but they become effective again'st hordes.

For example, Flamers could be: d3 hits +d3 hits every for every 10 models a unit has.

So again'st a unit of 5 elite Grey Knights they do d3 hits. But against a bloob of 30 orks boyz they do 4d3 hits.

(The numbers are made up at the fly, but I think the idea is good)

So im going to say this and probably be called a moron for doing so.

I dont think we should judge the price the units on what they can do with the right support. I think we should look at the individual unit look at what it can do in comparison to similar units and point it accordingly.

Conscripts and Cultists are around the same thing from where I sit. With the Conscript being more ranged based and the Cultist more CC based. They both should cost 4 points while guardsman shouls probably be 5.

 Melissia wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

You're comparing apples to steak, here.

Unlike tabletop games, video games have a computer crunching the numbers for you. When the day one patch arrives, the computer does all the work replacing the old with the new.

With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

So, you're salty that they're potentially releasing a Day 1 FAQ/Errata to patch some things they've come across in the 6 or so months since the books were being printed? You're really upset that you may have to reference a book and a PDF after an edition where some folk were literally having to lug around 5-6 different books, 2-3 ebooks and pdfs/printouts to field a single army?

Your complaint is that you have to reference ONE ADDITIONAL THING after an edition where people carted along libraries worth of books.

A book and a print out isn't the end of the world.

Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

 Lansirill wrote:
. Then again, it's possible that GW is just messing with us... I know *I* would have fun intentionally leaking rules that are mostly accurate but have a few mistakes.

...why is there no popcorn Orkmoticon?

You would have fun wasting money printing books for stores just for that?

You would not stay in job long! You have any idea how pissed off your superiors would be for such a waste of company's money? What do you think board thinks when they would find out you had squandered part of their dividents away like that...

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

Your argument has some validity, but it also overlooks one huge new change -- the ability to withdraw from combat (and, in the specific case of AM/Conscripts, the widespread ability to retain your shooting after doing so).

The other check on huge morale-proof blobs was the ability to lock them in combat and force them to condense predictably around it.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent

Implying that most nidlists wouldn't have any synapse in them to begin with?
Yeah who want's Tervigons when fielding Termagants? Spawning new units that can charge and/or healing 10 Termagants a turn seems overrated.

Again, apples and oranges.

Implying that most IG lists wouldn't have commisars to begin with. Which is false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

Holy smoke! Somebody still buys the "unique so deserves price decrease" theory? That just leads to unit being auto include and being better the smaller the game is.

Also psyker arqument is flawed. You don't HAVE to risk blowing yourself up so you only use it _when it's good for you_. When odds say you benefit from it then it doesn't matter you might blow you up. Long term you still win more due to it than lose. Ergo it's advantage and should be paid for. It's not like you risk blowing yourself whether you want or not. If it's not worth the risk you don't use it.

It's like 2 weapons. Both have exact same stats except one can be upgraded at chance of blowing yourself up(plasma). Despite risk the weapon with 2 modes is worth more because you don't HAVE to risk it but if you need it you can. Again player will never risk it unless it's worth it and if it's worth it it's better to have the option than not and thus need to pay more for it as in long run you gain more than lose from having the option(or it's option that's never used because it's never worth it but that's super hyper rare case really. Even plasma on mephiston is worth risking though very rare. But still you CAN benefit from it so you need to pay something for it over identical gun without overcharge mode)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

That's one reason I have been hating the decades old trend of cheaper point costs every time. It drives away wiggle room at the lower end!

I would have preferred GW to go with another route with 8th ed. DOUBLE the price of everything including standard game size. After that adjust as needed. Maybe even triple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
With a tabletop game? I do all the work with it. I have to reference multiple books, and multiple printouts. Adding to the pile of things I have to reference slows the damn game down massively. Unless the source is released as a printable PDF that is constantly kept up to date-- as opposed to a static, unchanging book-- things for the pen and paper game should be finished before release, not an ongoing balance project. Even even then... it's iffy.

Of course that means you are doomed for unbalanced game with fixes only when GW releases new book.

People complained GW charging money for fixes. Now they don't and they get complained about that. Lol.

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.

Wrong. With the Blades of Khorne armybook they changed the point costs of Bloodreavers (They costed 6 points a piece, up to 7 a piece because they gained a 6+ save) and the Korgorath go from 80 points to 100 (because is weapon changed from 1 damage to 2 damage)

tneva82 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.

Holy smoke! Somebody still buys the "unique so deserves price decrease" theory? That just leads to unit being auto include and being better the smaller the game is.

Also psyker arqument is flawed. You don't HAVE to risk blowing yourself up so you only use it _when it's good for you_. When odds say you benefit from it then it doesn't matter you might blow you up. Long term you still win more due to it than lose. Ergo it's advantage and should be paid for. It's not like you risk blowing yourself whether you want or not. If it's not worth the risk you don't use it.

It's like 2 weapons. Both have exact same stats except one can be upgraded at chance of blowing yourself up(plasma). Despite risk the weapon with 2 modes is worth more because you don't HAVE to risk it but if you need it you can. Again player will never risk it unless it's worth it and if it's worth it it's better to have the option than not and thus need to pay more for it as in long run you gain more than lose from having the option(or it's option that's never used because it's never worth it but that's super hyper rare case really. Even plasma on mephiston is worth risking though very rare. But still you CAN benefit from it so you need to pay something for it over identical gun without overcharge mode)

YAY HYPERBOLE! I love the fact you decided to channel your inner (deceased) Adam West, that or you think that Holy smoke is normal vernacular for anyone under the age of 40.

In case you hadn't noticed - a lot of special characters across the board got a whole lot cheaper. Almost like GW kind of wants to encourage us to actually use them, rather than have the enormous point-bloat whales of 6th and 7th edition. Even Magnus is cheaper. Or did you miss that? In fact, it looks like some of the units that were cheap and strong got more expensive and a bit weaker while the expensive and crap units...got stronger and cheaper. Hmm.

Almost like this was a conscious decision on the part of GW.

Should there be a price cut for a unique character? Yeah. Personally, I think so. Largely because for the past 4 editions they've been point-bloated whales that almost no one took. Did you honestly think GW wouldn't try to do something to encourage people to actually take those characters and play a narrative as it were?

With regards to Psyker on a unique special character that is likely to be functioning as the warlord at the same time? Hmmmmm. I should think the risk of nuking yourself on the table while being completely reliant on random dice rolls for the psychic powers to have effect could maybe be a factor there.

Also consider - Typhus' buff abilities are VERY faction specific. You have one that ONLY works on a specific type of unit and the other only works on units from a specific Legion - which currently has a very sub-par list that is missing key units that had been present in every incarnation of it from 3rd ed onwards. His psychic powers fall into the same faction specific nature - they only impact a certain keyword and again, one of the powers only affects the specific Legion once again.

Add to that the fact that Plague Marines and Poxwalkers are currently being considered to be overpointed as well. Add to the fact that Typhus isn't as resilient as he was before - T5 is easier to wound, DR now applies AFTER determining the number of wounds taken - he's also slower as well.

Perhaps the LoC will have more options. I suspect it probably will in a few months time. I suspect you're looking at a relatively sub-par set up for a character type and trying to compare it to something that isn't as resilient was it was before, actually has a lot more risk associated with it and surprise surprise has a lot more restrictions in what it can impact.

But HOLY SMOKES! Let's overreact and play the game of quotetag.

 Galas wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

AOS does the opposite. They have datasheets on net and points in yearly book they release. So far no updated points has been seen in AOS as of yet. Well except some previews.

Wrong. With the Blades of Khorne armybook they changed the point costs of Bloodreavers (They costed 6 points a piece, up to 7 a piece because they gained a 6+ save) and the Korgorath go from 80 points to 100 (because is weapon changed from 1 damage to 2 damage)

Aah right. Well still new book. Is that available on net? Main point is aos is doing opposite of datasheet in books, points ln net. And point book(gh) isyet to be updated so if 40k gets day 1 errata clearly different production style witk faster updates in net over slower updates in book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed - a lot of special characters across the board got a whole lot cheaper. Almost like GW kind of wants to encourage us to actually use them, rather than have the enormous point-bloat whales of 6th and 7th edition. Even Magnus is cheaper. Or did you miss that? In fact, it looks like some of the units that were cheap and strong got more expensive and a bit weaker while the expensive and crap units...got stronger and cheaper. Hmm.

I hope you realize the obvious that price decrease due to abilities is not same as discount for being unique?


And if gw did discount due to being unique then they are wrong. Any half competent game designer knows that is not valid reason to discount. Points need to be based on abilities but if you get discount for unique it is not.

Should there be a price cut for a unique character? Yeah. Personally, I think so. Largely because for the past 4 editions they've been point-bloated whales that almost no one took. Did you honestly think GW wouldn't try to do something to encourage people to actually take those characters and play a narrative as it were?

Then you wont make good game designer.

If nobody fielded them its cause they were overpriced. Correct solution isappropriate cost rather than undercosted.

With regards to Psyker on a unique special character that is likely to be functioning as the warlord at the same time? Hmmmmm. I should think the risk of nuking yourself on the table while being completely reliant on random dice rolls for the psychic powers to have effect could maybe be a factor there.

Again if not worth risk don"t cast. No risk. Any new player knows that.

I really don't understand why GW is printing this first batch of rules at all. They would have been much smarter releasing all of these as digital rules. Then, once the millions of playtesters (us) start finding all of the ways to break them that the early playtesters missed, they could immediately ammend the rules as warranted and let's us see if we can break them some more. Six months later or so, they could have integrated the needed amendments into printed codexes if they wanted to.

A year from know, imagine how good of a well tested, smooth running machine GW could be offering its customers.

For my part while I'm very much in favour of adjusting stuff based on community feedback, I think a day 1 patch is much to soon.

Give the game - and the community - some time to settle in and play the game and try out different variations. Work out what the issues are and then deal, don't knee jerk.

There should be at least three to six months after publishing and between cycles, and ideally twelve. Give people a chance to actually play and let the meta shape up, then react.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

I agree with everything here. In 7th we could only take 1 group of 20-50 for every platoon. The 2 platoon squads and the command squad were a tax to take them. I don't know why they got rid of the platoon system if anything they should have made charectors like creed, kell or ron hand work into it to give sense to the chain of command among officers (order ristrictions) and fit priests/psykers better instead of the no force organization slots

Guard are the natural ballance to nids and orks Wether they are top tier or not

The person I heard this from is a very well known person in the community with a lot of links to the playtesting group and gw- I'm obviously not going to name them Incase it gets anyone in trouble.

He stated that there's a chance scion command will be limited and conscripts amongst other things will be repointed .

We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Did he happen to mention what the playtesters said about the things being changed? This rumor just sets people up for disappointment. Unless we know how the playtesters actually feel about the rules and armies we have no idea how things will change. Conscripts changing doesn't mean nerfed if the playtesters all told GW they weren't good enough or needed to be cheaper.

I also find it interesting that supposedly all of the changes happen to be stuff people on dakka have been complaining about without even playing the game. What good is playtesting if just reading unit profiles helps you understand the game as well as someone who has spent time playing it?

Jpr wrote:
We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Where do we know this from ?

Jpr wrote:
The person I heard this from is a very well known person in the community with a lot of links to the playtesting group and gw- I'm obviously not going to name them Incase it gets anyone in trouble.

He stated that there's a chance scion command will be limited and conscripts amongst other things will be repointed .

We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Well you are either go to go down as a prophet or the biggest troll of 2017. Not sure I have seen a thread reach such length from hearsay. Can you be a little more specific about what is coming? Its pretty vague. You specifically cite IG on the receiving end of many nerfs. How about buffs? If they are going to increase the cost of conscripts, sure in their testing they realize the chimera will be shelved all 8th edition. More expensive than last edition, lost its rear firing port, suffers -BS when moving, doesn't fill any brigade detachment requirement etc. Did they talk about how your leman russ battle tank now averages less than 2 wounds per turn? Did they talk about guard sergeants still not being able to take a lasgun? Did they talk about the removal of the twin linking on the exterminator for no apparent reason? Did they talk about how the Devil Dog will never, ever be used in 8th edition because if it moves its hitting on 5+?

I don't disagree with you, my source isn't a playtested he just heard it from someone in that group. GW themselves said they will be dropping an FAQ day 1

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

Increase infantry to 6 ppm and conscripts to 5 ppm.

Problem fixed, and not only problem fixed, but CSM players can stop complaining.

Veterans are 6ppm, so Infantry can't move into that slot. It's already occupied by a unit that's better than them. It also wouldn't make sense from an external balance perspective, since Boyz pay 6 points for T4, S4, WS3+ and Mob Rule, so Infantry always have to be cheaper than Boyz. Infantry will also be difficult to budge because they'd have to consider their relation to Gaunts, which are 4pts/model. GW just doesn't have a lot of wiggle room in that bracket.

Increase gaunts to 5 ppm. Problem fixed.

Gants already cost 4 and 5 points and are terribly equipped when you compare them to guardsmen

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

Given printing leads times and the sheer number of eyes on the product the last two weeks what's the major difference between getting FAQs in a month or six months rather than day one?

Depending on the content I may well agree that there were failures, but I'd have to see it to see if they're clarifications or major changes.

Which is exactly why I said if...

I don't mind small misprints - that's fine. But if we're going to rearrange the points on several units across the board... that's a gap that should've been covered already, long before the books went to print.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see on Saturday. I just hope Dark Angels don't get hit too hard with the changes, if there are any.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Like I said on page 3

 Purifier wrote:
And because of attitudes like that, some companies simply hold back things a month or two that they could have fixed day 1, because it looks better to people that don't know any better.

It's a dumb attitude and it's why companies do things that seems crazy when you look at it logically, but they have to because people can't think logically and will shout at things they don't understand.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

Does any other unit in the game have a number restriction (besides dedicated transports)? I thought that GW was trying to leave restrictions behind somewhat. It would be odd for them to introducethis concept for just a single unit and would really screw with their new, simplified design philosophy.

Just don't play games you don't want to. Don't like playing against 150 conscripts at 1k? Then don't. Tournaments are another matter, but that is really down to finding a tournament that you like. If that includes certain restrictions, then someone should try offering that format. For example, the popularity of highlander tournaments.

Well, the unique things and characters have the restriction but otherwise no. My point is merely that IF ANYTHING should happen to conscripts, I would personally find the restriction scenario more likely than a point increase, because as I've stated in my arguments, there's literally nothing that can justify a point increase in them and whatever advantage people claim they have, is actually something we pay for in form of several characters. Let's not go around and pretend that the conscripts themselves pose any plausible threat with the point you pay for them alone.

I have no issue playing 150 conscripts, I merely used that example because I was just guessing that perhaps it was at that point bracket there were a "problem", I don't have anything or any data to back that statement up of course. My overall problem from the beginning of this thread is still the fact that this is a knee jerk reaction. I've played 4 8th games with 2 of my friends now and the only glaringly overpowered thing Guard have is actually the scions. Like, they stick out like a sore thumb. They have disgusting firepower for no real price tag and if my game experience with my friends is anything to go by, future Guard players in tournaments will fill 5/6 of their troop slots (if not more) with scions and take the last slot for 50man conscripts, which they will use to screen against turn 1 charges. So this is why this topic honestly frustrates me, because the conscripts did feth all in all my games and no one ever commented on them, in fact whenever it game to offense they were rather tame, and bear in mind that I buffed the crap out of my conscripts too. Commissar and a priest for +1 attack and 'Fix Bayonets!' Order to give them an extra round of melee in their shooting face and they still managed to kill less than 10 genestealers. Meanwhile the scions performance was nearly vomit inducing and it instantly became a joke among us that they were troops because there's absolutely no legitimate reason what so ever, to take normal veteran squads. If you're taking them, you're deliberately handicapping your list because you could just buy scions instead, I'm not even exaggerating here.

So yes, if the conscripts do get nerfed before their release because of a bunch of whiny minority group who've been intimidated by a netlist draft, featuring 150 conscripts, then I'm going to get extremely disappointed in how GW handles feedback based on hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aesthete wrote:
For my part while I'm very much in favour of adjusting stuff based on community feedback, I think a day 1 patch is much to soon.

Give the game - and the community - some time to settle in and play the game and try out different variations. Work out what the issues are and then deal, don't knee jerk.

There should be at least three to six months after publishing and between cycles, and ideally twelve. Give people a chance to actually play and let the meta shape up, then react.

Amen to this!

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

If you believe this, then you are honestly are just against the fact a Day 1 FAQ exists. Things will slip through, something doesn't get tested right, a wording or two doesn't match up after having things change..

To be blunt the fact that they are doing a Day 1 FAQ should be celebrated, not treated as a.. symptom. If you work with programming or anything at all you'll understand why that attitude is just very strange.

I do think that it's pretty hard to work out just what's so wrong with Conscripts that doesn't apply to basically any mass-infantry strategy. The only thing that they really uniquely bring is the ability to get five times the normal effect from Orders. Sure, maybe Conscripts should be 4 points or whatever, but if there's a big issue there then there's probably going to be nearly as big of an issue with 4 point regular Guardsmen.

The main problem here is just that there aren't any efficient tools for dealing with T3 5+ bodies. A lasgun expects to kill more points of Marines than points of Guardsmen. Without special rules, the new system basically requires that an anti-horde gun be S2. And even an S2 gun kills more points of Marines than points of Conscripts. And of course there really just aren't any S2 guns. This -- that there is as far as I know literally no gun in the game that is actually good at killing Conscripts relative to other things and almost no gun that is as good at killing Guardsmen relative to other things -- is the sort of thing that GW should really have had someone keeping an eye out for. Light infantry are systematically undercosted and I don't think it's plausible to fix this by adjusting point values upwards across the board. The only thing really keeping the game safe is that nobody wants to play with or against 400 model armies.

Honestly, all I can think of with this is 'why weren't the rules just put online like the AoS ones?'

If you're planning to change point costs, it seems far better to do that digitally than to make your physical books wrong from the moment they're released.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Okay but, like, it happened. There are egregious issues. So adjust your opinion of GW appropriately for that but certainly don't act like their releasing a day 1 patch should do anything other than make us think better of them.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

If you believe this, then you are honestly are just against the fact a Day 1 FAQ exists. Things will slip through, something doesn't get tested right, a wording or two doesn't match up after having things change..

To be blunt the fact that they are doing a Day 1 FAQ should be celebrated, not treated as a.. symptom. If you work with programming or anything at all you'll understand why that attitude is just very strange.

Plus that attitude doesn't account for GW's known process - they start work on things a year or two in advance. Things go to print 6-8 months before release. That doesn't mean for 6-8 months they stop testing the rules or playing games with them. Hell, even White Dwarf has a 3-6 month advance between being written and published. So a day 1 FAQ is literally them catching things that slipped through playtesting or have emerged as they have played since sending the product off to print and making it available to us - if anything it's a good thing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

It was marketed as a living document....the only failing is people comprehension of what that meant when they said it was set up in a way with a seperate points page so they can continually change points. A day 1 FAQ was expected especially given at least a 2-3 month time frame for a massive print run, continual tester feedback during that time, and at least 3 weeks of community feedback due to leaks. And I'm quite certain everything the community found won't be included in the day 1 FAQ and I expect a majority of the day 1 faq to clear up nonsense like how the datasheet gives a unit size of 1-3 and the point sheet gives a unit size of 1-5. Stuff like how if a ruin has a squad blocking the entire 2nd level you can never get a model within 1in to engage in combat. So instead of everyone crying how a rumoured overpowered unit choice will get nerfed except the fact the new edition will and should have continual changes from day 1 and hopefully every week thereafter. Feel free to look at the FAQ page on dakka to see all the poorly written rules that need to be addressed on day 1. That alone is already 20+ pages of gw style FAQs.

The reason for print is some people just don't like or want to use digital including me however I'm certain 99% of the rules will be the same.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

I don't know what you expected.

Lets say GW got a team of people - say 10, to play two games a day for three months.
They would have got through around 600 games between them.
That is a reasonable number - but how many discrete factions are there now?
I think you can get to 20 fairly easily, potentially 25 isn't too difficult.
So in other words that group would have had a chance to play one faction against every other other faction just once. Which isn't going to give you much of a clue.

Now this gets further complicated by the fact certain armies have massively different builds which further effects balance. Also its a dice game and random stuff will happen.

GW would probably need to run several thousand games to get a good handle on how the meta forms and they don't have the resources.

The only way to extensively test the game is to do an open beta with lots of players who can be relied upon to test almost every conceivable combination and talk about said combinations - which is why most computer games go down this route.
It is however rather difficult for GW to release all the rules to anyone who happens to be on the internet and then do a big release 6 months down the line.

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Lol this is deja vu for me as a warmachine player, extensive playtesting will never EVER compare to a public release.

As to the people wishing for 6 months of open playtesting, here is a question for you.

How many models have you purchased since 8th edition was announced? Maybe a few of you have kept up with buying stuff consistantly or started a new faction but I can tell you I've bought almost nothing since the announcement(and I am someone who owns 9 warmachine factions in at max field allowance). Once the rules are solidified and I know what I'm buying I'll start buying my nids again but simply put a company cannot go through 6-7 months of drastically reduced sales while people wait and see what they are going to want to play with the new rules.

For the most part just be happy that GW is willing to make the changes right away, its something miniatures games have been lacking a long time and it looks like finally companies like GW and PP are on board with it. Its a huge change in a good direction and despite my expensive limited edition rule book being not up to date the day I pick it up, I'd rather have a good balanced game that isn't afraid to make changes for the good of the game compared to one that leaves a broken game in place so I dont have to occasionally consult an FAQ

As it is I won't waste time playing against astra militarum again, and visiting tournies is a question of getting hammered by AM.

Day 1 patch or tank

My leafblower guard is ready.

Wanting to more intensifies.

Please OP, tell me this is a joke? The Imperial Guard where already underperforming in the initial release, outside of about three of four units that noone has, and now they intend to hammer us still further? What is the point of playing Guard any more - the only role we seem to fill is that of the kicking ball to be mauled and destroyed to show just how powerful all the other factions are.

When was the last time anyone bought a physical copy of a "blockbuster" PC game that didn't have a install patch?

30 page FAQ seems, shall we say excessive, unless it is horrible formatted, heck the BRB is what 160 pages, and the actual rules are only 12 of those.

Most the questions floating about are not army specific, though the wording may be. The ones that are army specific tend to be related to number of models in an unit being different on points list and datasheet.

It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary. Clarification, and an official "ruling" is always better sooner, even if it "nerfs" your list. At least you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Okay we've hit "You all are fanboys" argument that ignores all previous arguments against it, shows over.

VIlacom wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Lol this is deja vu for me as a warmachine player, extensive playtesting will never EVER compare to a public release.

As to the people wishing for 6 months of open playtesting, here is a question for you.

How many models have you purchased since 8th edition was announced? Maybe a few of you have kept up with buying stuff consistantly or started a new faction but I can tell you I've bought almost nothing since the announcement(and I am someone who owns 9 warmachine factions in at max field allowance). Once the rules are solidified and I know what I'm buying I'll start buying my nids again but simply put a company cannot go through 6-7 months of drastically reduced sales while people wait and see what they are going to want to play with the new rules.

For the most part just be happy that GW is willing to make the changes right away, its something miniatures games have been lacking a long time and it looks like finally companies like GW and PP are on board with it. Its a huge change in a good direction and despite my expensive limited edition rule book being not up to date the day I pick it up, I'd rather have a good balanced game that isn't afraid to make changes for the good of the game compared to one that leaves a broken game in place so I dont have to occasionally consult an FAQ

Models purchased since 8th edition was announced - 12 if I'm counting correctly, but I was going to buy them anyway, they were already slotted to be purchased this summer.
Models that 8th edition made me consider purchasing - a squad of the basic primaris marines because I like the sculpts. I may actually get them from Ebay.

I am happy that GW is willing to correct any cock-ups they make. It's just a shame that they made them to begin with and had to put up the whole "massive playtesting was made" front when in 8th ed. day 1 it may be proven otherwise

No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Publishing takes time, one can argue print versus digital, but if something is not working as intended, or more likely it was working as intended and then someone found a way to "break" it, and it needs a correction/clarification it is better to leave it "as is"?

Testing anything is always tricky, too small of a group and "Group think" comes into play, too large of a group and consensus is never reached, or testing is not actually happening at all. But testing is a process, an ongoing process, QA is not something that was establishe in the past, but an ongoing system of test, verify, review, update, etc.

As far as GW can do no wrong, did you even play 7ed?

add: You understand that if there was no playtesting there would be no FAQ, and there is no way playtesting will catch EVERYTHING before a GO/NO GO decision to launch has to be made. There were already tweaks made to the system during playtesting which got them to the point where they felt the "bones" were good enough for release, but that did not mean they were fully tested, vetted, or even perfect at the time that the decision to go to print was made.

Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Here's an even more shocking fact for you - not all change is good.

Change is neither good nor bad, it merely is...

Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Publishing takes time, one can argue print versus digital, but if something is not working as intended, or more likely it was working as intended and then someone found a way to "break" it, and it needs a correction/clarification it is better to leave it "as is"?

Testing anything is always tricky, too small of a group and "Group think" comes into play, too large of a group and consensus is never reached, or testing is not actually happening at all. But testing is a process, an ongoing process, QA is not something that was establishe in the past, but an ongoing system of test, verify, review, update, etc.

As far as GW can do no wrong, did you even play 7ed?

1 - Not all change is good;

2 - I played from 3rd through to 8th with a few months off here and there due to family stuff. And dabbled with a few 2nd edition games a couple of years ago for fun. Your point being? Do you think I can't point the flaws in 7th? or 6th? Or any of the others? Oh my sweet summer child...

3- You are indeed defending something the moment you say that "this is to be expected". No, it's not. Don't lower your standards and stop expecting half finished things with Day 1patches/faqs to attempt to cover up the crap they didn't bother to follow through when they were meant. This is a symptom of design and playtesting lazyness, and worse, absurdly low standards when it comes to a product's quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pedroig wrote:
Change is neither good nor bad, it merely is...

Aka "Suck it up and deal with it"?

Not good enough.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I really don't understand why GW is printing this first batch of rules at all. They would have been much smarter releasing all of these as digital rules. Then, once the millions of playtesters (us) start finding all of the ways to break them that the early playtesters missed, they could immediately ammend the rules as warranted and let's us see if we can break them some more. Six months later or so, they could have integrated the needed amendments into printed codexes if they wanted to.

A year from know, imagine how good of a well tested, smooth running machine GW could be offering its customers.

One reason is that they would not have sold the rules and Indexes at Launch to people like me - I would only buy digital if there is no print alternative..........

 vipoid wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Here's an even more shocking fact for you - not all change is good.

The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.

Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

Hmm well I find this annoying a bit. Decided to jump back in 8th after quitting and decided to roll with AM/IG trading my Nintendo switch for a starter army. Really hope they aren't wrecking my plans too much. Cause I got alot of HWTs in that trade. Hmm on the other hand would be nice if the uped the power of the Deathstrike a bit (Considering its one shot I would make it auto hit and deal 3d6 mortal wounds given its hour is nigh rule.)

Eh I hope the faq is more clarifications then re-balancing.

Still makes me glad I held off buying the rest I was planning on (Was waiting on the forgeworld books to drop)

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

It's not just GW, FFG have had the same problems with X-Wing lately. The Tie Defender (billed as the most advanced fighter in the game) was horribly overpriced/underpowered when it was first released. After a while FFG issued a patch for it in the form a title that gave it a points discount and a free evade token. The trouble is they over-compensated and suddenly competitive lists were popping up with 3 of the things crammed into a standard tournement. Now they have released an online errata to try and correct it again.

It is not just GW, it is not just FFG. This reflects the fact that companies are testing games designed to be played for fun rather than planes/trains/automobiles where lives will be at risk if anything fails that should have been tested.

I have worked in safety-critical SW development and I know the rigour it takes to test something to destruction with even a limited number of variables. Yes it is frustrating when a games company misses something that seems obvious to us but hindsight is always 20:20.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

Only the Omnissiah is perfect, brother Wren.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

He really isn't. Your point is just utter trash.

MaxT wrote:
Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

Yeah, I saw it right here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/728560.page

I'd watch out for that thread though. Lots of people panicking about not a whole lot of evidence.

 daedalus wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

Yeah, I saw it right here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/728560.page

I'd watch out for that thread though. Lots of people panicking about not a whole lot of evidence.

Now I'm stuck in an infinite loop!

So, supposedly I am supposed to win the lottery on Saturday. I wonder if it's true....


Note: This holds same amount of fact as the OP.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

Not in particular. Your point isn't really worth anything at all.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

With a 6+ armor save I'd point out. .

Honestly it really isn't hard though conscripts at 4 (so the same as gaunts) and guardsman at 5 (same as cultists) isn't a big deal. They are still arguably better than the other options at those values, but are at least ballpark correct.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

With a 6+ armor save I'd point out. .

Honestly it really isn't hard though conscripts at 4 (so the same as gaunts) and guardsman at 5 (same as cultists) isn't a big deal. They are still arguably better than the other options at those values, but are at least ballpark correct.

People really read way too much into the 6+ save. Every time I see something comparing cultists to conscripts there's a whole list of reasons conscripts are worse and then the Chaos players are like "BUT SIX PLUS ARMOUR!" lol.

Like I said, it's a marginal difference between cultists and normal guardsman. Not enough to merit cultists at 4 points imo, they should be 5 with normal guard (and again conscripts at 4). I just mention it for the "Well the guard should have the best GEQ" crowd. So they can see, yes at 5 points they still have guard which slightly edge out similar options in other armies who have a different focus.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

Incorrect. It's necessary if the playtesting done beforehand wasn't 100% complete and perfect. The playtesting could've been crap, decent, good, or even great, and it's still not going to be perfect. Problems slip through and get caught after it's been sent to print. If those are caught after it's sent to print and before release, then a day 1 FAQ should be put out to fix those. It doesn't invalidate all playtesting done before or mean it was sloppy/pointless, it just means they didn't catch 100% of everything.

Do you really believe that testing is either perfect or pointless with no middle ground?

I'm not saying they did a great job with playtesting, I honestly don't know. But things will slip through even the best of testing. A quick FAQ at or shortly after release would tell us that they continued to test after sending the books to print, and that they've continued to try to improve the product instead of sitting around waiting for their customers to sort everything out after the fact.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

Incorrect. It's necessary if the playtesting done beforehand wasn't 100% complete and perfect. The playtesting could've been crap, decent, good, or even great, and it's still not going to be perfect. Problems slip through and get caught after it's been sent to print. If those are caught after it's sent to print and before release, then a day 1 FAQ should be put out to fix those. It doesn't invalidate all playtesting done before or mean it was sloppy/pointless, it just means they didn't catch 100% of everything.

Do you really believe that testing is either perfect or pointless with no middle ground?

I'm not saying they did a great job with playtesting, I honestly don't know. But things will slip through even the best of testing. A quick FAQ at or shortly after release would tell us that they continued to test after sending the books to print, and that they've continued to try to improve the product instead of sitting around waiting for their customers to sort everything out after the fact.

I am not expecting playtesting or the proofreading to be 100% perfect and immaculate either. We are all humans and nothing is ever perfect. I am, however, expecting that abominations like IG Conscripts not to come through the playtesting phase.

I will have no issues if the faq has just a couple of rules clarification and errata to mistakes made during the printing process. That's fine. But I'll reserve judgement until Saturday to see if the FAQ comes at all.