77511
Post by: vaurapung
This is coming to be an issue in our club.
The problem is that gw is releasing a rulebook that overrides the rulebook and then forcing players to buy those rule in order to play by the right rules.
Does anyone else have issues with this pay for rules stratagy.
The base complaint is that chapter approved rewrites the rule book and any rulebook errata should be provided free. Thats what erratas are for.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
vaurapung wrote:This is coming to be an issue in our club. The problem is that gw is releasing a rulebook that overrides the rulebook and then forcing players to buy those rule in order to play by the right rules. Does anyone else have issues with this pay for rules stratagy. The base complaint is that chapter approved rewrites the rule book and any rulebook errata should be provided free. Thats what erratas are for.
Chapter approved included new content, and actually very few changes to the core rulebook. In fact, the only core rulebook changes I can think of are the Character rules and the points cost changes, while the rest of the book is new content. So no, I don't have any problem paying for them to make me new stuff to enjoy. Chapter Approved is not just "errata" and in fact has very little errata in it.
93167
Post by: andysonic1
You could always get one book for everyone, write down the relevant rules for yourself, or even add post it notes to your codexeseses, then one guy just brings it or you tell the store manager to keep this one for the store? There are solutions. There are even sites that have all the point changes so you can just make notes of them if you don't care about the other stuff in the book.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
We got one for the club. Also, several people bought it for the mission content. Didn't make much of a stir. /shrug.
98135
Post by: Silentz
You just need to accept that the way GW games work now is that every year you (or one person in your group) needs to buy the update book.
GW has never had a "don't pay for rules" strategy. So this is not a dramatic change.
If neither you nor anybody you know is willing to pay less than the cost of 1 box of models for these annual rules then I guess... just play the older rules?
If you only play... I dunno... Harlequins... and don't want to pay the $20 for the rest of the book then maybe you can photocopy that one page?
107281
Post by: LunarSol
I don't think paying for the book is an issue, but I do think things are problematically scattered between the Indexes, Codexes, FAQs, and Chapter Approved, it can often be difficult to be certain you have the latest rules for anything.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Silentz wrote:You just need to accept that the way GW games work now is that every year you (or one person in your group) needs to buy the update book.
GW has never had a "don't pay for rules" strategy. So this is not a dramatic change.
If neither you nor anybody you know is willing to pay less than the cost of 1 box of models for these annual rules then I guess... just play the older rules?
If you only play... I dunno... Harlequins... and don't want to pay the $20 for the rest of the book then maybe you can photocopy that one page?
Or you just split the cost. I mean between say 8 people thats like 2.50?
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
Silentz wrote:If neither you nor anybody you know is willing to pay less than the cost of 1 box of models for these annual rules then I guess... just play the older rules?
This is spot on. This isn't an MMO where you have to pay a subscription to continue having access to play. Either play with the rules you have and enjoy the game or pony up for the tweaks and new content. This is how GW is going to conduct business for the foreseeable future, so if your club doesn't like it, take all that business to another game.
80243
Post by: darkcloak
I agree. Forcing players to buy yet another book on top of all the other books already required to play is just another layer of cash grabbing.
The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Luckily, we are not actually required to follow GWs rules and if your game group dislikes CA you can just ignore it and create your own patches for broken things.
The basic idea of CA is kind of cool, in theory, but it's a bit of a Hegelian dialectic. CA exists to update rules and apply patches. GW waffles over every decision and puts out power 3 Reapers with a fixed BS and a multipurpose weapon that slays infantry and mech. Yet Storm Guardians are still a handicap? You must use the codex and CA, no model no rules, unless you want to use the index which is an essential part of the long term plan, everyone should have the indices. But you must use your codex and CA for models that have rules. Also, hope you didn't like customizable kits because those are getting squatted. Oh and by the way, no model no rules. Tacs suck? Have some Aspect Marines then so we can sell you ten monopose models with the same guns and very little options.
Okay. Rant off.
It's your game group not GWs, they ought to be glad you're paying premium for their models and books to begin with. Run it however is most suitable for the players involved and feth GW.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
No one in my group had any real issue with it. Bought it, use the relevant parts and moved on - its no different than buying a new codex or something similar to me.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I'd like to see them put points out for free, but I'm otherwise ok with it.
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
 darkcloak wrote:Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Uhh false. Warhammer is less like FIFA of even Call of Duty and more like World of Warcraft. With WoW, you buy the Expansion, where they do a massive overhaul of class abilities by adding/subtracting/tweaking and add content. After that, Blizzard does balance patches as needed. CA is equivalent to the expansion in the sense that it adds new content and does major overhauls to units/weapons/etc. The FAQ's are the free balance patches. No one playing WoW or any other MMO demands expansions be free every time a new one rolls out.
118765
Post by: A.T.
I think the prices should have been released in both free downloadable format and printed, with the cost of the book being reflected in its additional content.
However IMO chapter approved was well short of actual content. This should have been the book to carry the index players over until their release but was barely more than would be expected of a white dwarf article. They didn't even manage to cover all of the factions.
113188
Post by: pismakron
I would love to pay regularly for continuously updated, adjusted and rebalanced rules. But Chapter Approved was low effort job. I don't want to pay for something that half-assed.
80243
Post by: darkcloak
mokoshkana wrote: darkcloak wrote:Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Uhh false. Warhammer is less like FIFA of even Call of Duty and more like World of Warcraft. With WoW, you buy the Expansion, where they do a massive overhaul of class abilities by adding/subtracting/tweaking and add content. After that, Blizzard does balance patches as needed. CA is equivalent to the expansion in the sense that it adds new content and does major overhauls to units/weapons/etc. The FAQ's are the free balance patches. No one playing WoW or any other MMO demands expansions be free every time a new one rolls out.
I was using video games as an example, but you're free to make comparisons to other types of video games too. If you'd like to buy a new expansion every single year you're free to do that as well.
I just find it strange that self avowed model company is taking such pains to sell rules. Seems like rules ought to come secondary to making models, but GW would rather pay a printer to sell books than make sure all their kits came with enough basic weapons to build the unit.
And it puts unit performance into perspective now doesn't it? Some units are OP and some are fluff choice only. Thank goodness for CA because things can now be fixed without a codex! Or is this a clever ploy to push model sales by constantly changing the overall performance of given units in a yearly publication which the rules require for competition? For a model making company they sure seem to be able to push sales with rules quite well.
You can choose to engage with the game however you like, but let's not pretend that GW is invested in anything other than selling models with the game as a platform to facilitate that endeavor. If the time should come when even the most ridiculous idea seems like it will sell kits then GW will do it. Look at the track record and tell me this is a company you can trust. You can't.
29836
Post by: Elbows
I just looked at my buddies, noted down the points changes and carried on. There was nothing in Chapter Approved that I desperately needed or even wanted.
116685
Post by: clownshoes
Ah crapter approved the book of bad marketing and shattered dreams.
This crapter approved was, well crap. Not because of the contents but because of tge marketing. The promise of balance and the tool to hold people over until their codex arrives.
As for the missions, narrative and open play stuff i think they did a great job. I have zero interest but, it was a good bit of content.
Now if crapter approved evolves into the generals handbook in its next iteration great i am on board with crapter apprroved moving forward. If we end up with piss poor marketing the book, ya my amusement with GW will tank, hard. I don't want to bring a bloody book bag to play a game, if i need more than 3 books to play a game, heck more than 2 i am annoyed.
Book wise a (screw this index, for unprinted model crap) Codex and chapter approved is all that should be needed. The deck of mission cards i like as well. I know i am a sucker. The fact they need to errata or faq the books is questionable, good. but damn bro do you even QC? The typos say nah QC is for chumps.
Chapter approved moving forward needs to reprint the simple and advanced rules in the book, let the old books stay home. We are going to get campaign or expansion books down the road, so the fewer basic books we need to deal with the better. I would honestly rather see chapter approved evolve into the campaign books. Housing the new models, rules, and mission sets. And a usable points adjustment system that helps prevent screw ups because this currently is trash. I have seen 6 books already to make a bloody list, and that crap organization is beyond painful if you are checking that list. Seriously GW nice failure to be remotely user friendly.
My less than amused points aside.
I like the idea of chapter approved, i like the possibilities, the cost is a whatever, if your group ignores chapter approved, it is their choice. Personally It is the execution moving forward i am waiting to see before make up my mind. On if the idea is as good in practice as it sounds on paper. The first outting, well i call it crapter approved, need i say more?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Wait for the next one. Who wants to bet GW doesn't include point cost changes of CA 1 so you need both CA1 AND CA2 to have all the point updates 
98141
Post by: BlackLobster
I was 90% happy with CA. The missions, rules updates and a rotating points updates makes this a worthwhile addition. I'll be happy to buy a yearly CA.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
All points noted, and we have a copy of all rules and faqs at our club for in store use.
My personal issue is consistancy, i want to play by the same rules that any stranger who walks in plays by without having to hash out 3 hours of if and this and whats and dos and donts. I feel like i need an 30 page disclaimer of how i play 40k for my opponent to read before we can start a game. 7th had many outdated codexes but the rules were not in this kind of shambles where everyone uses different rules.
This mans personal problem is gws use of approved for marketing and then we also have that one guy that plays a loop hole army (buying the models that take advantage of a loop hole but then drops the army and buys all new models when that hole is closed and another opens up).
With how much 40k cost why does it have loop holes "the most playtested edition ever".
83742
Post by: gungo
I think paying for a few models point cost changes which is what the majority of people need it for is problematic. This GW needs to address by releasing thier online army list creator with points included.
Rules being all over the place is starting to be another problem again like it was in 7th. Especially as we continue to get more and more biannual chapter approved type books, FAQs for each of those books and updated rules that change depending on which book was released last. I would like to see another index after all the codexs are done including all the data sheets and updated rules again all in one place. Codex specific rules such as relics, warlord traits, stratagems, chapter tactics can stay in the codex.
But I just want one book and a faq for a while.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
Get your phone and take a picture of the updated points in the back. Take a picture of your faction's updates, if you're still using an index.
There is no sane person that will get ass-mad at you for not wanting to spend that kind of money with two pages that you'll use.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Taking picture of the book is illegal dont let gw catch you. But yes i agree, we also have apps to keep a lot of information in.
But principle and consistancy are the biggest issues.
We cant start playing by our own rules or youll not be able to play with anybody else which is a problem i face. We see on average one new player come into our club each month and i want to be able to play with them if able. So bending and breaking the rules is not an option.
But getting curbstomped by the guy with the new broken unit spam list is horrible too.
111605
Post by: Adeptus Doritos
vaurapung wrote:Taking picture of the book is illegal dont let gw catch you. But yes i agree, we also have apps to keep a lot of information in.
I don't think it would matter anywhere but a GW store. And I've maybe encountered ONE GW store I could tolerate for more than 10 minutes. I don't play in them.
If anyone raises hell because you took a picture of updated points and two strategems, then that's the exact person you don't want to play with.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
absolutely 0 complaints from me. I've been hoping that they would frequently update rules and balance instead of waiting years. In order to support this (plus chapter approved has units/lore and missions so its not just an update) im more than happy to pay $30 every couple months (also the guys in my group that didn't want to pay simply just use mine when we play. If only WHFB had received updates like 40k is now it would still be around.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
 Elbows wrote:I just looked at my buddies, noted down the points changes and carried on. There was nothing in Chapter Approved that I desperately needed or even wanted.
Exactly what I did. If you don't care about any of the additional narrative stuff such as Planetstrike etc you can just snap a quick photo of the one page that would be relevant to your army.
Summaries of the point changes are available everywhere online as well.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
The game should be balanced when the core rulebook hits the shelf, does anybody else feel that way?
I dont understand the defense for 8th when everyone has to have been curbstomped at somepoint already by a loophole player using list like punisher cannon lines, assassins, elysiums and so on.
My only complaint with 7th was that everyone got to use formations except me bc i didnt have all the models needed to even make a core.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
vaurapung wrote:The game should be balanced when the core rulebook hits the shelf, does anybody else feel that way?
I dont understand the defense for 8th when everyone has to have been curbstomped at somepoint already by a loophole player using list like punisher cannon lines, assassins, elysiums and so on.
My only complaint with 7th was that everyone got to use formations except me bc i didnt have all the models needed to even make a core.
Nice in theory, but there is no game system that will have a perfectly balanced rule book at release.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
CA was garbage the landraider rules scenarios and other stuff were of zero interest and I'm not paying out for fixes, I already paid for the index it's not my fault gw messed up first time around.
There are other ways to access that data use em.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
We all agree that there are other ways to access the data.
These post have showed me a few things.
Some people dont care and will play with what gw gives them.
Some people will alter what gw gives them and be happy.
Some people want gw to do their job right (we paid for this)
Some people will flat refuse to bend to gws mistakes by using pay for extra rules. If the rules were not good enough to be an errata they are not good enough to pay for.
Oir player that refises to play with chapter approved just started 40k 2 weeks ago. Has chose mechanized gaurd because he loves tank warfare and comes from a deep back ground in D&D.
He had dozen of books for 3.5 the difference in dnd vs what gw is doing though is that the core rules did not change, they were added to with each book. He refuses to play by gws rules where the rules change every 6 months. Its bad enoigh that in 5 years i myself have played through 3 editions. Getting curbstomped in every one for playing the models i love not the models that use every loop hole available.
111574
Post by: craggy
It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.
I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.
I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
craggy wrote:It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.
I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.
I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.
The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.
The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically... GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
darkcloak wrote:I agree. Forcing players to buy yet another book on top of all the other books already required to play is just another layer of cash grabbing.
The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Okay. Rant off.
And yet it's still cheaper then needing to buy an entirely unrelated faction so you can get the proper upgrades for your X-wing ships, because at least CA is attempting to balance the units on their own right rather then you hoping that this new unit you may not even want has the upgrade that'll hopefully fix your been useless for a while due to power creep ships.
I really don't like FFG's model to say the least.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
sure and D&D put out two rules books every month back in the days of 3.5. one rule book a year isn't that much.
80243
Post by: darkcloak
 ZebioLizard2 wrote: darkcloak wrote:I agree. Forcing players to buy yet another book on top of all the other books already required to play is just another layer of cash grabbing.
The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Okay. Rant off.
And yet it's still cheaper then needing to buy an entirely unrelated faction so you can get the proper upgrades for your X-wing ships, because at least CA is attempting to balance the units on their own right rather then you hoping that this new unit you may not even want has the upgrade that'll hopefully fix your been useless for a while due to power creep ships. .
I really don't like FFG's model to say the least.
As a TIE swarm player I have to really laugh at people who think it's the ship that wins the game. I have beaten every single meta list with both Howlrunner + Friends and Rageswarm. XWing really is a skill game and anyone who says otherwise is pushing for a nerf somewhere. Or they're a filthy Fly Casual TFG expecting you to handicap your list because they wanna fly Trench Run.
All in all XWing has done a very fine job of keeping their game tight and as a TO I have never had an easier time. Would I even try to TO a warhammer tourney? feth no. So many convoluted rules and now so many sources, the first guy who tried to lawyer me would get ejected.
And how is Chapter Approved more cost efficient than an Xwing expac? Does CA come with a model you can use right out of the box? I understand the gripe that you might have to buy a ship to get a card but... How is that any different than buying a book full of fixes if you only play one faction? At least Xwing gives you a model to use or even trade or sell. CA is going to sit on your shelf until the next CA comes out, at which point you have to buy it in order to play comp. And how long is that going to last until GW says okay, new edition time?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And more to the point, why is a model company so interested in a regular rules publication and why can't these updates be folded into the already existing White Dwarf magazine? That at least is not without precedent and gives a value back to WD that has been missing for a long time.
I mean, I realize this 'model company' statement is a bit of a bluff on GWs part to excuse their haphazard rules making but if it's a false statement, why hide behind it now?
So we have either a model company or a game company. If GW is going to be a model making company then they need to Make Models! Instead we see them removing units from the rules because.. they don't have models. One, this is removing an aspect of the hobby that is very important, player driven army building creativity. Two, why are they not making these models? Some options have existed in codices for nearly twenty years but now are gone. GW had 20 years to make a bloody model! If GW makes models then why have some lines languished in antiquity while others see only partial updates and then one has new models every year? If GW is a game company, which from all evidence they are very much a game company, then why are they not towing the line with other game systems? The days of 40k supremacy are over. There is competition and it is good. If GW really wants to survive long term then they need to adapt their business psychology and from what I see that's simply not happening.
GW appears very much to be changing, but some of the core problems still exist after decades of business. One has to ask, are they truly trying to adapt to their market or merely trying to appear as such?
94850
Post by: nekooni
Wasn't the model company thing a long time ago? And didn't gw obviously change their attitude and approach to the community/feedback?
The point values should have been errata to the individual books.
CA has content besides that, the new missions are great, for example. For me, that other content would've been fine on its own.
It would've been nice to get the "preview rules" for the Index armies for free, but at least it's something new and not a fix to existing rules.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I think in the future CA will be more important, my gut feeling is that CA will be where new models released after a codex releasde are included. so if say we see Primaris terminators in september, just for example, then the next december's CA will collect those datasheets. this will be conveniant for people who don't wanna have to take a hundred little datasheets to games
100848
Post by: tneva82
Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
tneva82 wrote:Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?
hell no, I expect them to put the stuff out in chapter approved AND do codex revisions. honestly some 8th edition armies could use a "codex 8.5" (looking at you grey Knights)
114771
Post by: shakul
If you're only after the points increases then just use an app like Battlescribe where its community driven and the points are updated in the software.
Personally think that CA was slightly over-done and could have been a much more concise book, but the new missions in it are good enough that I wont quibble over purchasing it.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
tneva82 wrote:Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?
Every 5 years is hardly "all the time".
52791
Post by: Fictional
I think the biggest problem seems to be people buying physical books, but depends what they put in CA and what people need.
As far as I can tell, all the points updates have been migrated into the digital books, including the Indexes.
Can only hope they do the same for new models, rather than relying on basic, non-points, rule sheets in the boxes.
112649
Post by: grouchoben
Just use battlescribe. Or photocopy the three or so relevant pages. I won't be buying any CA books myself.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.
Did yiu really expect major game overhauls 5 months into 8th edition and with only a handful of fully updated codexes?
116670
Post by: Ordana
 Sim-Life wrote:I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.
Did yiu really expect major game overhauls 5 months into 8th edition and with only a handful of fully updated codexes?
I don't think the amount of changes compared to the timeframe was the problem (tho Some might have wanted more relics/stratagems/traits for factions without a codex). I think its mostly a money vs content complaint.
Either have the book be cheaper or offer the changes for free online.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
I didnt want a book that overrides the existing rulebook.
8th is the "most playtested edition ever" but has so many flaws that armies who spam loop holes are leagues above a regular army and make matched play worse that a drag.
What i wanted from chapter approved were clear concise rules that outlined how to play. I simply want to play by the same rules as everyone else but the prevelence of house rules to fix issues makes that impossible. All the rules that can be added by narrative or open play should already be in the core rules not stand alone "if you play this game type you get these rules".
I really expected ca to have more than this is how we roll for initiative and this is the new character rule. Which were already being used by most players. But wasnt official. I also expected updates to how cover works.
118765
Post by: A.T.
Sim-Life wrote:I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.
At least a single detachment bonus in-line with the codex releases, warlord trait s that were not phoned in (seriously, look at the SoB one), at least 2-3 relics and a half dozen stratagems, and no missing factions (looking at you inquisition).
It should have done what the old 3e chapter approved releases did. Collect together all current errata, address all outstanding issues at time of release, and include stand-in rules to bolster those factions who have a year+ to wait before they catch up with the codex pack.
116670
Post by: Ordana
A.T. wrote: Sim-Life wrote:I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.
At least a single detachment bonus in-line with the codex releases, warlord trait s that were not phoned in (seriously, look at the SoB one), at least 2-3 relics and a half dozen stratagems, and no missing factions (looking at you inquisition).
It should have done what the old 3e chapter approved releases did. Collect together all current errata, address all outstanding issues at time of release, and include stand-in rules to bolster those factions who have a year+ to wait before they catch up with the codex pack.
No one has a year+ to wait. GW is on track for having all codexes updated by the 1 year anniversary.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?
98135
Post by: Silentz
Despite posting my defence of Chapter Approved and my acceptence and approval of it as a step forward...
It was a disappointment.
Why, when they already create General's Handbook, did they not copy the GH2017 method of listing all points for all units, and marking the ones that changed?
Also, having purchased the Planetstrike rulebook about a month before 8th dropped, I did feel a bit like... "I've already got all this"
There were some strange choices made for it.
However if you look at it through the lens of a small team working their ass off to get it out in time, you can see why some choices were made.
I hope CA2018 offers a bit more thats new and exciting.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
I dont want new and exciting, i want consistency. And a small team should have no issues providing that but here i am struggling between raw rai and three different sets of rules. I want my one rule book trumps all back.
98141
Post by: BlackLobster
I got mostly what I wanted out of the CA. Loads of new missions, battlezones, updated points, some new rules.
Things I didn't want were "make your own objective markers" and make your own Land Raiders, but here are five we made but we aren't going to give you some points to play them in matched play.
In future I want some more missions (I'm a mission junkie), battlezones and little fun things like warband building/campaign like the AoS got.
112618
Post by: Arachnofiend
Ice_can wrote:Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?
Battle yes, Silence no. Sisters of Silence are an auxiliary force, not an army (though that doesn't prevent GW from expanding them into one in the future like they did with Custodes, they're just not one of the "guaranteed" codexes).
118746
Post by: Ice_can
 Arachnofiend wrote:Ice_can wrote:Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?
Battle yes, Silence no. Sisters of Silence are an auxiliary force, not an army (though that doesn't prevent GW from expanding them into one in the future like they did with Custodes, they're just not one of the "guaranteed" codexes).
Damn I so like the idea of a sisters of silence army, well atleast more than the roid monkey spacemarines that are custodes.
112618
Post by: Arachnofiend
Expanding Sisters of Silence into a full army seems like a bad idea for the same reason expanding Grey Knights into a full army was a bad idea. They're too narrowly focused, what do the SoS even do if you're fighting a force like Necrons that doesn't use psykers?
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Arachnofiend wrote:Expanding Sisters of Silence into a full army seems like a bad idea for the same reason expanding Grey Knights into a full army was a bad idea. They're too narrowly focused, what do the SoS even do if you're fighting a force like Necrons that doesn't use psykers?
1) Beat them flat with greatswords
2) who knows what could be in the new Codex, necron psykers could be a thing.
3) Dark age tech bolters with -3ap
I just really like them fluff and aesthetically, not expecting tornaments winning just something viable as a sisters of silence detatchment
110308
Post by: Earth127
 Xenomancers wrote:craggy wrote:It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.
I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.
I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.
The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.
The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically... GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.
Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games?
It's apples to oranges in every practical way.
The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
overrides the core book is not the way i would put it.
it is corrections of existing rules or adding rules that should have been there on day 1 that FAQ dont covers.
the only beef i have about it is the way they make it.
first off, all point adjustments and experimental rules should be in a free pdf. if the experimental rule is a success move it to the CA.
secondly, drop it to only 1 CA book per year so that it actualy is a book and not a booklet.
there are plenty of FAQs around to adjust the major issues that may occur.
94850
Post by: nekooni
 FrozenDwarf wrote:overrides the core book is not the way i would put it.
it is corrections of existing rules or adding rules that should have been there on day 1 that FAQ dont covers.
the only beef i have about it is the way they make it.
first off, all point adjustments and experimental rules should be in a free pdf. if the experimental rule is a success move it to the CA.
secondly, drop it to only 1 CA book per year so that it actualy is a book and not a booklet.
there are plenty of FAQs around to adjust the major issues that may occur.
Isn't CA a once a year thing already?
And beta rules seem to be free, are you referring to the land raider thing? That's not for MP anyway ...
97080
Post by: HuskyWarhammer
 Earth127 wrote: Xenomancers wrote:craggy wrote:It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others. I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me. I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.
The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money. The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically... GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.
Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games? It's apples to oranges in every practical way. The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.
I just love that it's not really even a good comparison. SC2's last campaign release at that price/size was in 2015, and the three parts were announced years in advance with nothing on the horizon for the foreseeable future - plus it *also* went F2P largely, opening up a number of those areas that you used to have bought the campaign to access. Xeno painted it like campaign releases are a regular thing they're doing. The only actual new game content in SC2 consists of paid co- op commanders and a Nova mini-campaign, giving you access to new armies/content for a much smaller price point (and some paid aesthetics/announcers).
111574
Post by: craggy
I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about
And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
vaurapung wrote:How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about
And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.
GW made an 8 page rulebook. How much simpler do you want it. All those problems are on your players, not GW.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
So denial of the rest of the book the codex and chapter approved and the faqs is the answer for consistency.
And i dont need simple i need all disagreements to be able to be looked for in the index and referwncable in the core rulebook.
118765
Post by: A.T.
vaurapung wrote:How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group.
Locally - play to win without being WAAC.
So if someone makes a mistake like forgetting to finish moving before deepstriking we let it slide, but we don't throw games or try to drag them out with deliberately bad choices.
It means there is some extra work to be done in the list building phase, at least until GW gets its act together. Mostly just not going full LVO with the lists unless it's pre-agreed on.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Sim-Life wrote:vaurapung wrote:How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about
And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.
GW made an 8 page rulebook. How much simpler do you want it. All those problems are on your players, not GW.
8 page rulebook that you can't actually use without house ruling to actually play. GJ GW.
77728
Post by: dosiere
Ideally it would replace the rulebook, and incorporate changes all into the single book so it cuts down on what needs to be lugged around. Re write existing rules to cut down on the size of the errata and FAQ documents. As is it’s just yet another rulebook layer on top of everything else with lots of padding, little focus, and small,adjustments that could have easily just been a 4 page pdf download.
It would probably make sense to keep it focused on matched play, and release campaign books and such for the other methods.
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
craggy wrote:I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.
Like your gaming system and your games, once you purchase the models and books, you own them forever. You can play that ruleset forever as well, even if new rules come out. In the event that new rules do come out and everyone starts playing by them, you have the option to purchase the new rules, or continue using the old ones. Using your video game analogy, its like a new Soccer (Football) game. They come out with one every year, but it doesn't mean last years is no longer functional. It just means that if you wanted the updated stats/graphics/etc you need to get the new one.
83210
Post by: Vankraken
GW needs to give up on 8th, hire some proper rules writers who understand mechanical writing plus game systems, and make a new edition from the ground up instead of this mess they patchworked together from bits of 7th (and everything before). No amount of chapter approved can fix the broken foundation that GW built for 8th.
You can make user friendly rules and keep both ease of entry and gameplay depth without making a clunky mess of a game. it's only going to get worse once GW starts to try and go down the inevitable route of supplements (stuff like death from the skies) that are optional and yet sorta not.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
 Vankraken wrote:GW needs to give up on 8th, hire some proper rules writers who understand mechanical writing plus game systems, and make a new edition from the ground up instead of this mess they patchworked together from bits of 7th (and everything before). No amount of chapter approved can fix the broken foundation that GW built for 8th.
Your opinion. 8th is wildly accepted as a big success and drew in a large amount of new players.
Is it a perfect ruleset? Well, no. But compared to the CF that was the previous edition it is heading in the right direction and much more enjoyable to play.
89783
Post by: docdoom77
I think Chapter Approved was worth it just for the missions. My only real gripe is that they didn't just repost all of the points values like the Genera'ls Handbook. That was a fail.
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
Video games are not even the same technology so it is moot.
Xwing is an LCG with miniatures so more false equivalence.
How about comparing with a Warlord Games title?
77511
Post by: vaurapung
So far the best mission ive seen played was a capture the flag ising modified 7th edition relic gametype.
But how can i use missions if me and seems to be everyone cant even agree on the rules that we should be using.
I would have loved to stick with 7th but when companies roll out new versions your kinda forced into ot if you want to play with a broad group.
Look at what apple and microsoft does. If you want to be compatable with everyone else you have to buy that upgrade that you dont want and dont need.
Gw has done just that, forcing us to buy the latest rules if we want to play with everyone else. I dont like it and i really dont like the inconsisty foind among different playgroups. Why cant we all just use the same exact set of rules for every type of game?
94850
Post by: nekooni
I'm pretty sure you can still call and message others even if your iPhone is 3 generations old.
Every ducking game with editions ever forces you to buy and use the current rules. GW is actually one of the exceptions until 7th since you'd just use your codex from the previous edition.
In our club we all agreed (unspoken) on Matched Play and that's it. We do add open/narrative stuff if we feel like it. The rules aren't nearly as broken as 7th was. What actual rules do you have issues with understanding?
108848
Post by: Blackie
craggy wrote:I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.
Since you made the comparison with videogames I'm assuming you're mostly interested in the gaming part of 40k rather than the hobby. Those 300£ plus 50 or less for any game you want becomes easily 800£ish in 4-5 years and after that period you'll end up with a console that aged and games that worth 1/5 of their value. You probably want to buy a new console then.
Buying 3000 points of miniatures plus their books and the hobby material, including painting, is not particularly more expensive or at least several factions can be collected for a similar amount of money, only 4-5 factions are really significantly more expensive than the other ones. Second hand models, scratch built vehicles, conversions and pdf rules can let you save some money, maybe even a tons of it. And if you get tired of the hobby and want to sell the army you'd probably get back more than selling an obsolete console and its games.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
The issues with understanding the rules that i have is that narrative play and most terrain rules are not part of the core rules and i think open play has some special rules too. Plus if you play narrative or open then matched has rules that those dont use and then chapter approved came out and changed some of those rules with gw making promises to change more of those rules every 6 months.
The problem i have is that all the rules are not in the rules section. Every game type has its own rules and then every many missions seem to have more special rules.
Why not just have all those rules in the rules and then every game type use all of those rules with simply different objectives.
I would love to play narrative games but why does narrative have different rules than matched? And why is matched not balanced but narrative can be?
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
vaurapung wrote:The issues with understanding the rules that i have is that narrative play and most terrain rules are not part of the core rules and i think open play has some special rules too. Plus if you play narrative or open then matched has rules that those dont use and then chapter approved came out and changed some of those rules with gw making promises to change more of those rules every 6 months.
The problem i have is that all the rules are not in the rules section. Every game type has its own rules and then every many missions seem to have more special rules.
Why not just have all those rules in the rules and then every game type use all of those rules with simply different objectives.
I would love to play narrative games but why does narrative have different rules than matched? And why is matched not balanced but narrative can be?
That's less a problem with the game and more with your group not communicating what they want.
Some rules are very dependant on the style of game you want. Like Psychic Discipline, aka only one psychic power of the same name every turn besides Smite. It is there in Matched to incentivize tournament games to use wide variety of powers or to push people to Smite, which is somewhat predictable in what it does. Basic stuff when you want to try and have a competetive game (which 40k still really isn't). This leads to the balance problem you see between Matched and Narrative: Matched should be done to ensure random pick-ups start on reasonably similar footing, an objective GW isn't yet very good at reaching. Narrative, on the other hand, leaves this more in the hands of the players. The players playing the game are tasked with the burden of handling their own balancing, like for an example talking about their lists with their opponent before the game. "Want to try out that sweet all-termie list of yours? Cool, lemme see what would be interesting against them..." And note that this isn't anything that special, Matched games can of course do the same. But because this is utterly essential to Narrative, you don't really play Narrative with people who don't share your view of what's cool and thus you can use wackier special rules like Firestorm Attacks, psychic storms and whatnots in Narrative without breaking anyones expectations of the game.
Basically, Matched isn't balanced because 40k isn't currently written as tight as a tournament game should be but that is the intent. New GW is apparently trying to get it to be like that, maybe they will in a few years with annual CA tweaks. Narrative is balanced because you ought to play it with different expectations. 1000 points in a fortress trying to stop 3000 points, perhaps as a part of this hex-map campaign I just drew last week? Heck yes, count me in for that, though I won't expect my poor 1000 points to fare like they would in a Matched game. Give me artillery strikes, give me stratagems to blow up my own buildings, give the attacker weird tunneling devices for one unit every turn or what ever we can come up with and I'll probably enjoy my time with that slaughter though it isn't balanced in the typical sense of the word. It is still balanced relatively to the expectations of what game we are playing, which is the important part.
On terrain rules, I agree it is a tad silly to have them in the Advanced section but once again, the pre-game conversation of how much you like the terrain to affect the game is as important here as it was in previous editions. Do you like it having a great effect? Suggest to your opponent that you use all the terrain rules or that at least all scatter terrain counts as statues (if Infantry is within 3" and at least 25% covered it has Cover), barricades are used, vehicles 50% out of sight have Cover and charging into rubble and such imposes a -2" penalty. Gets you pretty far, personally I like to take it further with my pals and say intervening terrain gives Cover too.
Then again, I might be a tad biased towards DIY spirit and discussions, seeing that designing and running all sorts of games both miniature and rpg are like breathing air to me. Just finished converting Zone Mortalis to 8th, playtesting starts tomorrow
111574
Post by: craggy
mokoshkana wrote:craggy wrote:I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.
Like your gaming system and your games, once you purchase the models and books, you own them forever. You can play that ruleset forever as well, even if new rules come out. In the event that new rules do come out and everyone starts playing by them, you have the option to purchase the new rules, or continue using the old ones. Using your video game analogy, its like a new Soccer (Football) game. They come out with one every year, but it doesn't mean last years is no longer functional. It just means that if you wanted the updated stats/graphics/etc you need to get the new one.
Not entirely the point I was making, but a valid one. I'm looking to get friends into the gaming side of the hobby and plan on starting off with small games using Index lists and rules, keeping CPs as only for re-rolls. If folks like it and want to expand we'll add more points and look at using Codex lists, stratagems and stuff once everyone has one.
Blackie wrote:craggy wrote:I was only using the video game comparison others already made. I agree it's not really the same. I spend £300 on a console and can then pick up any game I want for it, for under £50. If I buy the 40k Rulebook, I'm then another £25 minimum for a Codex and then anywhere between a couple of hundred pounds and a few million depending how many points of cultists/boyz/Guard I stick in as chaff. For every army. Every time.
Since you made the comparison with videogames I'm assuming you're mostly interested in the gaming part of 40k rather than the hobby. Those 300£ plus 50 or less for any game you want becomes easily 800£ish in 4-5 years and after that period you'll end up with a console that aged and games that worth 1/5 of their value. You probably want to buy a new console then.
Buying 3000 points of miniatures plus their books and the hobby material, including painting, is not particularly more expensive or at least several factions can be collected for a similar amount of money, only 4-5 factions are really significantly more expensive than the other ones. Second hand models, scratch built vehicles, conversions and pdf rules can let you save some money, maybe even a tons of it. And if you get tired of the hobby and want to sell the army you'd probably get back more than selling an obsolete console and its games.
I'm actually entirely the opposite. I bought all the Index books, and have the BA and Craftworld Codex, but have yet to play a proper game since getting back into the hobby last year. I've always been more of a painter and modeller interested in the fluff than a gamer, at least when it comes to 40k. Even with videogames I've found a real lack of time in recent years, so whilst I own both a ps4 and Xbox one, I've only bought maybe 6 games in the past few years.
The re-sale value of miniatures is definitely more than that of old games, though, and that's a very good point. If a new edition comes out and I don't want to keep an army I've spent a few hundred on buying, I can probably recoup a much larger percentage of my initial cost selling them than I could ever hope to get back on even games only a few months old. The initial expense is a lot higher too though, and unless we're buying painted minis second hand, there's a lot more time and effort put in to get them playable.
It really is quite a poor analogy though. Like I said, I was just following up on someone else's comparison.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.
Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.
But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.
94850
Post by: nekooni
I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
vaurapung wrote:I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.
Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.
But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.
People like it for many reasons, including: better flow than previous editions, less flipping between books, less clunky engine, stratagems feel nice and add depth to play, perhaps someone likes the feel of their new codex and so forth. We pay for those rules because it is GW's business to sell them. Why do I buy regular books if I could just write my own? Because there is something interesting in it, that I might not have thought of. With wargaming rules, one can argue they ought to be free and while I agree it would be awesome, that isn't necessary. GW is free to ask us money for its product as it does.
I understand that you want to have fun with your friends without much of a hassle. And you can. Just ask your opponents what do they think of the rules like terrain and such and with regular playmates it'll become routine in a few games. Yes, GW could have done that for you, but they chose not to, which is understandable as they chose to write the very basoc rules of this edition with a complete newbie in mind. For the rest of us, when has it ever been too much to ask that people read a few extra pages like BRB's Advanced rules? I learned old WHFB-rules when I was eight years old and their page count was in the hundreds.
I find it a bit of a hyperbole to say you can't find people who play by the same rules. Yes you will, as everyone uses the same engine for their game. Matched restrictions like Psychic Discipline and Boots on the ground are the defaults, from where people can then deviate if they agree to with their opponents. These are not major problems: few questions before the game and you are ready to go.
The point I'm trying to say isn't that GW can sit on their laurels and leave balancing to the players, but that while they're doing that, one can take the game as it is and make of it what suits them best. I've never had any innate respect for appealing to authority and if me and my pals are happier with our game after tweaking some rules, we'll do it. It's not a burden, it's fun.
Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Sherrypie wrote:vaurapung wrote:
Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?
This. I don't know why people think that they can't talk to opponents. I have a game on Tuesday and I wanted to run the FW stonecrusher carnifex but it lacks the changes to carnifexes that the codex brought (+1 to hit on the charge etc). I asked my opponent if I can include those rules and he was fine with it.
Social interaction amd behaving like reasonable adults is part of the game. If people can't behave like grown ups then just don't play with those people.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
The General's Handbook for AoS is a perfect example of what GW should be doing if they want to continue down the model of making players pay for rules. A single, reasonably sized document (not some giant hardcover monster) that contains everything necessary to play the game barring your specific army book, updated for <current year>.
...then GW tossed everything they learned away, looked at 40k and Chapter Approved, and said 'screw it, we'll do it live.'
So we got that lazy waste of paper instead.
116670
Post by: Ordana
 Fafnir wrote:The General's Handbook for AoS is a perfect example of what GW should be doing if they want to continue down the model of making players pay for rules. A single, reasonably sized document (not some giant hardcover monster) that contains everything necessary to play the game barring your specific army book, updated for <current year>.
...then GW tossed everything they learned away, looked at 40k and Chapter Approved, and said 'screw it, we'll do it live.'
So we got that lazy waste of paper instead.
It could have been because of the short duration between 8th release and the CA. Maybe they will do it for the next one.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Silentz wrote:Despite posting my defence of Chapter Approved and my acceptence and approval of it as a step forward...
It was a disappointment.
Why, when they already create General's Handbook, did they not copy the GH2017 method of listing all points for all units, and marking the ones that changed?
Probably because unlike in AoS, points were already available in the Indices and Codices that had thus far been released.
That's the important thing to remember. The Grand Alliance books for AoS did not have point values in them. There were no points in the initial books either. It wasn't until Matched Play and GHB2016 that we saw points added in.
It's partly why Blades of Khorne and Stormcast Eternals were redone despite being relatively recent books--the other part being that each book compacted two armies(Daemons of Khorne and the Khorne Bloodbound for Blades of Khorne and vanilla Eternals and the Draconis/Stardrake stuff) into one book.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Sherrypie wrote:vaurapung wrote:I understand what your saying sherrypie but why if we are going to make our own rules anyways why was there so many people saying 8th is great. Why do we pay for books and indexs and codexs and chapter approved.
Why do we give gw the satifaction of buying their rules if we are gonna make our own anyways. I spend way to many hours at work and then like spending time with friends. When i play 40k with that group of friends and others i just want to play 40k by the same rules that everyone else uses and have a fair game with my army that i chose when i started playing.
But oniously no 4 people are playing by the same makeup of rules. And matched play is out pf my league because the units that i feild are horrible.
Which gets us to your last point: if you feel your units are terrible and can't compete on the tabletop, have you suggested playing different scenarios? Have extra points of them, have them recycle on the field after dying, that sort of things? If you want to have fun with friends, talk with them and try to faciliate it. Surely they'll have more fun too if they're not just curbstomping you all the time?
GW already did that for Tactical Marines in 7th. Remember something called the Gladius Battle Demi Company? Remember how much fun that was? You required literally free units to compete with the other armies?
59473
Post by: hobojebus
nekooni wrote:I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?
Look at ynnari they are horrible in matched as a single army did to the nerfs, but in narrative they have their original strength from death.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
Techpriestsupport wrote:Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.
You're not just buying point costs. Chapter Approved has much more content than that - whether or not you feel that it is worth it, is up to you.
I've always thought that the points should be released as a free 'data slate' similar to AOS and they also put a copy in CA with the rest of the extra content they add (missions, narrative elements etc)
59473
Post by: hobojebus
 NurglesR0T wrote:Techpriestsupport wrote:Points costs changes are eratta, if I buy a codex and it's points cosets are changed that's eratta, and I refuse to buy eratta. I won't buy can to get the changed points costs in the codexi I have already bought. Period. GW apologists need not apply.
You're not just buying point costs. Chapter Approved has much more content than that - whether or not you feel that it is worth it, is up to you.
I've always thought that the points should be released as a free 'data slate' similar to AOS and they also put a copy in CA with the rest of the extra content they add (missions, narrative elements etc)
You just defeated your own argument, the Landraider rules and missions worth is highly subjective to a lot of people they hold zero interest so even mentioning their inclusion is pointless.
The only thing I would of wanted is points values, those are fixed for products I already paid for I should not have to pay to have a faulty product fixed that's not acceptable in any other industry.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
Zero interest to you perhaps. A lot of people I know actually enjoy the new matched play missions in CA.
Exactly... the worth is up to person and subjective. That's exactly what I said. Or are you just being difficult for the sake of it?
To expect all the content from CA to be free is laughable. If you don't feel there is any value in it, then don't buy it.
100995
Post by: craftworld_uk
It's not so much the cost that bothers me but the different versions and sources of rules that can be hard to keep up with.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
GW FAQs are free and always come hot on the heels of the release of a new wave. Hell, people have been complaining that they release a PDF FAQ a week after the release of a book.
You are basically arguing that they should release yearly codex for each faction instead of a one cheap book. Codex: Space Marines 2018, Codex: Craftworld 2018.
Personally I'd rather stick to Chapter approved than buy a yearly codex. A cheap book that updates all my armies AND provides me with new alternative game modes and approaches which are in effect the same as a Season Pass/Expansion which most game companies charge for(except for EVE Online).
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I thought the matched play missions were really good. The first two of the new Eternal War missions need to be changed to progressive scoring rather than end of game, and the one where you split your forces into three parts can feth off, but the rest are solid and I think are even better than the ITC missions. The new maelstrom missions seemed okay (again, other than the one that makes you split your force), with all the typical pros/cons of Maelstrom.
Ultimately though when matched play is 90% of games, then anything not for matched play might as well not exist. General's Handbook, for all the praise it got, might as well have started from the matched play section (I have seen people actually say that). Chapter Approved has a lot of cool things; the land raider design rules I thought could have been done better, but it doesn't matter because they have that big "OPEN PLAY" stamp on them, they will never see use. The Planetstrike/Stronghold Assault missions seem really cool, and will probably see some use for narrative. And matched is matched, which is what most people "really" want because matched play is the "one true way" to play 40k, apparently.
The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost. This would not be such a huge deal if they actually had a 40k list building app, but that is either still in development or has been quietly abandoned (not sure which yet).
94850
Post by: nekooni
The critique isn't really that the worth of the other content is subjective. It's that the point value errata should be provided for free as part of the codex errata. It's ridiculous that someone who's not interested in the other content of the CA has to buy it just to get the new Space Marine point values. I'm forced to do that, officially. Latest published points for eg. AssCan razorback are only found in there.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Yeah-points values should've been a free errata document.
The OTHER CONTENT I'm fine paying for (or, honestly, NOT paying for). But points updates should be free.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Don't want to pay for points updates?
Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
 Kanluwen wrote:Don't want to pay for points updates?
Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.
So instead of using the more granular, precise, and updated points, I use the less precise and accurate points they haven't cared enough to update?
No thanks.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
Wayniac wrote:The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost.
I agree with this. I feel like they should have made the CA like a updated Rulebook/Point costs for everything so you'd effectively be buying Warhammer 40k 2017 and then the next year Warhammer 40k 2018 if we keep to the Fifa analogy used earlier in the thread. It could basically have been the new version of the "Small Rulebook".
Basically I feel like they should do better work towards consolidating their rules/points compared to the current job they're doing so you are aimed at only buying a single core book a year that has most of the important stuff in it instead of having the info spread over different books. They've already ruined this with the General's Handbook as the 2016 and 2017 versions have different stuff featured in both which means that I have to keep the old book for posterity.
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
If you buy the CA only for the point values then you probably don't know how to handle the internet...
Personally the best part about the book are the missions. Not so much eternal war, as that is a rather boring mission type, but planet strike, maelstrom and so on really make for enjoyable 40K games. I hope we'll see more of that and also more real narrative scenarios. So far there's only the one in the rulebook, I expect more when all the Codizes are out and GW continues with campaign books. You can never have enough missions 
73016
Post by: auticus
I buy the CA for everything. I'm ok with this.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Sgt. Cortez wrote:If you buy the CA only for the point values then you probably don't know how to handle the internet...
Personally the best part about the book are the missions. Not so much eternal war, as that is a rather boring mission type, but planet strike, maelstrom and so on really make for enjoyable 40K games. I hope we'll see more of that and also more real narrative scenarios. So far there's only the one in the rulebook, I expect more when all the Codizes are out and GW continues with campaign books. You can never have enough missions
Slight issue with this argument, If you did only care for points values, you would still need to buy the book.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Eldarsif wrote:Wayniac wrote:The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost.
I agree with this. I feel like they should have made the CA like a updated Rulebook/Point costs for everything so you'd effectively be buying Warhammer 40k 2017 and then the next year Warhammer 40k 2018 if we keep to the Fifa analogy used earlier in the thread. It could basically have been the new version of the "Small Rulebook".
Basically I feel like they should do better work towards consolidating their rules/points compared to the current job they're doing so you are aimed at only buying a single core book a year that has most of the important stuff in it instead of having the info spread over different books. They've already ruined this with the General's Handbook as the 2016 and 2017 versions have different stuff featured in both which means that I have to keep the old book for posterity.
Wayniac wrote:
The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost. This would not be such a huge deal if they actually had a 40k list building app, but that is either still in development or has been quietly abandoned (not sure which yet).
The difference is that 40k is aiming towards codices for every army soon. The General's Handbook is, as I've mentioned before, necessary for point values since the Grand Alliance books don't have points in them.
JNAProductions wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Don't want to pay for points updates?
Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.
So instead of using the more granular, precise, and updated points, I use the less precise and accurate points they haven't cared enough to update?
No thanks.
Oh no, you don't pay for upgrades. Heavens above, however can the game be balanced!
118746
Post by: Ice_can
I must admit I thing the 2017 one was just too close to the release of 8th to be a good book. I'm hoping the 2018 CA will be more comprehensive so that I only need a CA latest year + codex's to be able to actually play the game as 90% of the Codex and rule book is unnecessary, fluff waffle. They have Black library for fluff. Or make them two seperate sub books, fluffnand rules as you don't need extra crap to flick through when your trying to clarify or check a rule mid game.
P.S. Stop putting fluff in the middle of rules, its bad. It makes finding rules in a hurry harder than it needs to be and also makes books way bigger and heavier than they need to be.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Look, I won't say Points are perfectly balanced. They aren't.
But they're a DAMN SIGHT BETTER than Power. I play in a reasonably competitive environment, and am myself a pretty game-minded player. Power level just plain sucks for that. It's fine as a measuring stick (VP awarded for units killed, for instance) but for an actual balancing mechanism, it stinks.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Earth127 wrote: Xenomancers wrote:craggy wrote:It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.
I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.
I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.
The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.
The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically... GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.
Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games?
It's apples to oranges in every practical way.
The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.
Well - they are both rules for a competitive game that are constantly trying to achieve balance through updates/erratas/ FAQ's. In essence - the only actual difference is how the game is played which I'd say is much more difficult for a fast paced RTS than for turn based strategy game. It might be more difficult to collect the data from a board game because they don't have access to every game played but they have access to every tournaments data for free - not to mention the amount of data they SHOULD have collected in the "playtesting" phase of the development.
Also - I'm not really sure why you would not look to successful companies that have manages to create balanced competitive games? It seems like the easiest way to achieve success. Granted GW's essential failure of game balance in what is now the 8th iteration of their game - they REALLY REALLY need to start taking advice from companies which don't fail. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:Don't want to pay for points updates?
Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.
Power level is an actual joke. It can't be balanced and it destroys unit diversity...if you get every upgrade and weapon for free...why would you take anything but the most powerful options? If you do some basic point cost comparisons to power level on units that can take a lot of upgrades...youll see how much of a joke it is right away. Automatically Appended Next Post: vaurapung wrote:How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about
And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.
The answer is simple here. You balance the game for WAAC players and everything else just sorts it's self out. I really dont understand the notion that people wanting to play the game in their own way has any sway over making your game actually balanced. If people prefer playing with unbalanced rules...uhh...Who cares what they think? Automatically Appended Next Post: hobojebus wrote:nekooni wrote:I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?
Look at ynnari they are horrible in matched as a single army did to the nerfs, but in narrative they have their original strength from death.
You are talking literally about the best matched play army in the game (when combined with craftworlds codex).
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Yeah and I was very clearly talking about them as a mono force.
The work as detatchments I never said they didn't.
94850
Post by: nekooni
hobojebus wrote:Yeah and I was very clearly talking about them as a mono force.
The work as detatchments I never said they didn't.
Yeah, I understood your answer, not sure what Xenomancers's having trouble with.
I hadn't thought about the "only once in MP" type limitations, you're absolutely right. I guess any psyker heavy army has similar differences between Matched and Narrative/Open, and GK wouldn't be fixed as an army just by being part of the Imperial ecosystem. That'd be like saying Diesel engines are super-clean as long as you buy a hybrid and run it on electric mode mostly.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Think some tyranids things like endless swarm are stronger in narrative too.
103061
Post by: vyse.04
I think the updated point costs and strategems added in CA should have been a free release online. It'd also be nice if GW packed Codexes with a code to get an electronic copy of their rules, which would be updated as they change too. I'd be fine with paying extra for that option.
29610
Post by: fox-light713
Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 fox-light713 wrote:Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
General's Handbook had the point costs of every unit updated at the time, not just changed units, making it a one-stop resource for all of your list building. It provides the full up-to-date rules for matched play at the time. It also contained a wealth of faction traits/relics/command traits for each faction without up-to-date books (and unlike CA's selections, most of these are at least decent), and a solid selection of mission types for all major types of play that GW wants to market to (even though matched play is all that 99% of players will end up caring about).
The key difference between the GHB and CA is that the GHB is essentially a one-stop-shop for everything you need to play, and it's organized in a fashion that makes it conducive to that. You don't need to cross-reference between a bunch of different books to make it work. Everything feels complete. The older books might have some unique missions or background material, but are not at all necessary.
As opposed to the CA, which is a lazily developed scattershot of stuff cobbled together to justify the price tag.
94850
Post by: nekooni
The Generals Handbook introduced Matched Play and the point system IIRC.
Chapter Approved adds missions, rules (e.g. stratagems) and things like the vehicle construction stuff. It also contains a few points adjustments.
The core reasons for the books existing in the first place are different:
* GHB introduces a new game mode with all that's required to play it. v2 simply updates it
* CA is a collection of additional optional rules that for some unfathomable reason ALSO contains a few pages of what should have been errata to other books.
The only thing - in my eyes - that's wrong with it is that the primary distribution method for the point changes should've been a PDF / part of the errata&FAQs online, and the pages in the CA should've been just a BONUS.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
To be fair, the CA missions in my mind have almost entirely supplanted the BRB missions for anything other than learning games.
I suggest you take a look at them; they offer such "innovations" (for GW) as progressive scoring. They also alter player decision during pregame and list-building slightly with the "divide your army into three" missions, which helps put the stop to people who just have a "deployment plan" that they follow like an automaton until it's done.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 Unit1126PLL wrote:To be fair, the CA missions in my mind have almost entirely supplanted the BRB missions for anything other than learning games.
I suggest you take a look at them; they offer such "innovations" (for GW) as progressive scoring. They also alter player decision during pregame and list-building slightly with the "divide your army into three" missions, which helps put the stop to people who just have a "deployment plan" that they follow like an automaton until it's done.
This is actually an interesting point about the "split into 3" mission. I can see why people would dislike it, however. I do like how the CA missions require slightly different approaches to list building; ITC missions tend to focus on listbuilding as the primary skill, and so you basically can plan out how you are going to deploy and what is going for which objectives and what secondaries your opponent is likely to take, and go from there. The CA missions seem like they encourage a more TAC style because they are different enough.
What is interesting, regardless, is that for AOS there are no ITC missions; they use the General's Handbook battleplans out of the book. Yet for some reason for 40k they do not. Okay, I get not using the BRB missions, but ITC has deviated way too much from the norm now, and IMHO should not be considered the "norm".
73016
Post by: auticus
Tournaments will always be considered standard and normal, even if they deviate wildly from the main source, as ITC has done with 40k.
To many people that I know, ITC-40k is "real 40k" because thats all they play. They are either playing in ITC Grand Tournaments, ITC local tournaments, or preparing for the next ITC tournament.
To the commentary on making points free and the rest of CA optional extras... they tried that in AOS. Those books never sold.
If they are a busiiness tryiing to make money then they realize, and has now been objectively proven, that if the book does not contain matched-play content, it will barely move or not move at all off the shelf.
Putting new missiions iin CA is great, but if no one is going to use them because they are "optional" and not "real 40k", just like AOS realmgate wars books and the original AOS army books, there is no real incentive for GW the company to produce such material in the first place. As such, if they want to make money off of the product, I fully expect that CA will continue to include point updates simply because without those point updates, they might as well not bother with chapter approved at all because it won't really sell.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
107281
Post by: LunarSol
fox-light713 wrote:Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
The primary problem with Chapter Approved is that players expected it to be the General's Handbook and it is most certainly not. I'm generally in agreement that the point changes should have been an FAQ/Errata and the book would have been far better received.
73016
Post by: auticus
Wayniac wrote:Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
hobojebus wrote:It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
Perhaps something like points changes? 
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
hobojebus wrote:It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
They did - by putting the points changes in the book.
73016
Post by: auticus
Yep. That was exactly my point. The only thing the bulk of people buy the CA for is pretty much exclusively the points. And they want that part to be free so they don't have to buy the CA.
Which is why I doubt you'll see a chapter approved ever come out that doesn't have the point adjustments. Otherwise GW might as well not even bother because no one is going to bother with it without the points changes in it. They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.
98141
Post by: BlackLobster
To be fair I had expected CA to be much more like TGH. Maybe the second one will be. Fingers crossed.
38817
Post by: dracpanzer
fox-light713 wrote:Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
CA helped my Sisters a good deal more than I expected. Love the missions. GHB16 saved AoS, GHB17 destroyed my poor Bretonnia....
213
Post by: Panzergraf
 auticus wrote:They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.
Wasn't that the whole point of Chapter Approved to begin with? Regular rules updates and new content, printed in WD, and then added together in a single book at the end of the year for those who didn't buy every single issue of WD.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Fafnir wrote: fox-light713 wrote:Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
General's Handbook had the point costs of every unit updated at the time, not just changed units, making it a one-stop resource for all of your list building. It provides the full up-to-date rules for matched play at the time. It also contained a wealth of faction traits/relics/command traits for each faction without up-to-date books (and unlike CA's selections, most of these are at least decent), and a solid selection of mission types for all major types of play that GW wants to market to (even though matched play is all that 99% of players will end up caring about).
The key difference between the GHB and CA is that the GHB is essentially a one-stop-shop for everything you need to play, and it's organized in a fashion that makes it conducive to that. You don't need to cross-reference between a bunch of different books to make it work. Everything feels complete. The older books might have some unique missions or background material, but are not at all necessary.
As opposed to the CA, which is a lazily developed scattershot of stuff cobbled together to justify the price tag.
GHBII only had changes.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 Daedalus81 wrote: Fafnir wrote: fox-light713 wrote:Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?
General's Handbook had the point costs of every unit updated at the time, not just changed units, making it a one-stop resource for all of your list building. It provides the full up-to-date rules for matched play at the time. It also contained a wealth of faction traits/relics/command traits for each faction without up-to-date books (and unlike CA's selections, most of these are at least decent), and a solid selection of mission types for all major types of play that GW wants to market to (even though matched play is all that 99% of players will end up caring about).
The key difference between the GHB and CA is that the GHB is essentially a one-stop-shop for everything you need to play, and it's organized in a fashion that makes it conducive to that. You don't need to cross-reference between a bunch of different books to make it work. Everything feels complete. The older books might have some unique missions or background material, but are not at all necessary.
As opposed to the CA, which is a lazily developed scattershot of stuff cobbled together to justify the price tag.
GHBII only had changes.
Incorrect. General's handbook 2017 had all points and noted where there were changes with a red asterisk. Automatically Appended Next Post: Panzergraf wrote: auticus wrote:They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.
Wasn't that the whole point of Chapter Approved to begin with? Regular rules updates and new content, printed in WD, and then added together in a single book at the end of the year for those who didn't buy every single issue of WD.
Yes that is exactly how it worked. In fact in 3rd Edition they had a chapter approved that updated the assault rules to I think what it was in 4th edition as sort of a beta test. A 3.5 assault rules as it were. In a white dwarf article.
73016
Post by: auticus
Right in the long ago chapter approved was white dwarf, and then they'd publish the book which compiled it all together.
The only reason it sold where I am from back then was because it had stuff that affected tournaments.
Like the trial assault rules etc.
But I mean from a company trying to make money off of its game, them releasing point updates for free and then wasting time and effort on a chapter approved would be energy better spent somewhere else.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote:
Incorrect. General's handbook 2017 had all points and noted where there were changes with a red asterisk.
I stand corrected. It instead dropped legacy stuff didn't it?
Not that it matters since the scrollbuilder was out anyway.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I really liked the content of CA, but the total disregard of the ork faction was reason for me not to buy it.
In general, I would prefer a book that can be a full replacement of the BRB, with a collection of all missions, basic rules rules and point updates in them.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
 Farseer_V2 wrote:hobojebus wrote:It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
They did - by putting the points changes in the book.
Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
hobojebus wrote: Farseer_V2 wrote:hobojebus wrote:It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
They did - by putting the points changes in the book.
Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.
Nice sources and facts you've brought to back up your claim of 'most'.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I still really liked the missions. That was a solid reason to buy the book. I also liked the narrative things, but have yet to find anyone to play through it with.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
I think it would have veen less offensive if they had actually produced a list will all the points and highlighted the changes instead of requiring players to play mix and match for points costs its a PITA. One book with all the points in it GW seriously is it that hard?
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Farseer_V2 wrote:hobojebus wrote: Farseer_V2 wrote:hobojebus wrote:It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.
You want people to pay you have to make something they want.
They did - by putting the points changes in the book.
Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.
Nice sources and facts you've brought to back up your claim of 'most'.
Didn't understand I'm talking about the people in my play group?
29610
Post by: fox-light713
 BlackLobster wrote:To be fair I had expected CA to be much more like TGH. Maybe the second one will be. Fingers crossed.
I have a feeling that this might be the case. For 40k some of the factions don't have their codex yet so perhaps when most of the factions have their codex we might see something similar to the GBH for CA at the end of this year.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.
GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Daedalus81 wrote:A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.
GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.
Yes. The fact that there was a safe way to fire it should have reduced its strength. This is the reason why star cannons and Tau plasma rifles are lower strength; it represents being a safer way to fire plasma but it is a lower power to compensate.
88295
Post by: Neophyte2012
From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Primeris are nice models but the fluff for them is bad and really they offer too little to make it worth replacing existing armies.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Neophyte2012 wrote:From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...
So they were overcosted, but bringing down their points was bad, because it's a sales tactic.
And then good units (read: not overcosted) go up in points, but that's bad, because it's a sales tactic.
I think sometimes it's a good idea to reflect on what you're saying before you say it.
88295
Post by: Neophyte2012
Daedalus81 wrote:Neophyte2012 wrote:From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...
So they were overcosted, but bringing down their points was bad, because it's a sales tactic.
And then good units (read: not overcosted) go up in points, but that's bad, because it's a sales tactic.
I think sometimes it's a good idea to reflect on what you're saying before you say it.
I think I did not say that bringing down the points of some units is bad. Maybe that is just your interpretation of the sentence. I just made the comparison of the treatment of some "it is good but priced too high" units, and point out there are obvious differences. Which shows that while some new published units such as Inceptors and Aggressors get a significant reduction in points, many others suffering similar situation in 8th SM codex, especially many of those the players have own quite a lot over two or more editions, did not receive such treatment. Thus, one possibilty of such discrepency may be the GW wants the players to put those models they've collected a lot over several years back on their home shelf or lockard and push the players to use more of their new published models, so they can make sales result better.
As for wether it is good or bad, Just make your own judgement, and everyone's judgement about this would be different by some degree. I just publish my analysis of the posdible reason for a fact I saw.
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
See - Terminators.
Blantantly overcosted.
Been aroud for ages.
Everyone owns them.
Still overcosted.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Daedalus81 wrote:A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.
GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.
I might actually be okay with that. That said, not wounding anything T4 on a a 2+ after that feels...off though, ya know?
Still, balance wise, I think it would be for the best and gives Plasma Cannons a better niche and helps balance the fact they're random shots.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.
GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.
I might actually be okay with that. That said, not wounding anything T4 on a a 2+ after that feels...off though, ya know?
Still, balance wise, I think it would be for the best and gives Plasma Cannons a better niche and helps balance the fact they're random shots.
You still have wounding T4 on a 2+ it's called melta you know that thing that no one takes as its out classed by plasma being the same strength, longer range and cheaper, AKA broken. Also the pay off for overcharging is d2 not wounding land raiders etc on a 4+ when plasma couldn't even glance a land raider at s7.
Plasma as a generalist weapon needs to be worse than melta or flamer for their purposes. Or you don't change the spam generalist weapons we have now. Would also add in a bit more tactical choice and movement instead of spam plasma within a reroll aura.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
So the missions are a reason to buy CA?
That would be nice if i didnt get tabled before i could play the mission. What do missions matter if you cant even stay alive due to the massive power differentials in a game that has a "matched" points system.
I know we all agree that the point system is faulty when misused but shouldnt the point system be what levels the playing feild for two different armies. I kinda just expected CA to be a book that supplemented the shortfalls of 8th edition and correcting some of the issues that make playing 8th edition so difficult for people like me.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
vaurapung wrote:So the missions are a reason to buy CA?
That would be nice if i didnt get tabled before i could play the mission. What do missions matter if you cant even stay alive due to the massive power differentials in a game that has a "matched" points system.
I know we all agree that the point system is faulty when misused but shouldnt the point system be what levels the playing feild for two different armies. I kinda just expected CA to be a book that supplemented the shortfalls of 8th edition and correcting some of the issues that make playing 8th edition so difficult for people like me.
Try to mitigate tabling with your opponent? Use much more terrain than now, so even long range guns have to move from time to time? If artillery is a problem, ask if there could be a bit less of it until you come up with a decent counter? If quick charges are a problem, learn to screen more efectively and try to steer them so that you have some breathing room?
Really, just discuss these with your buddies. Decent people should understand and it's fun to dabble with your setup parameters from time to time. Granted my meta isn't the most competitive anyway, but we go turn 6 or 7 almost all the time without problems.
Regarding CA, it isn't a one off silver bullet to fix everything, no. It was a sign that GW nowadays at least tries and cares to do so and we'll see more of that when the March FAQ hits. The first CA was propably a bit too early for many major changes to be possible, given that it had to be in printers months before.
But yes, the missions are the thing. Try things like Roving Patrol: as both sides are split to 3 divisions that gradually come on the field, you aren't immediately faced by all their guns and focus down, it's easier to actually land in a good spot with deep strikes and so forth. And again, use lots of terrain so those forces can come in hiding or at least ought to manouver before blasting away.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
auticus wrote:Wayniac wrote:Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.
And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.
Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "
93221
Post by: Lance845
Techpriestsupport wrote: auticus wrote:Wayniac wrote:Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.
And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.
Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "
Then don't buy it. It's not like all the point updates can't be found online for free before the books even come out. You can right click and save the images and adjust the point costs in your own books with a pen or make your own updated point file or use things like battlescribe which updates quickly.
Why the hell anyone pays for something they don't want is beyond me.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Lance845 wrote:Techpriestsupport wrote: auticus wrote:Wayniac wrote:Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.
And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.
Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "
Then don't buy it. It's not like all the point updates can't be found online for free before the books even come out. You can right click and save the images and adjust the point costs in your own books with a pen or make your own updated point file or use things like battlescribe which updates quickly.
Why the hell anyone pays for something they don't want is beyond me.
What would they have to hyperbolically complain about online then?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Sherrypie wrote:But yes, the missions are the thing. Try things like Roving Patrol: as both sides are split to 3 divisions that gradually come on the field, you aren't immediately faced by all their guns and focus down, it's easier to actually land in a good spot with deep strikes and so forth. And again, use lots of terrain so those forces can come in hiding or at least ought to manouver before blasting away.
Too bad that's made really hard. Especially if you aren't good at making terrain yourself as GW's own terrain SUCK as LOS blocking and non- LOS blocking terrain is useless. And of course this is zero help outside home as you can't tinker with terrain. Good luck bringing couple shoe boxes for LOS blocking to tournament or league!
110308
Post by: Earth127
tneva82 wrote: Sherrypie wrote:But yes, the missions are the thing. Try things like Roving Patrol: as both sides are split to 3 divisions that gradually come on the field, you aren't immediately faced by all their guns and focus down, it's easier to actually land in a good spot with deep strikes and so forth. And again, use lots of terrain so those forces can come in hiding or at least ought to manouver before blasting away.
Too bad that's made really hard. Especially if you aren't good at making terrain yourself as GW's own terrain SUCK as LOS blocking and non- LOS blocking terrain is useless. And of course this is zero help outside home as you can't tinker with terrain. Good luck bringing couple shoe boxes for LOS blocking to tournament or league!
And it's one of the biggest problems tournaments face and big blow to elite armies/favor for alpha strike . A disadvantage of hordes is the difficulty in bringing their full power to bear , in theory. Small board size and lack of terrain mean you usually have 100% of your firepower and near perfect target choice at your avaibility.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Techpriestsupport wrote:
Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on.
Yea, there you go. Way to set the pace on your fifth post.
118912
Post by: Techpriestsupport
Daedalus81 wrote:Techpriestsupport wrote:
Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on.
Yea, there you go. Way to set the pace on your fifth post.
Belch.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Ive got a lot of terrain built up over the last 6th months and its doing my army no good.
I still have to get across the feild with my 12 guns and not being able to disembark after movement makes wave serpents horrible. I cut my shooting down to 1 third to run to my opponent (i lose everything, if i hold back i just lose all to long range and deep strikes).
A big fix to the whole game that should have been in CA is a change to all weapons ranges to make them only good for their designated purpose. Take the punisher cannon for example 20 s5 shots oh and if it moves under half it shoots twice. Its a meq killer that reaches my monsters and tanks turn 1 and volume wins. Guns like that and bolter should all be 12 inches to scale to the table better. I am more often killed off by infantry guns in mass with 24 inch range than i am by the tank busters that should be killing my tanks and monsters.
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
tneva82 wrote: Sherrypie wrote:But yes, the missions are the thing. Try things like Roving Patrol: as both sides are split to 3 divisions that gradually come on the field, you aren't immediately faced by all their guns and focus down, it's easier to actually land in a good spot with deep strikes and so forth. And again, use lots of terrain so those forces can come in hiding or at least ought to manouver before blasting away.
Too bad that's made really hard. Especially if you aren't good at making terrain yourself as GW's own terrain SUCK as LOS blocking and non- LOS blocking terrain is useless. And of course this is zero help outside home as you can't tinker with terrain. Good luck bringing couple shoe boxes for LOS blocking to tournament or league!
Here you go:
https://www.gamemat.eu/our-products/terrain/sk/
A nice collection of pre-painted, resin terrain. I just got the industrial and modern warfare kits myself and they are pretty awesome. The industrial has a good deal of blocking terrain for models up to leman russ tanks.
This isn't 1995 where the only option for Warhammer accessories is stuff from GW. There are tons of options out there. Automatically Appended Next Post: vaurapung wrote:Ive got a lot of terrain built up over the last 6th months and its doing my army no good.
I still have to get across the feild with my 12 guns and not being able to disembark after movement makes wave serpents horrible. I cut my shooting down to 1 third to run to my opponent (i lose everything, if i hold back i just lose all to long range and deep strikes).
A big fix to the whole game that should have been in CA is a change to all weapons ranges to make them only good for their designated purpose. Take the punisher cannon for example 20 s5 shots oh and if it moves under half it shoots twice. Its a meq killer that reaches my monsters and tanks turn 1 and volume wins. Guns like that and bolter should all be 12 inches to scale to the table better. I am more often killed off by infantry guns in mass with 24 inch range than i am by the tank busters that should be killing my tanks and monsters.
Sounds like an issue with your army composition. Eldar has an answer for everything, but if you don't have the models, then obviously you don't have the answer.
Also, your wave serpents are should be surviving a ton of shooting and lasting multiple turns. If not, try adding spirit stones to increase their longevity. Force your opponent to take the target priority you want them to have as opposed to giving them the choice. With transports and Webway or Cloudstrike you can keep your stuff protected and strike when you want.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
Lance845 wrote:Techpriestsupport wrote: auticus wrote:Wayniac wrote:Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?
Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.
And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.
Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "
Then don't buy it. It's not like all the point updates can't be found online for free before the books even come out. You can right click and save the images and adjust the point costs in your own books with a pen or make your own updated point file or use things like battlescribe which updates quickly.
Why the hell anyone pays for something they don't want is beyond me.
I've been saying this for months. A lot of people are carrying on that Chapter Approved is a 3 page PDF that only has a couple point changes in it.
If the points are the only thing you wanted out of the book, then a quick Google search will find exactly what you're after. CA had a lot more content in it such as a new set of missions for each game type (some of which are actually quite fun to play, Targets of Opportunity being my favourite).
You don't want any of that stuff, then don't buy it.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
How are new missions helpful if every game is just a struggle to not get tabled?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
vaurapung wrote:How are new missions helpful if every game is just a struggle to not get tabled?
Are you only playing the tippy top of Dark Reaper and IG lists?
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
Daedalus81 wrote:vaurapung wrote:How are new missions helpful if every game is just a struggle to not get tabled?
Are you only playing the tippy top of Dark Reaper and IG lists?
Or more likely he's playing on table with little to no terrain. I'd suggest playing on table with a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain would be a start.
If every game is a tabling then there is something fundamentally wrong with his list
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Here is a typical board design if i help set it up.
Tabling in my games come from volume of fire inefficiencies, eldar has such a low rate of low power guns compared to the other armies i face. I would guesstimate that i get one to every two shots that my opponnent has and craftworlds ability to focus down kills blows. 3 fire prisms on odds might kill a carnafex. Or maybe one unit of troops. But 3 lemuns with punishers can kill whatever they point at and some. Or three carnfexes with heavy venoms laying into one tank or 80 necron warriors slogging across the feild. They all out gun and out fire anything i put on the feild and mostly because i have to flootslog most of my army or pay for kit out some wave serpents and reduce my armys total output.
Its these army imbalances that chapter approved should be fixing. Or at least suggesting a set of rules that levels the playing feild.
Btw i have had a couple of good games, like 4 out of 40. And they were all against marines with similar builds as mine. A few troops and few elites and a few tanks with some other supporters. Our list filled the same slots and our games were dead even. Every other army and every other game has been a landslide bloodfest in my opponents favor.
1
94850
Post by: nekooni
Punisher have a 24'' range. Necron warriors are the same. Of course they get to be cheaper per shot than a long range weapon. Wave serpents are very robust with a -1 to being hit and the damage reduction vs any multi wound hits.
And come on. How do three heavy venom cannons kill a wave serpent easily while three fire prisms struggle to kill one carnifex?
93221
Post by: Lance845
vaurapung wrote:Here is a typical board design if i help set it up.
Tabling in my games come from volume of fire inefficiencies, eldar has such a low rate of low power guns compared to the other armies i face. I would guesstimate that i get one to every two shots that my opponnent has and craftworlds ability to focus down kills blows. 3 fire prisms on odds might kill a carnafex. Or maybe one unit of troops. But 3 lemuns with punishers can kill whatever they point at and some. Or three carnfexes with heavy venoms laying into one tank or 80 necron warriors slogging across the feild. They all out gun and out fire anything i put on the feild and mostly because i have to flootslog most of my army or pay for kit out some wave serpents and reduce my armys total output.
Its these army imbalances that chapter approved should be fixing. Or at least suggesting a set of rules that levels the playing feild.
Btw i have had a couple of good games, like 4 out of 40. And they were all against marines with similar builds as mine. A few troops and few elites and a few tanks with some other supporters. Our list filled the same slots and our games were dead even. Every other army and every other game has been a landslide bloodfest in my opponents favor.
3 venom canons are shooting 3d3 shots with each successful hit/wound doing d3 damage. How many things do you think that is reliably killing?
113016
Post by: IronSlug
I don't really see the problem with CA.
No one is forcing you to buy / use it.
I don't realy care about 95% of it.
I just looked the Ork page on a friend one because I play against codex armies with an index one.
It's like for models, even if they are part of your army, no one is forcing you to buy / play them.
If you attend tournaments, of course, things are different. TO obviously get to choose which set of rule they are using. That's normal and you have to comply or not to attend.
If someone choose to organize a V2 tournament, you can't complaint it doesn't use the latest rules.
What I find really strange is that it seems that no one could imagine a tournament which do not use the latest rules for units but have no problem with them using home made rules for mission / victory conditions, and even (in my country, which is not USA) army composition.
tl;dr; No CA, no problem
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
IronSlug wrote:I don't really see the problem with CA.
No one is forcing you to buy / use it.
I don't realy care about 95% of it.
I just looked the Ork page on a friend one because I play against codex armies with an index one.
It's like for models, even if they are part of your army, no one is forcing you to buy / play them.
If you attend tournaments, of course, things are different. TO obviously get to choose which set of rule they are using. That's normal and you have to comply or not to attend.
If someone choose to organize a V2 tournament, you can't complaint it doesn't use the latest rules.
What I find really strange is that it seems that no one could imagine a tournament which do not use the latest rules for units but have no problem with them using home made rules for mission / victory conditions, and even (in my country, which is not USA) army composition.
tl;dr; No CA, no problem
No-one aside from every offical event ever.
100848
Post by: tneva82
IronSlug wrote:I don't really see the problem with CA.
No one is forcing you to buy / use it.
Sure. Does limit you from playing just in your home though.
93221
Post by: Lance845
tneva82 wrote:IronSlug wrote:I don't really see the problem with CA.
No one is forcing you to buy / use it.
Sure. Does limit you from playing just in your home though.
How? You go to your store and you play with PL. Or your opponent has CA and you build your list with that. Or you use battlescribe for free. Or you use google for free.
Nothing restricts anyone anywhere.
10746
Post by: Corrode
nekooni wrote:Punisher have a 24'' range. Necron warriors are the same. Of course they get to be cheaper per shot than a long range weapon. Wave serpents are very robust with a -1 to being hit and the damage reduction vs any multi wound hits.
And come on. How do three heavy venom cannons kill a wave serpent easily while three fire prisms struggle to kill one carnifex?
The dude is just really, really bad at 40k. He's made a couple of threads like this and basically since 8th dropped all he's done is whine about how it's "too confusing" and how all his opponents have way better stuff than he does.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
vaurapung wrote:Here is a typical board design if i help set it up.
Tabling in my games come from volume of fire inefficiencies, eldar has such a low rate of low power guns compared to the other armies i face....r.
Sorry, I stopped reading at this point. You play Eldar and are complaining about facing heavy venom canons and necron hordes tabling.. Eldar? 
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
I think proper deployment can do wonders for your ability to win games. Eldar are really effective at moving and shooting, so try using those builds to block LOS to your enemy. If he goes first, it will go a long way towards protecting your army. Also use the "Linked Fire" stratagem to your advantage. Assuming you have 3 fire prisms (or even 2) put on up to 59" away from the first and that should buy you some Protection. Here is an example of a different way you could have deployed in the game from your picture.
W = Wave Serpent
F= Fire Prism
Giving your opponents the right targets is incredibly important, especially for Armies like Eldar which lack resiliency of tougher armies.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Corrode wrote:nekooni wrote:Punisher have a 24'' range. Necron warriors are the same. Of course they get to be cheaper per shot than a long range weapon. Wave serpents are very robust with a -1 to being hit and the damage reduction vs any multi wound hits.
And come on. How do three heavy venom cannons kill a wave serpent easily while three fire prisms struggle to kill one carnifex?
The dude is just really, really bad at 40k. He's made a couple of threads like this and basically since 8th dropped all he's done is whine about how it's "too confusing" and how all his opponents have way better stuff than he does.
My mantra - if I lost it's because I did something wrong. Don't blame the dice. Don't blame the opponent. Even IF there are some imbalances I need to reflect and find areas to improve.
That said I'll agree in general. Vaurapung you don't appear reflective. Everything is someone else's fault. And that is what, in my mind, makes someone a bad player. And this is not intended as a vitriolic comment, but an opportunity to apply a different perspective.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Your probably right deadalus about a lot of my issues being self inflicted. In a lot of my post i reflect outside of dakkadakka about what i want from the game and how its not been provided since 7th ended. Getting tabled because the models i choose to play is where i hold my fault with gw and CA did not help matters (thats what i think CA is for, providing better game balance), i could go and buy the best bang for buck but then thats not my army. My army is a composition of gaurdians and lords with other unit to fill the gaps ie wraithknights, wave serpents and wraithgaurd or blades. My choosing to play those units should not be the auto loss choice that ive seen it become. And i play craftworld with heavy iyanden influence not ynnari bc i choose eldar as my personal faction and wraiths as my personal emblem. I dont play to win but i also dont play to die. The community i see here is so torn between competive and story that there is no room for the middle guy that just wants a good game win or lose where every turn could be a deciding factor. The games that i lose are decided at the top of round two when half my army is gone or i made no kills.
And mokoshkanas deployment was my original deployment or close too and i used phantasm to castle up because i was afraid of his army, there was a misplay in that game too but two rounds of 6 brightlances and 3 fireprisms only killed one carnfex and heavily wounded the other i would have been assaulted by the remaining 5 on center board at the top of 3rd but he had to go home bc of work the following day.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
vaurapung wrote:My choosing to play those units should not be the auto loss choice that ive seen it become. And i play craftworld with heavy iyanden influence not ynnari bc i choose eldar as my personal faction and wraiths as my personal emblem. I dont play to win but i also dont play to die. The community i see here is so torn between competive and story that there is no room for the middle guy that just wants a good game win or lose where every turn could be a deciding factor. The games that i lose are decided at the top of round two when half my army is gone or i made no kills.
Yea man there's nothing wrong with not wanting to keep up with the Joneses. My expectation of GW is that you should eventually be able to take any unit and feel capable (as long as the rest of your list fills in the other roles).
That said I don't think there is much in the actual list portion that is causing you so much heartburn that it is causing an auto-loss, but it's really hard to do over the internet. We'd have to spend hours reviewing past games, lists, etc. I'm sure if you put the time in you'll be able to escape the CA-blame-orbit.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
The CA blame is that it provided no real benifits to the whole of the game like it promised. It did less than a faq. Maybe if it had been marketed as a mission supplement book instead of a rules update book the hate from the community would be less but it tried to do both and helped neither much.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
vaurapung wrote:The CA blame is that it provided no real benifits to the whole of the game like it promised. It did less than a faq. Maybe if it had been marketed as a mission supplement book instead of a rules update book the hate from the community would be less but it tried to do both and helped neither much.
You're looking for CA to solve your problem of being tabled constantly. It was never going to do that, because the problem is elsewhere.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
vaurapung wrote:The CA blame is that it provided no real benifits to the whole of the game like it promised. It did less than a faq. Maybe if it had been marketed as a mission supplement book instead of a rules update book the hate from the community would be less but it tried to do both and helped neither much.
CA could never fix what you wanted it to fix though.
93221
Post by: Lance845
vaurapung wrote:The CA blame is that it provided no real benifits to the whole of the game like it promised. It did less than a faq. Maybe if it had been marketed as a mission supplement book instead of a rules update book the hate from the community would be less but it tried to do both and helped neither much.
Please find me a link and a quote from any GW source that says CA was going to provide " real benifits to the whole of the game"
I have never seen a FAQ provide new missions, give stratagems to the majority of the armies in the game, provide modeling advice for making objective markers, and beta rules.
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
This is the most subjective question ever.
How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.
Personally I love it just for the mission variation.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 An Actual Englishman wrote:This is the most subjective question ever.
How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.
Personally I love it just for the mission variation.
Yea this is probably a fair point. Those of us richie riches can squeeze out $25-35 without too much concern. Then again if that amount causes you distress this might not be the best hobby.
Of course my eyes are far bigger than my wallet could ever sustain and I actually don't buy that often.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
"Chapter Approved brings a series of quality-of-life improvements to matched play. These aren’t radical changes; instead, you’ll find a series of tweaks designed to integrate some of the great feedback we’ve had from both the community and from our dedicated playtesting team, making the matched play field more balanced and – most crucially – more fun than ever before."
From the community blog, make matched play feild more balanced,
And heres what i missed, that only popular armies get the love.
"3: Chapter Approved
As new codexes arrive, and certain styles of army come in and out of fashion, the relative effectiveness of certain units in matched play will change. So we’ll be using Chapter Approved as a chance to reassess the points values of all units across the game (just like we did with the first Chapter Approved)."
I play an unloved army and dont use those big bang for buck units so i set myself up for loss. After losing a few games i expect to lose so now ive destined myself to just lose this edition till something changes.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
vaurapung wrote:I play an unloved army and dont use those big bang for buck units so i set myself up for loss. After losing a few games i expect to lose so now ive destined myself to just lose this edition till something changes.
Eldar have been top tier for the last 3 editions. You can't be serious in saying they are a neglected army? 
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I can afford it. I'd just feel like a rube if I actually spent money on it.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Daedalus81 wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:This is the most subjective question ever.
How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.
Personally I love it just for the mission variation.
Yea this is probably a fair point. Those of us richie riches can squeeze out $25-35 without too much concern. Then again if that amount causes you distress this might not be the best hobby.
Of course my eyes are far bigger than my wallet could ever sustain and I actually don't buy that often.
Careful mocking people for not having as much money as you is a violation of rule one.
116801
Post by: bananathug
I bought it and feel like a rube. I opened it once to double check the point costs and it has sat in my gaming bag since.
If they would have at least included all of the FAQs, designer commentary and the like I wouldn't feel so ripped off but I mostly play ITC so the missions don't mean much, the customize a land raider was ridiculous and there was nothing else of note in there for me.
Lesson learned, I will not be buying it again (yes I will but I'll probably feel even dumber about it next time...)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
hobojebus wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:This is the most subjective question ever.
How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.
Personally I love it just for the mission variation.
Yea this is probably a fair point. Those of us richie riches can squeeze out $25-35 without too much concern. Then again if that amount causes you distress this might not be the best hobby.
Of course my eyes are far bigger than my wallet could ever sustain and I actually don't buy that often.
Careful mocking people for not having as much money as you is a violation of rule one.
Yea I could see how you could take it like that. My intention was the cost of the hobby and not the income of the players. My apologies.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
What is top teir, a combination of units and rules that abuse the whole system to be better than their points worth.
A rounded out eldar army can not cut it in a kill or be killed meta.
Ive never built my army to abuse a units abilities. My method is to to pick the units that i like, then look at how i want to use them and then decide what weapons loadout with most benifit the unit and spread my army with some tank busters, some heavy infantry guns and more infantry guns. Its a horrible method that builds an army thats not specialised enough to run up against other players.
Ive tailored a couple list to keep up with an opponent but that crazy. Why cant my equal power list hold its own (thats what balance is) and gw stated that the goal of CA is to balance the game. But oh yeah they said only the favored units will get adjusted which means my units that have been below par for three editions are still below par and worse the way i build my list.
94850
Post by: nekooni
vaurapung wrote:What is top teir, a combination of units and rules that abuse the whole system to be better than their points worth.
A rounded out eldar army can not cut it in a kill or be killed meta.
Ive never built my army to abuse a units abilities. My method is to to pick the units that i like, then look at how i want to use them and then decide what weapons loadout with most benifit the unit and spread my army with some tank busters, some heavy infantry guns and more infantry guns. Its a horrible method that builds an army thats not specialised enough to run up against other players.
Ive tailored a couple list to keep up with an opponent but that crazy. Why cant my equal power list hold its own (thats what balance is) and gw stated that the goal of CA is to balance the game. But oh yeah they said only the favored units will get adjusted which means my units that have been below par for three editions are still below par and worse the way i build my list.
From what I've read of your comments the issue isn't the army but the player. We're currently running a club tournament where two Eldar armies are doing just fine. The Meta isnt highly competitive, and both Eldar lists aren't highly optimized.
One is a iyanid list of wraith-anything lead by a spirit seer.
The other is an ulthwe list of wave serpents, 3squads each of fire dragons and dire avengers, 3fire prisms and a mix of HQs.
The later player I've played multiple times and the only real issue he had was that he simply wasn't very experienced with 8th edition and didn't use all the stuff available as an Eldar. It also takes a bit to manage a proper deployment.
Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.
If your meta is highly competitive you need a highly competitive list.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).
93221
Post by: Lance845
vaurapung wrote:Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).
There isn't a way. It doesn't exist.
Best you can do is set the point limit and build you list within the points. If one person optimizes within that point limit and the other person refuses to then the highly optimized person is likely to crush the other. List building matter a lot in 40k.
94850
Post by: nekooni
vaurapung wrote:Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).
7th was a pile of garbage when it comes to balance, even when restricting yourself to Combined Arms. Just ask any Tyranid, Orc or Imperial Guard player, to name a few.
If you really wanted to match e.g. Tyranid vs Eldar, you'd have to have the Eldar player be seriously drunk when building the list AND when playing the game - then you'd have a chance at a balanced game.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
nekooni wrote:
Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.
Imperial Guard are one of the best close combat armies in the game. Bullgryn are insane.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Fafnir wrote:nekooni wrote:
Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.
Imperial Guard are one of the best close combat armies in the game. Bullgryn are insane.
And slow and expensive. And Khorne Berserkers will still tear them apart. It's fun, but not really a viable list in Matched Play, because you can do the trick only with one squad of 10 Bullgryns. 40 Bullgryn won't win.
And I'd like to see some backing on the "one of the best cc armies" claim, tbh - does anyone play that at tournaments?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
The nice thing about IG assault armies is that they're also still the best shooting armies. 40 Bullgryn won't win, but you take 10 or 20, mix them with Celestine, and then enough ranged fire support to clear whatever else you'd like.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Fafnir wrote:The nice thing about IG assault armies is that they're also still the best shooting armies. 40 Bullgryn won't win, but you take 10 or 20, mix them with Celestine, and then enough ranged fire support to clear whatever else you'd like.
Yeah, but if you're investing 3/4 of your army into ranged fire support you're not really a close combat army, are you?
Don't get me wrong, IG is pretty powerful and Bullgryn ARE good, especially with a priest and IG psykers supporting them, but that one unit doesn't turn IG into a close combat army. It's just no longer "gunline only".
But that's very much besides the point.
If you run an army of purely Sternguard Veterans and Tech Marines where everyone has a combiflamer and a thunderhammer, you'll loose pretty much every game. That's fine. Your list is crap, and you shouldn't win.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
I'm always amazed at the reverence people show for 7th edition these days. Where can I purchases these glasses that have a hue so rosy as to make 7th edition look balanced?
3750
Post by: Wayniac
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?
110308
Post by: Earth127
The balance of 7th was bad all over at every lvl.
HH works better because 90% of it is one codex: Heresy space marines.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Farseer_V2 wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?
Formations weren't essential for 7th ed as hh shows beating 8th ed in tactics, balance, logic and fun even without marines
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
tneva82 wrote: Farseer_V2 wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?
Formations weren't essential for 7th ed as hh shows beating 8th ed in tactics, balance, logic and fun even without marines
Cool subjective opinion you've got there. It doesn't matter if they were essential - they were marketed as a major part of the game and drove much of it so they still have to considered when looking at 7th as a whole.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
7th edition lost me at the hour long psychic phases.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
Just like now chapter approved will be "balancing" the game every 6 months and probably just to push sales arounds.
Ive got it. My rose tinted glasses for 7th. In 7th i played with a competive group that pushed me to be better in my next game, each game i played my opponents would go through at the end and teach me what i done wrong and show me how i could be better with little changes.
Now my group in 8th is still competive but missing those key people that i use to play woth that helped me understand how i could be better.
Its like the difference between getting your butt kicked by an instructor vs a bully.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
So you're incapable of taking the lessons you learned during 7th and applying them to 8th without help?
93221
Post by: Lance845
Or learning lessons yourself?
Also, are you blaming the edition for the opponent? Its not like 7th made people nicer or 8th meaner.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
My personal issues in 8th were on another post and mostly i dont like 8ths lack of core rules and that usrs were done away with. This post started with an issue in our play group where i have to clarify what rules we are using during the middle of a game because theres the core rules the gametype(because every game type has its own set of rules too) the index and codexes and faqs and house rules that are liable to change on the spot it seems and now chapter approved will be adding removing and changing rules every 6 months so one of our new players refuses to use those. Its just a load of confusion compared to 7ths concrete rulebook that gave you all the rules you needed to play in one book that didnt change (at least not to my knowledge) all disputes were settled by a quick look in the index for the keyword that described your question.
And i have learned from my losses. That if i dont by reapers hemlocks and some shining spears i might as well not play eldar.
CA promised balances but only to favored armies i found out. Not bringing weaker models up to the op models levels or vice versa.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Chapter approved is once a year. Not 6 months.
It nerfed the most OP things in the game when it dropped conscripts down. Maybe it went a little too far with it's hit to commissars too. But to say it did othing for balance is insanity.
106125
Post by: JakeSiren
Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.
93221
Post by: Lance845
JakeSiren wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.
Also 5 different resolution methods.
Random tables for almst everything in the damn game.
Book keeping to keep track of results on random tables.
Roll for your warlord trait
Roll for your psychic powers
The entire psychic phase being bull gak.
Assault armies being crap because the assault rules were crap.
7ths was a train wreck.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
vaurapung wrote: This post started with an issue in our play group where i have to clarify what rules we are using during the middle of a game because theres the core rules the gametype(because every game type has its own set of rules too) the index and codexes and faqs and house rules that are liable to change on the spot it seems and now chapter approved will be adding removing and changing rules every 6 months so one of our new players refuses to use those. Its just a load of confusion compared to 7ths concrete rulebook that gave you all the rules you needed to play in one book that didnt change (at least not to my knowledge) all disputes were settled by a quick look in the index for the keyword that described your question.
...
CA promised balances but only to favored armies i found out. Not bringing weaker models up to the op models levels or vice versa.
Your group's stubborness is not GW can male a rule for.
And I don't know why I need to reitrate that the first CA would have been written like 4 months into 8th Edition so its hardly representitive of what future CAs will bring.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Anyone saying 7th was fine and well-balanced outside of formations: Invisibility was fine? Randomly being assigned a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power was fine? Being unable to jink a shot because the template weapon was initially aimed at another unit was fine? Are you serious? That's just from the top of my head and from what's in the core rules.
106125
Post by: JakeSiren
Lance845 wrote:JakeSiren wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.
Also 5 different resolution methods.
Random tables for almst everything in the damn game.
Book keeping to keep track of results on random tables.
Roll for your warlord trait
Roll for your psychic powers
The entire psychic phase being bull gak.
Assault armies being crap because the assault rules were crap.
7ths was a train wreck.
I didn't mind the shared warp charge pool in 7th. It meant that if you needed a power to go off you could make sure that it would but at increased risk of perils. Unfortunately 8th doesn't have a general mechanic to boost your chance of casting and given the Psychic Focus rule it means that certain powers are so unlikely to cast that you might as well not try.
94850
Post by: nekooni
JakeSiren wrote: Lance845 wrote:JakeSiren wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.
Also 5 different resolution methods.
Random tables for almst everything in the damn game.
Book keeping to keep track of results on random tables.
Roll for your warlord trait
Roll for your psychic powers
The entire psychic phase being bull gak.
Assault armies being crap because the assault rules were crap.
7ths was a train wreck.
I didn't mind the shared warp charge pool in 7th. It meant that if you needed a power to go off you could make sure that it would but at increased risk of perils. Unfortunately 8th doesn't have a general mechanic to boost your chance of casting and given the Psychic Focus rule it means that certain powers are so unlikely to cast that you might as well not try.
At least in 8th you can control which powers you have access to. That alone makes it so much better than what 7th did. And the whole point of the WC thing is it being risk-vs-reward. Either you go with the safer choice with a higher chance at success or you risk it failing, but if it goes off it's got much more impact.
93221
Post by: Lance845
JakeSiren wrote: Lance845 wrote:JakeSiren wrote:Wayniac wrote:7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.
Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.
I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.
Also 5 different resolution methods.
Random tables for almst everything in the damn game.
Book keeping to keep track of results on random tables.
Roll for your warlord trait
Roll for your psychic powers
The entire psychic phase being bull gak.
Assault armies being crap because the assault rules were crap.
7ths was a train wreck.
I didn't mind the shared warp charge pool in 7th. It meant that if you needed a power to go off you could make sure that it would but at increased risk of perils. Unfortunately 8th doesn't have a general mechanic to boost your chance of casting and given the Psychic Focus rule it means that certain powers are so unlikely to cast that you might as well not try.
Well you can feel however you feel. But an entire system that turned many units of psykers into batteries so only one model would cast powers is bad.
Psychic focus is also not great. But at leas each of my psykers is doing SOMETHING. Even if thats only smite.
106125
Post by: JakeSiren
Lance845 wrote:JakeSiren wrote:I didn't mind the shared warp charge pool in 7th. It meant that if you needed a power to go off you could make sure that it would but at increased risk of perils. Unfortunately 8th doesn't have a general mechanic to boost your chance of casting and given the Psychic Focus rule it means that certain powers are so unlikely to cast that you might as well not try.
Well you can feel however you feel. But an entire system that turned many units of psykers into batteries so only one model would cast powers is bad.
Psychic focus is also not great. But at leas each of my psykers is doing SOMETHING. Even if thats only smite.
I don't disagree, it was just an aspect of the 7th ed psychic phase that I liked however. If Psychic focus was on the successful cast that would allow me to increase my chances that a critical power goes off at the cost of being able to cast other powers.
Also, depending on how the FAQ goes this month you may no longer be reliably casting more than two smites.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Would you rather wait 2 years?
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
vaurapung wrote:So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
Come on man.You'd have posted this same thread whining if instead of Chapter Approved we were still in the 7th model of waiting multiple years for FAQs. You're not going to get perfectly written rules out of the gate so your only options are GW works to try to fix them or they ignore them. Chapter Approved was never going to fix the issues you have with 8th to begin with so what's the malfunction? Or is this just like most everything else where the attempt is to shift the blame to something else?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Lance845 wrote:
3 venom canons are shooting 3d3 shots with each successful hit/wound doing d3 damage. How many things do you think that is reliably killing?
Small point they do a flat 3 damage now. They're not the garbage they once were.
And small point number 2: 3 fire prisms using linked fire should annihilate a Carnifex with absolutely 0 difficulty.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I appreciate fixes in a timely manner. However, GW seems to have a series of problems when it comes to implementing them. Although it could be said that they just have those problems with making games in general, AoS and Newcromunda show that they know how to make good games (let's just not delve into Newcromunda's formatting problems or the campaign books...). Kneejerk reactions and incomplete fixes that act as bandaids that fail to actually address the core issues of the underlying systems, often leading to more problems in themselves.
I think a big part of the problem comes from GW having a real lack of vision for how their game is actually supposed to play.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
vaurapung wrote:So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
Professional game developer here folks. All bugs found by in-house testing prior to release.
Ship it!
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:vaurapung wrote:So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
Professional game developer here folks. All bugs found by in-house testing prior to release.
Ship it!
Bugs? If it compiles, then ship it!
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Truer words have never been spoken.
Also:
Works on my machine.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
It shoudn't be doing that.
100848
Post by: tneva82
TwinPoleTheory wrote:vaurapung wrote:So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
Professional game developer here folks. All bugs found by in-house testing prior to release.
Ship it!
There's difference with though finding all and finding most especially the obvious ones.
Seriously if players can accurately spot rule and balance issues within 5 minutes of first leaks how hard it can be for supposed professionals to do it in course of months? We aren't even talking about minor typo's but totally unplayable rules that as written don't even work. As it is you cannot even play the game without heavy house ruling. Automatically Appended Next Post: Wayniac wrote: TwinPoleTheory wrote:vaurapung wrote:So 8th is so good that they had to implement fixes to the rules within 4 months.
Sounds playtested to me.
Professional game developer here folks. All bugs found by in-house testing prior to release.
Ship it!
Bugs? If it compiles, then ship it!
Well 40k does not compile. You cannot play it without changing it.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Yeah how they missed that assault weapons can't fire according to RAW being my favourite example.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
hobojebus wrote:Yeah how they missed that assault weapons can't fire according to RAW being my favourite example.
It's an example, but it's also an example of: 1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them. 2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Wayniac wrote:1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them.
IOW, inexcusable incompetence. Part of good playtesting is giving the rules to a super-literal rules lawyer who has never seen them before and having them play a few games. If only people who "know" how the rules work are involved then that is a failure of basic playtesting standards.
2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
IOW, excuses for inexcusable incompetence. The rules should work correctly as-printed, intent should not matter. Don't make excuses for GW's failure to write functioning rules.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them.
IOW, inexcusable incompetence. Part of good playtesting is giving the rules to a super-literal rules lawyer who has never seen them before and having them play a few games. If only people who "know" how the rules work are involved then that is a failure of basic playtesting standards.
2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
IOW, excuses for inexcusable incompetence. The rules should work correctly as-printed, intent should not matter. Don't make excuses for GW's failure to write functioning rules.
Oh believe me I feel it's wrong, but that's how GW has done it and will always do it, and really it's not that terrible unless you are/play with people who look to abuse rules based on the precise wording. You sure like to get your jabs in at "Hahaha look at how incompetent they are! GW designers are morons!" whenever you can, don't you?
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Wayniac wrote: Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them.
IOW, inexcusable incompetence. Part of good playtesting is giving the rules to a super-literal rules lawyer who has never seen them before and having them play a few games. If only people who "know" how the rules work are involved then that is a failure of basic playtesting standards.
2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
IOW, excuses for inexcusable incompetence. The rules should work correctly as-printed, intent should not matter. Don't make excuses for GW's failure to write functioning rules.
Oh believe me I feel it's wrong, but that's how GW has done it and will always do it, and really it's not that terrible unless you are/play with people who look to abuse rules based on the precise wording. You sure like to get your jabs in at "Hahaha look at how incompetent they are! GW designers are morons!" whenever you can, don't you?
It's almost like people have managed to play it just fine, even with all these "critical" failures of rules-lawyering in the text...
Though I do support the idea that rules should be tested and written more thoroughly before publishing, I cannot but find it utterly hilarious how extreme people here tend to be with their wailing. Like the thing with Assault weapons, come on, behave like grown-ups with obvious RAI questions.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them.
IOW, inexcusable incompetence. Part of good playtesting is giving the rules to a super-literal rules lawyer who has never seen them before and having them play a few games. If only people who "know" how the rules work are involved then that is a failure of basic playtesting standards.
2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
IOW, excuses for inexcusable incompetence. The rules should work correctly as-printed, intent should not matter. Don't make excuses for GW's failure to write functioning rules.
1) is literally one of the most common issues with testing anything. Yes, it's bad, but it's a REALLY common problem. "inexcusable incompetence" is a bit strong for something that happens almost everywhere.
2) isn't an "excuse", it's just how you should deal with it. Because that way you can easily make the rules work fine. Saying "ok, the game is broken, lets pack up" just because you managed to have two wounded models in the same unit just isn't a reasonable reaction.
Claiming the game is broken beyond salvation or the rules are utterly incomprehensible or that it's inexcusable to have any rule issues is just a tiny bit at odds with how well it actually plays on an actual table, with real people.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
tneva82 wrote:There's difference with though finding all and finding most especially the obvious ones.
Seriously if players can accurately spot rule and balance issues within 5 minutes of first leaks how hard it can be for supposed professionals to do it in course of months? We aren't even talking about minor typo's but totally unplayable rules that as written don't even work. As it is you cannot even play the game without heavy house ruling.
Ahh, the Monday morning quarterback is here folks. I'm sure they had a ton of time which was spent enthusiastically shoving their thumbs up their asses. I mean, they only had to whip out rules for 20 different armies on the biggest rules re-write the game has had in a quarter century.
But you're right, I'm sure they had completely manageable deadlines and just decided to blow it.
tneva82 wrote:Well 40k does not compile. You cannot play it without changing it.
Strange, my group was playing from the first weekend and we were able to play multiple games with no confusion. Which part of the rules was really causing problems for you? Assault weapons? Did that grind your game to a halt all by itself?
94850
Post by: nekooni
tneva82 wrote:Well 40k does not compile. You cannot play it without changing it.
Wait - are you saying that any software that compiles is bug-free? Can I get that in print for my customers?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
So what am I missing about assault weapons that makes them "unplayable"?
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Wayniac wrote:hobojebus wrote:Yeah how they missed that assault weapons can't fire according to RAW being my favourite example.
It's an example, but it's also an example of:
1) GW playing very lax, so they likely never actually read the specific sentence because they "knew" how it worked, and knew how it was supposed to work, so seeing that if you carefully read it you could point out that it doesn't work never even occurred to them.
2) The idea that you SHOULD be applying intent, and not "as written" to the rules.
My telepathy only reaches fifty miles Nottingham is out of range and as a transcendent being I don't have the same neural pathways as you primates so I can only take things as written
93221
Post by: Lance845
 EnTyme wrote:So what am I missing about assault weapons that makes them "unplayable"?
It's the order of operations for shooting.
step 1, you select a UNIT to shoot.
But if you advance, you are not allowed to select that UNIT to shoot in the shooting phase.
The assault weapon rules say the MODEL may fire it's weapon even if you advanced. But nothing ever actually gives you permission to select the UNIT at step 1.
The same thing for pistols and being within 1" of an enemy unit. RAW, you can't use those guns when you "normally" could because your incapable of reaching the step where you select which weapon you want to fire.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
Wow. Starting to remember why I stopped reading YMDC.
93221
Post by: Lance845
EnTyme wrote:Wow. Starting to remember why I stopped reading YMDC.
Sure, but it's STILL true that GW wrote 8 pages of core rules and managed to let slip that their core rules don't even actually work. Some argue that to some degree people should stop nit picking. On the other hand while assault and pistol rules are obvious oversights YMDC is full of things that are significantly less clear.
I've never played any other game that required more pages of rules errata than rules to actually play it because the rules writers were so bad at their jobs. Rules writing should be clear and concise and have 1 definitive meaning. There is just no argument in GWs favor for their gak storm writing.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
*edit* Redacted. *edit*
Trying to be above making comments like that.
77728
Post by: dosiere
In fairness, everyone knows GW write their rules like they write fluff. They don’t do technical writing well, or at all. Look at the mess the simple keyword system can be. Their rules are messy, wordy, and sometimes ill-conceived from the start. They love adding layer upon layer to the rules to make them complicated. It’s unfortunate from time to time but if you’re going to play a GW game it’s just how it is.
The case for assault weapons, while funny, is such a clear case of Nonsensical RAW interpretation trumping an obvious RAI one though it’s not even worth mentioning IMO. Yeah, you can lawyer it up, but was ANYONE IRL actually arguing with an opponent that assault weapons didn’t work and could never fire? No, I don’t think so.
93221
Post by: Lance845
dosiere wrote:In fairness, everyone knows GW write their rules like they write fluff. They don’t do technical writing well, or at all. Look at the mess the simple keyword system can be. Their rules are messy, wordy, and sometimes ill-conceived from the start. They love adding layer upon layer to the rules to make them complicated. It’s unfortunate from time to time but if you’re going to play a GW game it’s just how it is.
The case for assault weapons, while funny, is such a clear case of Nonsensical RAW interpretation trumping an obvious RAI one though it’s not even worth mentioning IMO. Yeah, you can lawyer it up, but was ANYONE IRL actually arguing with an opponent that assault weapons didn’t work and could never fire? No, I don’t think so.
No, of course not. Ive never met anyone who would argue that the raw is what should be played. Same with pyrovores blowing up the whole table in 6th and 7th ed. But again, just because the rai is clear in THOSE cases it doesnt do anything to help out all the significantly more numerous instances where the rai is less clear. Its just indicative of, and a good obvious example to point at when discussing, how unclear and poorly written the rules tend to be.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Being someone who gets relied upon by his club to introduce a lot of new players to the game, I definitely notice the cost of GW's shoddy writing.
If you've been around the block for a few years and some, it's not so bad. You can piece together the gaps and are used to enough rules lawyering that working through the bulk of it is not going to break down most games. But you get some new players who are trying to learn the systems, especially younger ones or those with reading/learning issues (something that tends to be fairly common in wargaming circles, in my experience), and things will grind. And that comes with a real cost. Those new players have less satisfying games for it, and people don't like playing against the new blood because of the constant stumbling.
It's not healthy for the game or the community, and GW should be held to a higher standard.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Fafnir wrote:Being someone who gets relied upon by his club to introduce a lot of new players to the game, I definitely notice the cost of GW's shoddy writing.
If you've been around the block for a few years and some, it's not so bad. You can piece together the gaps and are used to enough rules lawyering that working through the bulk of it is not going to break down most games. But you get some new players who are trying to learn the systems, especially younger ones or those with reading/learning issues (something that tends to be fairly common in wargaming circles, in my experience), and things will grind. And that comes with a real cost. Those new players have less satisfying games for it, and people don't like playing against the new blood because of the constant stumbling.
It's not healthy for the game or the community, and GW should be held to a higher standard.
I've literally never had this problem introducing someone to the game.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I have.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I'm dealing with several players right now who end up alienated from the group without some real prodding from the store managers and myself. Making sure they get games in when they're getting hung up on rules and confused about certain effects that should be laid out more clearly can end up just as frustrating for their opponents as it is for themselves.
And then you introduce poorly designed update/expansion content like Chapter Approved to players who already have these problems, and it's painful to watch.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was wholly self-contained like the General's Handbook, but just try watching a kid who already has difficulties with the numbers having to deal with sourcing his values for one army from three different books is painful for everyone involved.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Fafnir wrote:I'm dealing with several players right now who end up alienated from the group without some real prodding from the store managers and myself. Making sure they get games in when they're getting hung up on rules and confused about certain effects that should be laid out more clearly can end up just as frustrating for their opponents as it is for themselves.
And then you introduce poorly designed update/expansion content like Chapter Approved to players who already have these problems, and it's painful to watch.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was wholly self-contained like the General's Handbook, but just try watching a kid who already has difficulties with the numbers having to deal with sourcing his values for one army from three different books is painful for everyone involved.
Why don't you just play power level then since CA didn't change that? Why force a more complicated system when a simpler one is in place? Is your group so heartless that it won't budge on using points to help ease people into the game?
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Because changing to an entirely separate system is not going to help players who are already struggling with the uptake. Especially when it means alienating those players into a further separate group, and essentially excluding them from any events the club would end up running.
77511
Post by: vaurapung
I agree with the above. Multiple rules that can change just creates group self segregation where people cant play together. If there was just one set of rules to use learning the game would be much simpler.
Ive learned how to play matched play no matter the issues i have with it but now i cant play open and narritive because they are too different and no one else plays by those rules.
In 7th you could play any game type you wished and the rules were always the same.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
The problem started to bleed in at its worst (never to be corrected) when GW began to use a separation of 'narrative' (or whatever the hell they meant by that) and gameplay as an excuse to make shoddy rules.
Truth of the matter is that if you create systems that encourage fair, creative play, games will forge their own narratives organically. And they're all the more exciting because they're not forced onto or by the players.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
On the rules subject, one thing I never got is why people give GW a pass. Any other company is expected to put out a quality product, but with GW it's always handwaved away and ignored. I even saw one person argue on a facebook group that GW should not be expected to have their books proofread because "they are not a publishing company".
Warhammer is one of, if not the most expensive, miniature games on the market. GW is also one of, if not the largest, company in that market. So why is the "market leader" allowed to put out poorly-written, poorly-proofread, typo-laden products and charge a premium for them, while other much smaller company manage to write both good rules and make sure they are edited properly? Even if we excuse the rules with Warhammer being intended as a low-key and laid back game, nothing excuses the number of typos and just shoddy editing that GW gets away with.
Obviously, people must not really care about well-written rules, because they are okay with GW not providing that.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Wayniac wrote:On the rules subject, one thing I never got is why people give GW a pass. Any other company is expected to put out a quality product, but with GW it's always handwaved away and ignored. I even saw one person argue on a facebook group that GW should not be expected to have their books proofread because "they are not a publishing company".
Warhammer is one of, if not the most expensive, miniature games on the market. GW is also one of, if not the largest, company in that market. So why is the "market leader" allowed to put out poorly-written, poorly-proofread, typo-laden products and charge a premium for them, while other much smaller company manage to write both good rules and make sure they are edited properly? Even if we excuse the rules with Warhammer being intended as a low-key and laid back game, nothing excuses the number of typos and just shoddy editing that GW gets away with.
Obviously, people must not really care about well-written rules, because they are okay with GW not providing that.
Why do people keep paying €60 for Call Of Duty or Assassin's Creed? Why do people keep paying €15 to see Marvel or Transformers movies?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Because those are actually good. Not masterpieces, but they have pretty solid heroes, okay villains, good action, good comedy... They're good movies.
110703
Post by: Galas
The feth, in what country do movies cost 15€?
Here is 6/7€, 3€ the day of the spectator! (Normally wednesday or thursday)
And for me warhammer40k (At least right now, I stoped playing in 7th) is the equivalent in tabletop wargaming of Marvel Movies. They are cinematic, cool to see on the table, good enough. They work, you have a fun time with your friends. But is nothing revolutionary.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
40k is not cinematic. Properly 'cinematic' engagements are all about building up tension. You take your time inching towards the edge, feeling each other out and establishing the stakes before coming together in a decisive climax.
But that's not 40k, not in its current state. It's all explosions, all the time.
To be properly cinematic, 40k needs to be designed around a good nuetral game. The time in between each grand charge or barrage where you position yourself and try to read your opponent's intent, and counter appropriately while they try to do the same (and then in return, try to counter that counter). That's where the real meat of the game should happen. The explosions are only a good payoff if tension is built behind them.
108848
Post by: Blackie
 JNAProductions wrote:
Because those are actually good. Not masterpieces, but they have pretty solid heroes, okay villains, good action, good comedy... They're good movies.
Your opinion. I prefer 7th edition of 40k to superheroes movies
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
JNAProductions wrote:
Because those are actually good. Not masterpieces, but they have pretty solid heroes, okay villains, good action, good comedy... They're good movies.
When did I say they were bad? I said they were lazy amd mass produced.
118083
Post by: Wibe
 Galas wrote:The feth, in what country do movies cost 15€?
Here is 6/7€, 3€ the day of the spectator! (Normally wednesday or thursday)
And for me warhammer40k (At least right now, I stoped playing in 7th) is the equivalent in tabletop wargaming of Marvel Movies. They are cinematic, cool to see on the table, good enough. They work, you have a fun time with your friends. But is nothing revolutionary.
In Norway, a 3d movie after 1800 is €17 (2d €13.71)
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Fafnir wrote:40k is not cinematic. Properly 'cinematic' engagements are all about building up tension. You take your time inching towards the edge, feeling each other out and establishing the stakes before coming together in a decisive climax.
But that's not 40k, not in its current state. It's all explosions, all the time.
So a Michael Bay movie
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
JNAProductions wrote:
Because those are actually good. Not masterpieces, but they have pretty solid heroes, okay villains, good action, good comedy... They're good movies.
Yep great fun movies - well ploted, good characters and great action. Now if you were talking about what they recently excreated onto the screen and called a Star Wars movie - then you might have a point.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Galas wrote:The feth, in what country do movies cost 15€?
Here is 6/7€, 3€ the day of the spectator! (Normally wednesday or thursday)
And for me warhammer40k (At least right now, I stoped playing in 7th) is the equivalent in tabletop wargaming of Marvel Movies. They are cinematic, cool to see on the table, good enough. They work, you have a fun time with your friends. But is nothing revolutionary.
The movie itself is 9-10 euros here, and if you then add drinks and popcorn youre almost up to 20 euros.
91655
Post by: mokoshkana
Fafnir wrote:40k is not cinematic. Properly 'cinematic' engagements are all about building up tension. You take your time inching towards the edge, feeling each other out and establishing the stakes before coming together in a decisive climax.
But that's not 40k, not in its current state. It's all explosions, all the time.
To be properly cinematic, 40k needs to be designed around a good nuetral game. The time in between each grand charge or barrage where you position yourself and try to read your opponent's intent, and counter appropriately while they try to do the same (and then in return, try to counter that counter). That's where the real meat of the game should happen. The explosions are only a good payoff if tension is built behind them.
Yeah, well...you know that's just like, uh...your opinion man...
To me it is one's opponent(s) that can make the game cinematic (or not). An opponent who enjoys "forging the narrative" can make the cinematic play as opposed to the guy who only play's to win. I played a game in which I fielded Mortarion and my friend fielded Magnus. He moved Magnus into the middle, calling out Mortarion on the way, so I charged into combat and gave him the narrative battle he craved as opposed to positioning all of my units to shoot down Magnus. In the end, Magnus was left with one wound when he slew Mortarion, but ol' Morty exploded, sending pus everywhere, which in turn brought down Magnus. I found it quite cinematic then, and I still do now.
108848
Post by: Blackie
nekooni wrote: Galas wrote:The feth, in what country do movies cost 15€?
Here is 6/7€, 3€ the day of the spectator! (Normally wednesday or thursday)
And for me warhammer40k (At least right now, I stoped playing in 7th) is the equivalent in tabletop wargaming of Marvel Movies. They are cinematic, cool to see on the table, good enough. They work, you have a fun time with your friends. But is nothing revolutionary.
The movie itself is 9-10 euros here, and if you then add drinks and popcorn youre almost up to 20 euros.
Here is about 5-6 euros if you pre-pay for 10 shows to watch within 6 months, which is usually a long enough term, less than one movie per month if you share the card with someone else, like a girlfriend or just a friend. It's also 5-6 every wednesday with no restrictions.
Some people buy snacks and drinks even for 40k games.
|
|
