Its been over two weeks now if im correct, and we have not seen a thing for those two supps in the FAQ section.Im not speaking in terms of "they need to be nerfed", its just a geniune oddity that nothing at all has came up. Even the clearest and most well founded books have had at least a couple clarifications. I really doubt either book is perfect.
chimeara wrote: Speaking to one of the play testers today about the IH issues. While he's bound by contract not to disclose specifics of things. He did say there was a MASSIVE error in communication in regards to the IH book. Which is part of why the FAQ is late.
I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
Tyranid Horde wrote: I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
These are the same people who thought 3 moral immune conscripts etc etc were fine, most of them are narative players first and foremost they wouldn't spot OP even if it slapped everyone else in the face.
GW is just roleplaying as the Imperium. Everything is barely on time or delayed without reason, things that need more resources don't get them, things that don't need more resources get flooded with more, Xenos are just a waste of resources that could be better spent on the Imperium, Chaos is just a bunch of heretics using outdated equipment who should've never left the far superior Imperium, and Grey Knights don't exist so stop asking about them. Joking aside, I suspect that GW was surprised by how competitive and meta warping the supplements are and as a result the FAQs were delayed to include some balance changes.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
Their own playtesters are incompetent when it comes to actually testing, that much has been obvious throughout the decades.
And either their external testers are little better or, more likely, they are not listened to enough.
Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
Their own playtesters are incompetent when it comes to actually testing, that much has been obvious throughout the decades.
And either their external testers are little better or, more likely, they are not listened to enough.
Kanluwen wrote:Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
You must be new here. GW didn't even realize you COULD playtest games until like 2016.
vaklor4 wrote: No, because that'd be a bald faced lie, or alternatively proof that GWs play testing is using narrative missions played by 12 year olds.
It not working how YOU intend =/= not working how GW intends.
I have a feeling that there is small chance that GW doesn't know what the goal of testing something suppose to be. Or they use the video games understanding of the worde, were companies put out games 6 or 12 months too soon, and expect that the stuff will somehow work itself out.
That's a little silly, because its not like only they will have access to the codex.
But is is a leg up to know that GW is thinking about something like doctrins. Or a new edition of WFB not being WFB, but AoS.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I honestly can't imagine GW saying "yeah sure" and printing those rules themselves. Wouldn't they have their own play testers as well as the external ones?
You must be new here. GW didn't even realize you COULD playtest games until like 2016.
Kanluwen wrote: Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
That's stupid. I'm sorry but that's really stupid. First of all, ITC doesn't change all that much and what it does change is designed to tone down GW's ridiculous crap, not exacerbate it. (Plus the Michigan GT uses pretty much straight from the book rules and the ironhands guy there dominated everyone. If it wasn't for his gak paint score he would have taken first by a massive margin.)
Second of all, tournament players are just as likely to stick with an army they're comfortable with for an entire edition as they are to chase the dragon, and most of the time they'll win either way.
Third of all, the vast majority of players are terrible and good tournament players would only really need help beating other good tournament players. And other good tournament players would be just as able to take advantage of the rules.
This seems like a pretty typical conspiracy theory from someone who doesn't understand what being good at the game is actually like.
It's clear to me that IH are an example of playtesting gone wrong.
I don't assume malice when incompetence is enough, so I guess that the ones writing the final version of the rules misunderstood completely the playtesters' insight.
I only hope that they are taking their time to address this in a serious way rather than applying a band-aid temporary fix or kicking the can down the road.
It's sincerely unthinkable that the current version of IH rules could go unmodified until the spring 2020 big faq. That's six months from now.
vaklor4 wrote: No, because that'd be a bald faced lie, or alternatively proof that GWs play testing is using narrative missions played by 12 year olds.
It not working how YOU intend =/= not working how GW intends.
Working how GW intends =/= ACTUALLY working either.
Were the armies played in tournaments under ITC rules and those played in euro tournaments not under ITC rules different to a large degree, with only eldar flyer lists being the thing in common between both tournament types? A lot of people playing in UK seem to have claimed that, over the last 1-2 years or so.
Where is the FAQ? It's sitting on an Editor's desk at GWHQ in Nottingham, right next to the empty bottle of scotch and the passed out editor who can't believe the IH were released like that in the first place.
Karol wrote: I have a feeling that there is small chance that GW doesn't know what the goal of testing something suppose to be. Or they use the video games understanding of the worde, were companies put out games 6 or 12 months too soon, and expect that the stuff will somehow work itself out.
We know from interviews and such that in the past most of GW's testing was grabbing a bunch of units and throwing them on the table for a fun game.
They didn't (and I imagine still don't) actually try to break things while testing and it shows.
Tamwulf wrote: Where is the FAQ? It's sitting on an Editor's desk at GWHQ in Nottingham, right next to the empty bottle of scotch and the passed out editor who can't believe the IH were released like that in the first place.
Kanluwen wrote: Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
There's some clear evidence that their playtesters are either braindead or completely incompetent. Look at the infinite exploding 6s ruling that somehow made it through. Look at the Tau Tigershark AX-1 that had a macro weapon on a non-titanic model that has a minimum move speed with the page number for where you can find the macro rules that explain how that model is literally NEVER able to fire that gun. There are some problems that are functionally broken without interacting with any other rules outside of their own and a playtester following the RAW would find the problems immediately. Not a single playtester checked to see if it had the Titanic keyword? Not a single playtester applied the FAQ to the Imperial Fist Bolter Drill RAW?
This is completely different from "Castellans don't need a point increase" and going "just kidding 100 pt increase" a few months later. Balance is subjective and is effected by tons of outside variables like ITC rules, ETC rules, and player skill. They mess up basic functional things and that's a playtesting issue at its core unless they stopped asking "does it work?" before they ask "does it work as intended?"
A little insight into GW's playtesting from their Facebook page:
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
DominayTrix wrote: They mess up basic functional things and that's a playtesting issue at its core unless they stopped asking "does it work?" before they ask "does it work as intended?"
Maybe someone here knows something about this: are the play-testers just given the rules to play around with or do the 40k rules team also provide a designer's commentary explaining how the rules are "intended to work"? A lot of these problems seem to be caused by the intention of rules not being communicated properly through the way they're written. It seems likely (to me, anyway) that the play-testers could easily miss out an alternative ways of reading/interpreting rules if there's a design commentary influencing them to read those draft rules a certain way.
DominayTrix wrote: GW is just roleplaying as the Imperium. Everything is barely on time or delayed without reason, things that need more resources don't get them, things that don't need more resources get flooded with more, Xenos are just a waste of resources that could be better spent on the Imperium, Chaos is just a bunch of heretics using outdated equipment who should've never left the far superior Imperium, and Grey Knights don't exist so stop asking about them. Joking aside, I suspect that GW was surprised by how competitive and meta warping the supplements are and as a result the FAQs were delayed to include some balance changes.
You may well be joking, but that would explain a *lot*...
Wait, if there’s only 100-120 games played in the play test period at 40 games in a week, why is the playtest period only 2-3 weeks for core rules for a game that need to remain relatively unchanged for years due to printing costs? Most games get playtested way more than that. I really really hope (but sadly doubt) that’s only the external playtest period and they do much more internally first.
DominayTrix wrote: They mess up basic functional things and that's a playtesting issue at its core unless they stopped asking "does it work?" before they ask "does it work as intended?"
Maybe someone here knows something about this: are the play-testers just given the rules to play around with or do the 40k rules team also provide a designer's commentary explaining how the rules are "intended to work"? A lot of these problems seem to be caused by the intention of rules not being communicated properly through the way they're written. It seems likely (to me, anyway) that the play-testers could easily miss out an alternative ways of reading/interpreting rules if there's a design commentary influencing them to read those draft rules a certain way.
I could see that happening but in this case the rules causing the problem aren't vague. The super doctrine is the primary problem and there's no way to misinterpret things like "reroll 1s to hit" or "overwatch on 5s". I don't understand how anyone would even need play testing to understand that stacking all those special rules for free would be op.
Kanluwen wrote: Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
Do you have proof that Maelstrom or Eternal War is more balanced? I'm calling you out.
I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.
I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.
I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans
fraser1191 wrote: I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.
I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.
I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans
That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)
fraser1191 wrote: I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.
I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.
I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans
That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)
there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.
After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.
Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.
Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.
I personally prefer maelstrom games, and agree with you that they should not cater to non official rules. However from a business perspective if you look at all the whining and delicious tears its hard not to take financial gains into consideration. Need to keep people playing and buying for their business model to continue functioning.
fraser1191 wrote: I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.
I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.
I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans
That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)
there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.
But that's not a single failed hit/wound roll of 1. Rules that provide a single reroll exist, but outside of that forgeworld stratagem rules that provide a single reroll of a specific result don't exist to my knowledge.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
IH can be mobile and they did win a Maelstrom event. Go win some tournaments with your UM or get good with IH.
fraser1191 wrote: I dunno personally I felt like the "reroll a hit roll of 1 for heavy weapons" was intended to be A hit roll not all. But the problem is that GW already set a precedent by saying that a hit roll means all hit rolls.
I'm calling it now. It was supposed to be A hit roll but they messed it up because GW.
I thought that alone was way too powerful before any of the other shenanigans
That's definitely wrong. GW has been pretty specific about updating their terminology in this way. (Also, the only other ability in the game I know of that allows for a single reroll on a result of 1 is a niche Forge World stratagem, so it's unlikely that's what they were going for.)
there's also master Artisans that allows you to re-roll a single failed roll to hit and a single roll to wound.
But that's not a single failed hit/wound roll of 1. Rules that provide a single reroll exist, but outside of that forgeworld stratagem rules that provide a single reroll of a specific result don't exist to my knowledge.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Thats an easy question. GW should balance for their own ruleset. Not a fan made set they have no control over.
Ps. I heavily object to the notion you show that Maelstrom is not a competitive format.
You should check out the ETC missions.
ETC? You mean a fan made rule set that GW has no control over?
It proves that the IH re-rolls were never meant to be just one roll per unit per turn, it wasn't an editorial error, it was a game balance mistake.
Most likely, howver scourged also get 5+ overwatch.
I believe GW saw this and the lack off Scourged lists made them think that trait combination isn't good enough. (even though you can reroll any roll which is a lot more flexible)
However GW overlooked two htings imo, if that were the case: Mainly Scourged are renegades and therefore get no VotWL and Secondly they are mono mark Tzeentch. Meaning that cacophony is also not there.
So GW extrapulated and said that the trait itself is too weak and added to it.
Atleast that is what i see why this happened.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
IH can be mobile and they did win a Maelstrom event. Go win some tournaments with your UM or get good with IH.
lol, no need ultramarine's are winning events just fine on their own just take a look. Any army can be built in any way you like, will it be good though is the question. Highly mobile IH armies will have trouble staying within range of the ironstone, they are unlikely to have a chapter master making overwatch way less scary, leviathans the iron father and repulsors cant keep up with flyers. Just seems a highly mobile IH lists are forgoing a large amount of their "OP" components with the exception of the doctrine shenanigans. At that point I'd rather field any other SM faction to greater effect. But to each their own, you seem intent on being butt-hurt so enjoy.
It proves that the IH re-rolls were never meant to be just one roll per unit per turn, it wasn't an editorial error, it was a game balance mistake.
Most likely, howver scourged also get 5+ overwatch.
I believe GW saw this and the lack off Scourged lists made them think that trait combination isn't good enough. (even though you can reroll any roll which is a lot more flexible)
However GW overlooked two htings imo, if that were the case: Mainly Scourged are renegades and therefore get no VotWL and Secondly they are mono mark Tzeentch. Meaning that cacophony is also not there.
So GW extrapulated and said that the trait itself is too weak and added to it.
Atleast that is what i see why this happened.
I'm not saying that IH Chapter Tactic is the most insane thing ever, it's probably worse than successors currently and the only things keeping actual IH in the game is Feirros being severely undercosted. CSM don't get Combat Doctrines and don't get an extra Chapter Tactic while in a specific doctrine, that's the problem. GW could have tested and printed similar mono-faction rules for every faction (with a power level based on their current performance), instead SM are the only ones with this sort of ability and very few armies can keep up. Doctrines is what needs the most urgent nerf, I don't really care too much about the internal balance between SM chapters, because I don't believe they actually constitute different factions. If Dev Doctrine was once per game you could neuter their power by just staying out of LOS T1 and then you'd have a really good chance at beating IH. IH might still be the best chapter, but there is a best Craftworld, a best Dynasty and a best Sept, that wouldn't be anything new. IMO external balance between Marines and everything else is a bigger issue than IH, in particular, being OP. When Tau (a solid top half tier army with lots of top placings) has been absolutely removed from the meta it's clearly not balanced.
Aenar wrote: It's clear to me that IH are an example of playtesting gone wrong.
I don't assume malice when incompetence is enough, so I guess that the ones writing the final version of the rules misunderstood completely the playtesters' insight.
I only hope that they are taking their time to address this in a serious way rather than applying a band-aid temporary fix or kicking the can down the road.
It's sincerely unthinkable that the current version of IH rules could go unmodified until the spring 2020 big faq. That's six months from now.
Gotta jump in here to tell you how wrong you are
The very basic win/lose conditions are changed in ITC compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the 40k rules or chapter approved missions. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Questions, what is GW playing if something like the IH rules was not a problem during 120 games?
or did just no one played IH because there was no painted studio army available at that time?
Just like the community instantly freaked out about triple Executioner Ironstone castles with Feirros and it took a tournament win to solidify the true threat, GW likely found that an immobile nigh unkillable fortress isn't very capable of winning CA missions.
Karol wrote: I have a feeling that there is small chance that GW doesn't know what the goal of testing something suppose to be. Or they use the video games understanding of the worde, were companies put out games 6 or 12 months too soon, and expect that the stuff will somehow work itself out.
We know from interviews and such that in the past most of GW's testing was grabbing a bunch of units and throwing them on the table for a fun game.
They didn't (and I imagine still don't) actually try to break things while testing and it shows.
Which is not even good for a Narrative game, Its just lazy for a company of GWs size.
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Ummm IH's move and shoot without worry and one of their big things is the flyers. What UM has over IH then? Not mobility at least.
Aenar wrote: It's clear to me that IH are an example of playtesting gone wrong.
I don't assume malice when incompetence is enough, so I guess that the ones writing the final version of the rules misunderstood completely the playtesters' insight.
I only hope that they are taking their time to address this in a serious way rather than applying a band-aid temporary fix or kicking the can down the road.
It's sincerely unthinkable that the current version of IH rules could go unmodified until the spring 2020 big faq. That's six months from now.
Gotta jump in here to tell you how wrong you are
The very basic win/lose conditions are changed in ITC compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the 40k rules or chapter approved missions. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Questions, what is GW playing if something like the IH rules was not a problem during 120 games?
or did just no one played IH because there was no painted studio army available at that time?
Just like the community instantly freaked out about triple Executioner Ironstone castles with Feirros and it took a tournament win to solidify the true threat, GW likely found that an immobile nigh unkillable fortress isn't very capable of winning CA missions.
IH are stupidly OP in every mission, are you all playtesters that are trying to keep your jobs? You've been proven wrong by IH win at a Maelstrom event. It's funny that you say that since IH successors are pretty damn mobile and mobile IH had better performance than gunline IH in ITC, maybe you just don't know anything about the ITC meta?
Siege19 wrote: After testing both IH and UM I've found that UMs are far stronger for maelstrom, while iron hands are stronger in an ITC setting. IH castles just aren't very flexible and in a format where objectives change every turn tactically flexible armies have the advantage. This is important since it seems to me that testing is done for maelstrom not the various competitive formats. I could see how this part alone would let the IH supplement get through testing as is. Not saying maelstrom is balanced or better also not saying IH isn't to strong in competitive formats. This could be slowing down FAQs since its a difficult problem to work through, "what do we (GW) balance for, the game as intended (maelstrom) or competitive formats (non GW rule sets)?". Just something to consider when asking why the FAQs are slow coming out, there is more to the problem than initially meets the eye.
Ummm IH's move and shoot without worry and one of their big things is the flyers. What UM has over IH then? Not mobility at least.
Yes mobility. in the tactical doctrine (which ultramarines will basicly live in) Ultramarines treat all units as if they had been stationary. so not only do their tanks not suffer the -1 to hit for having moved, but an executioner tank may fire twice even if it's moved full speed. Aggressors are always firing twice, and Marines can move and double tap their bolters.
this is straight up better then "ignores the -1 to move"
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
As someone else mentioned, playtesting is absolutely pointless if a unit is clearly broken on paper or points costs are totally out of whack. No amount of tabletop time can fix those core issues.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
It's lazy effort when being play testers is part of their job, do some over time to grind out them games. Hire more play testers with all the super expensive new kit money they are pulling in. If they want to say they put out a quality top tier product they should actually put out that level of effort in all the quality. Not say how they give an ok effort to try and kind of half heart it so it's ok. Their prices aren't ok prices.
I suggest they use some of that money they save by not having an editor to hire more play testers who actually want to work hard at it.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
It's lazy effort when being play testers is part of their job, do some over time to grind out them games. Hire more play testers with all the super expensive new kit money they are pulling in. If they want to say they put out a quality top tier product they should actually put out that level of effort in all the quality. Not say how they give an ok effort to try and kind of half heart it so it's ok. Their prices aren't ok prices.
I suggest they use some of that money they save by not having an editor to hire more play testers who actually want to work hard at it.
Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems.
Imagine you have to play 1 game of sigmar narrative 1 game open play and 1 game of matched, then a meeting engagements game. Oh then do the same with 40k, an open, a narrative and then a matched play with an army, then an apoc game, then a kill team game. Then do that for all armies, on a 37.5 hour week.
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
There's at least one other explanation - they didn't listen to their playtesters. There's probably more, too, but I don't want to get in the way of a good hyperbolic vent.
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
There's at least one other explanation - they didn't listen to their playtesters. There's probably more, too, but I don't want to get in the way of a good hyperbolic vent.
Why would they spend money on playtesters to subsequently not listen to their playtesters? That is a waste of money, and if there is one thing I absolutely cannot see GW doing (or any company for that matter) is throwing away money for no reason.
I think we can safely discount the possibility of GW just "not listening" to their playtesters. Although I will admit to the possibility of there being a miscommunication between playtesters and GW, which sounds much more plausible.
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
There's at least one other explanation - they didn't listen to their playtesters. There's probably more, too, but I don't want to get in the way of a good hyperbolic vent.
Why would they spend money on playtesters to subsequently not listen to their playtesters? That is a waste of money, and if there is one thing I absolutely cannot see GW doing is throwing away money for no reason.
The problem is that if the internal testers only got chance to play with a small number of games with a small variety of units as is likely the case with their sample size, but find an issue and raise it but then a miscommunication comes in from the external playtesters to the contrary (i.e. the tourney scene), who do they listen to?
Obviously something went wrong and there isn't enough testing done, but we don't know enough of their processes to criticise someones work.
Dudeface wrote: The problem is that if the internal testers only got chance to play with a small number of games with a small variety of units as is likely the case with their sample size, but find an issue and raise it but then a miscommunication comes in from the external playtesters to the contrary (i.e. the tourney scene), who do they listen to?
Obviously something went wrong and there isn't enough testing done, but we don't know enough of their processes to criticise someones work.
If external testers and internal testers give conflicting information, you sit them (representatives) down and have a meeting to discuss the conflicts and get them resolved. That is like a couple hours tops, how is this rocket science to people?
I don't need to be a chef to know when food tastes like gak.
Dudeface wrote: The problem is that if the internal testers only got chance to play with a small number of games with a small variety of units as is likely the case with their sample size, but find an issue and raise it but then a miscommunication comes in from the external playtesters to the contrary (i.e. the tourney scene), who do they listen to?
Obviously something went wrong and there isn't enough testing done, but we don't know enough of their processes to criticise someones work.
If external testers and internal testers give conflicting information, you sit them (representatives) down and have a meeting to discuss the conflicts and get them resolved. That is like a couple hours tops, how is this rocket science to people?
I don't need to be a chef to know when food tastes like gak.
No but someone who co-ordinates the information from external play-testers likely present their findings on their behalf which may happen after the in house testers have finished their first pass. It might be the person they present it to preferred the external playtesters data/suggestions even if they were incorrect.
The point is it's incredibly easy for people to come on here and state how easy it is to run these departments and product cycles in multi-million international companies, but the truth is we don't know how they're currently operating and just blindly stomping feet and saying "work harder" when they're not contracted to the community isn't going to yield results.
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
But that can be said about almost every codex GW makes. If it comes out broken, as in not working within the rules of the edition and other armies, then testing was wrong. If the codex comes out and suddenly the best counter to it, is playing the same codex or unit and getting first turn, then the testing done was wrong too.
Maybe they just don't do testing at all. Or testing for GW is something drasticaly different. I mean it happens with a lot of things. A politician says he is all about lowering taxs, and in the end it somehow ends up as taxs going up for the bottom 90% of population. Maybe it is something like that. Or maybe army testing for GW means how well someone can paint a pre set number of models.
Dudeface wrote: The point is it's incredibly easy for people to come on here and state how easy it is to run these departments and product cycles in multi-million international companies, but the truth is we don't know how they're currently operating and just blindly stomping feet and saying "work harder" when they're not contracted to the community isn't going to yield results.
Nobody is saying that "its easy" to run a department at GW or that coordinating a project is simple. What we are saying is that paying customers have a certain expectation of quality, which GW have not met, and we don't need to be experts in the field to criticize a system that yields sub-par results. The fact that the system is yielding sub-par results is proof enough that there is something wrong.
Once again, I don't need to be a chef to know there is something wrong with my food when it tastes like gak.
Nobody cares about the particulars of what is going wrong, we just want it resolved so we get a quality product.
Dudeface wrote: The point is it's incredibly easy for people to come on here and state how easy it is to run these departments and product cycles in multi-million international companies, but the truth is we don't know how they're currently operating and just blindly stomping feet and saying "work harder" when they're not contracted to the community isn't going to yield results.
Nobody is saying that "its easy" to run a department at GW or that coordinating a project is simple. What we are saying is that paying customers have a certain expectation of quality, which GW have not met, and we don't need to be experts in the field to criticize a system that yields sub-par results. The fact that the system is yielding sub-par results is proof enough that there is something wrong.
Once again, I don't need to be a chef to know there is something wrong with my food when it tastes like gak.
Agreed, nobody can debate something that went wrong, but the post I replied to earlier whose answer was "they charge too much for kits, hire more and make them do overtime" isn't contributing to resolving the issue. Customers expect a degree of quality, which the kits meet imo irrespective of the rules. The rules need some work but we can't know or change how GW does testing.
People need to feed back to them about the problems with the rules so they know they need to alter procedures, not just vent on forums how GW doesn't know what they're doing.
Youdon't need to be a chef to know something tastes like gak, but you do need to provide them useful feedback and suggestions so they try a new recipe.
Dudeface wrote: Agreed, nobody can debate something that went wrong, but the post I replied to earlier whose answer was "they charge too much for kits, hire more and make them do overtime" isn't contributing to resolving the issue. Customers expect a degree of quality, which the kits meet imo irrespective of the rules. The rules need some work but we can't know or change how GW does testing.
Apologies, I was referring specifically to the quality of the rules.
Dudeface wrote: Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems...
The fact that the IH codex got through the playtesting in that state tells us that their playtesters are either not doing their jobs, or are laughably incompetent. There isn't another explanation beyond "we don't have playtesters".
There's at least one other explanation - they didn't listen to their playtesters. There's probably more, too, but I don't want to get in the way of a good hyperbolic vent.
Why would they spend money on playtesters to subsequently not listen to their playtesters? That is a waste of money, and if there is one thing I absolutely cannot see GW doing (or any company for that matter) is throwing away money for no reason.
I think we can safely discount the possibility of GW just "not listening" to their playtesters. Although I will admit to the possibility of there being a miscommunication between playtesters and GW, which sounds much more plausible.
It happens all the time in businesses all over the planet. It happened with one of the Dark Elf army books for WH when the playtesters clearly identified the problem but the guy in charge at the time apparently ignored them because it would "ruin his vision of the army" or something. Cue DE being one of the most overpowered armies in the game. I've had people outright ignore the results of testing I've done at work because they "don't believe it" even when presented with overwhelming data (with predicatable results).
I work, at least partially, in web design, and one of the techniques used in that field is user testing, which is basically playtesting but for websites and apps. There's a well-known relationship between the number of testers you have and the number of problems you find. More testers = more problems found, but there are diminishing returns and those returns diminish very quickly. Finding the big problems normally takes no more than 5-6 people testing your site/app and the same applies to pretty much anything. So many of the IH issues are so obvious there must have either been a huge miscommunication somewhere or GW simply didn't listen, or they lack the competence to fix them. Corporate politics or personal ego are two plausible reasons why feedback may not have been listened to. Maybe GW even acknowledged the problem but couldn't find a suitable fix before publication? That touches on the other issue of playtesting. It's not enough to test, you also have to iterate. It's pointless to identify a problem if you don't then work towards a solution.
I completely understand specific broken combos slipping through, especially if they involve FW units. But not noticing massive pile of bonuses that affect pretty much everything making the army OP is inexcusable and I really have hard time understanding how this could happen.
And the playtesters are really, really, REALLY incompetent if they don't catch quite a few issues before even playing. As it is players know what's broken before codex is even released...How on earth these playtesters can't do same?
tneva82 wrote: And the playtesters are really, really, REALLY incompetent if they don't catch quite a few issues before even playing. As it is players know what's broken before codex is even released...How on earth these playtesters can't do same?
I remember reading about how the problematic slings managed to slip past the Mordheim rules team. The game was based on WHFB, slings were terrible in WHFB, so it never even occurred to the play-testers that something like the grotesquely strong skaven sling wall would even be a thing, nevermind a problem. GW playtesting clearly needs to be more robust, but I think this is a really interesting and illustrative example of how something super strong can slip through because the play-testers simply never thought to use it the same way the community did.
I like that they bothered to answer whether Korvidari Bolts make a weapon count as a relic for the Marksman Honors warlord trait when the trait itself explicitly says that it works on relic weapons.
Why are you surprised ?? GW is all about selling their stuff. Nerfing SM, their cashcow, wasnt very likely to happen. It would have been good for balance, but it would sell less SM.
I like that they bothered to answer whether Korvidari Bolts make a weapon count as a relic for the Marksman Honors warlord trait when the trait itself explicitly says that it works on relic weapons.
The trait specifically states applies to ranged weapons but it does not work on grenades or relics. But the argument is that the weapon itself is not a relic, just the ammunition.
Crimson wrote: I completely understand specific broken combos slipping through, especially if they involve FW units. But not noticing massive pile of bonuses that affect pretty much everything making the army OP is inexcusable and I really have hard time understanding how this could happen.
I think we are taking for granted what the playtesters are actually given. Thinking about it, when the "no turn 1 deep strike" beta rule was first introduced there were a bunch of exceptions that were granted in a facebook pdf of all things that was "clarifying intent." Instead of fixing the text to match their intention, they just waved their hands, uttered a few magic words to make the problems go away, and "Don't worry the final version will be fixed." I don't think its too much of a leap to assume GW does this kind of stupidity for internal testing as well.
If the final version isn't being tested as a direct result of "testing for intention" it can effectively negate a lot of the playtesters feedback, leave extra room for basic errors, and outright eliminate precision for how abilities interact. "Testing for intent" would explain a lot of things like the Tiger Shark AX-1 being unable to fire its main gun on a technicality. This is a prime example why "Rules as Intended" is a cancer that needs to be eliminated as much as possible.
Crimson wrote: I completely understand specific broken combos slipping through, especially if they involve FW units. But not noticing massive pile of bonuses that affect pretty much everything making the army OP is inexcusable and I really have hard time understanding how this could happen.
still of the view that much like history consultants for telly or movies that the external playtesters are there for GW to 'prove' the are taking feedback, its ignoring the feedback for whatever reason thats the problem
I like that they bothered to answer whether Korvidari Bolts make a weapon count as a relic for the Marksman Honors warlord trait when the trait itself explicitly says that it works on relic weapons.
The trait specifically states applies to ranged weapons but it does not work on grenades or relics. But the argument is that the weapon itself is not a relic, just the ammunition.
Battlescribe must not be up to date:
Marksman's Honors The Damage characteristic of ranged weapons your warlord is armed with is increased by 1. In addition, you can re-roll failed to hi rolls and wound rolls for shooting attacks made by your warlord. This Warlord trait does not aply to Grenade weapons, but does apply to Chapter Relics.
Due to how relentlessly obnoxious I find the "BeCauSe Of ThE sAlEs" posts we should take a stroll down memory lane. Remember when the executioner went up in points? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Don't tell me they raised the cost...It's already overcosted...LOL
They just "fixed" it with this FAQ. As-in fixed it so that their sales get hurt so bad by it that the next Chapter Approved will drop the points for both Repulsor tanks (fingers crossed)
Though ofc real business smarts would be to lower the things point cost on your new 100$ dollar tank. LOL.
Oh, stupid for another reason, then. It needed a points drop, not increase.
<sarcasm>Or maybe GW are the only ones that realize just how OP Marines are right now!</sarcasm>
I think this is actually the point where I stop playing 40k competitively in any sense and just find people to play by the rules I want to play (which are rules that don't suck complete ass). Sheer incompetent rules team. ... I mean it's so effing baffling it is disgusting. I actually want to slap a person in the face for this. I spent 200$ and a ton of time getting 2 of these ready to play with even knowing they were going to underperform...then they nerf it? WOW.
We need to as a community stop sucking so hard. We need to stop buying their stuff if we want them to listen to us.
I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.
When people talk out both sides of their donkey-cave they just wind up looking stupid. That gak doesn't age well, guys.
Daedalus81 wrote: Due to how relentlessly obnoxious I find the "BeCauSe Of ThE sAlEs" posts we should take a stroll down memory lane. Remember when the executioner went up in points?
B-but they only did that because they knew Iron Hands were coming out!
yeah, I kind of a have my doubts in GW ability to imagine how actual lists are going to look like.
But who knows, maybe they did know it. But this means they knew IH would be really good, and kept the rules on purpose like that. It would kind a suck, if this was done, so people spend a ton of money pre christmas on high cost tank kits, only to have nerfed in the spring FAQ.
Much like videogame QA, playtesters may have reported the issues, whether or not development and managers chose to act on it, or see it as an issue, is an altogether different question.
I don't think anyone playtesting could have missed these issues. They're blindingly obvious on the most passive initial reading.
However, if GW wants to move marine product, pushing overpowered rules will do so, and GW writers are on record as having been told to do just that (such as with Wraithknights in 7E) by management in the past, this is probably no different.
Vaktathi wrote: Much like videogame QA, playtesters may have reported the issues, whether or not development and managers chose to act on it, or see it as an issue, is an altogether different question.
I don't think anyone playtesting could have missed these issues. They're blindingly obvious on the most passive initial reading.
However, if GW wants to move marine product, pushing overpowered rules will do so, and GW writers are on record as having been told to do just that (such as with Wraithknights in 7E) by management in the past, this is probably no different.
One solution to this would be for TOs to ban them, that'd limit the amount of sales GW gets and hurt them where they deserve it. It's no different from the phone companies that install updates to deliberately drain batteries after a new product comes out to push that new product. As a consumer you have to say no, that might include not buying IH and choosing not to attend tournaments that allow IH. If you don't play against SM the game is still just the same as it was before which wasn't ideal but it wasn't too bad either, so don't accept games against SM using their supplements and don't go to tournaments until IH (and SM as a whole) are fixed, so at least until CA19. It's been my belief since the Codex came out that 40k was going to be out of wack until July next year and probably December 2020. If you're going out and buying all the supplements, buying new models for SM etc. etc. you are approving of their decisions to sink balance and rewarding them for their bad behaviour. Humans, businesses and dogs, all the same, reward behaviour and they'll continue doing it, punish it and reprimand and it'll happen less.
Vaktathi wrote: Much like videogame QA, playtesters may have reported the issues, whether or not development and managers chose to act on it, or see it as an issue, is an altogether different question.
I don't think anyone playtesting could have missed these issues. They're blindingly obvious on the most passive initial reading.
However, if GW wants to move marine product, pushing overpowered rules will do so, and GW writers are on record as having been told to do just that (such as with Wraithknights in 7E) by management in the past, this is probably no different.
One solution to this would be for TOs to ban them, that'd limit the amount of sales GW gets and hurt them where they deserve it. It's no different from the phone companies that install updates to deliberately drain batteries after a new product comes out to push that new product. As a consumer you have to say no, that might include not buying IH and choosing not to attend tournaments that allow IH. If you don't play against SM the game is still just the same as it was before which wasn't ideal but it wasn't too bad either, so don't accept games against SM using their supplements and don't go to tournaments until IH (and SM as a whole) are fixed, so at least until CA19. It's been my belief since the Codex came out that 40k was going to be out of wack until July next year and probably December 2020. If you're going out and buying all the supplements, buying new models for SM etc. etc. you are approving of their decisions to sink balance and rewarding them for their bad behaviour. Humans, businesses and dogs, all the same, reward behaviour and they'll continue doing it, punish it and reprimand and it'll happen less.
Yeah, tell the folks who just sank $whatever into their army they can’t use it at all, and see how well that goes over.
However, overall with how GW has been meticulously wrecking the precarious balance they started with initial 8E, I’m ready to put the whole company behind me. They’ve had 8.5 editions to sort this mess out, I’m over them
Vaktathi wrote: Much like videogame QA, playtesters may have reported the issues, whether or not development and managers chose to act on it, or see it as an issue, is an altogether different question.
I don't think anyone playtesting could have missed these issues. They're blindingly obvious on the most passive initial reading.
However, if GW wants to move marine product, pushing overpowered rules will do so, and GW writers are on record as having been told to do just that (such as with Wraithknights in 7E) by management in the past, this is probably no different.
One solution to this would be for TOs to ban them, that'd limit the amount of sales GW gets and hurt them where they deserve it. It's no different from the phone companies that install updates to deliberately drain batteries after a new product comes out to push that new product. As a consumer you have to say no, that might include not buying IH and choosing not to attend tournaments that allow IH. If you don't play against SM the game is still just the same as it was before which wasn't ideal but it wasn't too bad either, so don't accept games against SM using their supplements and don't go to tournaments until IH (and SM as a whole) are fixed, so at least until CA19. It's been my belief since the Codex came out that 40k was going to be out of wack until July next year and probably December 2020. If you're going out and buying all the supplements, buying new models for SM etc. etc. you are approving of their decisions to sink balance and rewarding them for their bad behaviour. Humans, businesses and dogs, all the same, reward behaviour and they'll continue doing it, punish it and reprimand and it'll happen less.
Yeah, tell the folks who just sank $whatever into their army they can’t use it at all, and see how well that goes over.
However, overall with how GW has been meticulously wrecking the precarious balance they started with initial 8E, I’m ready to put the whole company behind me. They’ve had 8.5 editions to sort this mess out, I’m over them
Its kind of a bad scenario either way. Allow IH/SM into the tournament and the other factions might as well not show up. Ban IH/SM and you alienate the most popular faction which is probably where a significant chunk of the stores sales are from. Do you allow SM 2.0 and simply ban the supplements? What about Vigilus, do you ban all supplements that aren't a codex or index? It's a bad scenario either way. Fortunately, GW surprisingly has a semi-decent track record with addressing the biggest offenders in CA and if it requires an additional nerf after the fact to save the competitive scene they will do so. (Castellans ayy lmao)
Iron Father Invuln only works on Infantry now, CP increase on Souls of Iron and Optimal Repulsion, March of Ancients Once per Battle.
You forgot that now ironstone is 1 target within 6, cp increase to machine empathy and significant nerf to how much a single vehicle can be repaired.
Was just about to edit in Ironstone, went to check the original wording first as I couldn't remember if it was number of models affected or it being applied at start of round rather than when attacked that changed(it's both).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: No more double repair. Psychic Vect is 2 CP 4+ overwatch is 2 CP Psykers can't heal a healed vehicle Ironstone is one model IFF 5++ is Infantry only
Ironstone is one model chosen at the start of each Battle Round, which is an even bigger nerf than just being changed to one vehicle. You can basically just ignore the Ironstone'd vehicle as a target for that round in favor of everything else.
With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
This removes him from normal game consideration, he’s trash now, if they dropped him 20 points maybe he’d be worth it.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
This removes him from normal game consideration, he’s trash now, if they dropped him 20 points maybe he’d be worth it.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
There's no way he was properly priced with his original rules at 110 points. Now he fits in line with other named characters, and still at a decent price.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
This removes him from normal game consideration, he’s trash now, if they dropped him 20 points maybe he’d be worth it.
he still heals for a flat 3 and he can give an invuln to centurions/aggressors, he's perfectly fine at his pts cost. with the previous aura, he was wayy undercosted.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
This removes him from normal game consideration, he’s trash now, if they dropped him 20 points maybe he’d be worth it.
Not sure that you are aware how much other armies' characters are priced.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Effective at what? Why would you take him over a captain with chapter master strat? 5++ invuln on marine infantry isn’t exactly great. He’s effectively just a tech marine that can repair MAYBE an extra couple wounds and give BS2+ to one unit. Remember he himself only has a 5++ invuln and WS3+, so he isn’t exactly amazing in combat. I really can’t see using him for anything but the love of the model.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
This removes him from normal game consideration, he’s trash now, if they dropped him 20 points maybe he’d be worth it.
Azrael wants a small talk with you.
Yeah, lol. Calling Feirros useless even in normal play is just typical dakkadakka hysteria. Hes an absolute beast of a support character, that can even defend himself in meele.
You know how much I pay for a damm Cadre Fireblade and what he actually does?!
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Effective at what? Why would you take him over a captain with chapter master strat? 5++ invuln on marine infantry isn’t exactly great. He’s effectively just a tech marine that can repair MAYBE an extra couple wounds and give BS2+ to one unit. Remember he himself only has a 5++ invuln and WS3+, so he isn’t exactly amazing in combat. I really can’t see using him for anything but the love of the model.
He shoots better, buffs better, heals, and is better in meele than a captain with chapter master strat. And does not cost 3 CP.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Effective at what? Why would you take him over a captain with chapter master strat? 5++ invuln on marine infantry isn’t exactly great. He’s effectively just a tech marine that can repair MAYBE an extra couple wounds and give BS2+ to one unit. Remember he himself only has a 5++ invuln and WS3+, so he isn’t exactly amazing in combat. I really can’t see using him for anything but the love of the model.
He always heals a flat 3, and he can heal two vehicles.
giving BS 2+ to a vehicle is super strong, especially since they get free rerolls on their 1's
Giving an invuln to big infantry (aggressors / centurions) isnt nothing.
His gun and axe can actually kill stuff
hes super tanky compared to most non storm shield HQs because of his gravis armor.
Compare that to a tech-priest Dominus, which isnt a bad HQ already.
I just think that these repair + invuln nerfs are a little too much when done all at once. Feirros wasn’t the problem. It’s the doctrine + calculated fury that’s the problem.
The cp increase on strats was great and needed, though.
be careful with the flyer spam, I have a feeling this will be addressed in CA as a combat for Eldar armies too.
Overall, this is a great response from GW, even though we shouldn't have been here in first place. If people are crying because they bought a ton of models chasing the meta....well, you should damn well know better. If too good to be true, caveat emptor.
Hey, at least you got a solid 2 weeks run at being overly busted, right?
Saying Feirros is useless at 110 pts when Cawl costs 190 and a near-useless Dominus is 90 is beyond insane. 40k is dead to me for now, it's unplayable. Played a 2v2 game yesterday against UM and IF and they basically destroyed us both with just bolter Aggressors with Guilliman and IF bolter Centurions. Not even remotely fun to wait for their 600 dice rolls just to roll 300 saves and lose everything.
Kanluwen wrote: Their own playtesters aren't incompetent by any stretch of the imagination.
They just aren't playing with ITC or other common 'tournament'(read: house) rules...and frankly, I've been thinking for awhile that the external playtesters are using this as a way to get a leg up for tournaments.
There's some clear evidence that their playtesters are either braindead or completely incompetent. Look at the infinite exploding 6s ruling that somehow made it through. Look at the Tau Tigershark AX-1 that had a macro weapon on a non-titanic model that has a minimum move speed with the page number for where you can find the macro rules that explain how that model is literally NEVER able to fire that gun. There are some problems that are functionally broken without interacting with any other rules outside of their own and a playtester following the RAW would find the problems immediately. Not a single playtester checked to see if it had the Titanic keyword? Not a single playtester applied the FAQ to the Imperial Fist Bolter Drill RAW?
This is completely different from "Castellans don't need a point increase" and going "just kidding 100 pt increase" a few months later. Balance is subjective and is effected by tons of outside variables like ITC rules, ETC rules, and player skill. They mess up basic functional things and that's a playtesting issue at its core unless they stopped asking "does it work?" before they ask "does it work as intended?"
There was a tyranid monster in the imperial armor index that doubled your strength on an attack on 6 to wound.....Double strength on a 6 TO WOUND. lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: repulsors without inv, are going to be dead too fast IMO. Maybe flyers will do better, but still it is a big difference vs some armies.
Yes...Ironhands still have the option to take a deredeo dread though...Which is also better than everyone elses deredeo too. Realloy though - respulsors without a -1 damage aren't worth their cost.
The closest comparison would be a MABig Mek with a KFF, who is more expensive than Feirros and the Spess Mahreen is still better in every way barring only be being able to give the 5++ to infantry.
Besides, I chiefly remember a lot of people clamoring about how space marine infantry needs invulnerability saves to be good... and then saying invulnerability saves aren't good on space marines once Feirros was revealed...
Luke_Prowler wrote: The closest comparison would be a MABig Mek with a KFF, who is more expensive than Feirros and the Spess Mahreen is still better in every way barring only be being able to give the 5++ to infantry.
Besides, I chiefly remember a lot of people clamoring about how space marine infantry needs invulnerability saves to be good... and then saying invulnerability saves aren't good on space marines once Feirros was revealed...
Its nuts, right? He's the perfect guy to lead dead-hard primaris marines and dreadnoughts into melee.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Effective at what? Why would you take him over a captain with chapter master strat? 5++ invuln on marine infantry isn’t exactly great. He’s effectively just a tech marine that can repair MAYBE an extra couple wounds and give BS2+ to one unit. Remember he himself only has a 5++ invuln and WS3+, so he isn’t exactly amazing in combat. I really can’t see using him for anything but the love of the model.
Because taking a chapter master in an IH list is already a waste of points and cp. Most of the good units have 2+ rerolling already. His melee is decent with the relic axe but now that 's THREE CP you're spending on him (or you can throw away 40pts on a Thammer, not great either) and you'll do more damage over the course of a game with Feirros's shooting than the captain's melee most of the time(5-6 turns versus maybe 3) and Feirros can still melee pretty well.
If you're taking a captain over feirros you're doing it wrong. Now you might take a LIBRARIAN over feirros, but that's a different discussion.
Luke_Prowler wrote: The closest comparison would be a MABig Mek with a KFF, who is more expensive than Feirros and the Spess Mahreen is still better in every way barring only be being able to give the 5++ to infantry.
Besides, I chiefly remember a lot of people clamoring about how space marine infantry needs invulnerability saves to be good... and then saying invulnerability saves aren't good on space marines once Feirros was revealed...
I believe you get a 5++ aura for ors for like 70ish points. It is also OP but less of an issue because they dont also have a billion free rules like ironhands did.
I woke up, heard the news from my friend, felt sad, went back to sleep. I woke up, heard the news from my friend, and for a moment, I did not know whether I was dreaming or if I had gone utterly insane.
Quasistellar wrote: With ironstone and repair nerfs, I’m not really sure the invuln for vehicles really needed removed. This change effectively removes Feirros from tournament play consideration IMO.
He's only 110 points and is quite effective all around. He just won't be a deathball master.
Effective at what? Why would you take him over a captain with chapter master strat? 5++ invuln on marine infantry isn’t exactly great. He’s effectively just a tech marine that can repair MAYBE an extra couple wounds and give BS2+ to one unit. Remember he himself only has a 5++ invuln and WS3+, so he isn’t exactly amazing in combat. I really can’t see using him for anything but the love of the model.
Because taking a chapter master in an IH list is already a waste of points and cp. Most of the good units have 2+ rerolling already. His melee is decent with the relic axe but now that 's THREE CP you're spending on him (or you can throw away 40pts on a Thammer, not great either) and you'll do more damage over the course of a game with Feirros's shooting than the captain's melee most of the time(5-6 turns versus maybe 3) and Feirros can still melee pretty well.
If you're taking a captain over feirros you're doing it wrong. Now you might take a LIBRARIAN over feirros, but that's a different discussion.
No it's not...you overwatch on 5's rerolling. You are literally unchargeable. Plus with neg to hit modifiers are still quite popular and reroll ALL hits is big vs them. For like 78 points and 2 CP you can get all of that...It's not auto include like another marine army but it still offers a lot of benefits...not a waste.
Luke_Prowler wrote: The closest comparison would be a MABig Mek with a KFF, who is more expensive than Feirros and the Spess Mahreen is still better in every way barring only be being able to give the 5++ to infantry.
Besides, I chiefly remember a lot of people clamoring about how space marine infantry needs invulnerability saves to be good... and then saying invulnerability saves aren't good on space marines once Feirros was revealed...
Um, I think people were almost universally referring to vehicles, and NOT infantry.
5++ save on 3+ (2+ in cover) armor save infantry isn't all that amazing compared to how a 5++ affects orks. Don't get me wrong, it's not nothing, to be sure, but you're taking crazy pills if you think a save that only comes into play on -3 or more weapons is as good as a save that actually increases the base save of a model.
Anyway, I tire of arguing the point, as what's done is done. IDK why people construe what I'm saying as "iron hands didn't need nerfs". Oh wait yes I do, it's the internet and it's forums, lol!
Luke_Prowler wrote: The closest comparison would be a MABig Mek with a KFF, who is more expensive than Feirros and the Spess Mahreen is still better in every way barring only be being able to give the 5++ to infantry.
Besides, I chiefly remember a lot of people clamoring about how space marine infantry needs invulnerability saves to be good... and then saying invulnerability saves aren't good on space marines once Feirros was revealed...
Um, I think people were almost universally referring to vehicles, and NOT infantry.
5++ save on 3+ (2+ in cover) armor save infantry isn't all that amazing compared to how a 5++ affects orks. Don't get me wrong, it's not nothing, to be sure, but you're taking crazy pills if you think a save that only comes into play on -3 or more weapons is as good as a save that actually increases the base save of a model.
Anyway, I tire of arguing the point, as what's done is done. IDK why people construe what I'm saying as "iron hands didn't need nerfs". Oh wait yes I do, it's the internet and it's forums, lol!
You still get 2 Warpsmiths with an invulnerable combined and better equipment for less points.
I don't see the issue.
Necron overlord gives +1 to hit, advance and charge move(last one real handy for army with crappy h2h units...) for INFANTRY. No 5++ around, meagre h2h ability, no good shooting ability...Yey. Amazing character!
Necrons would kill for character like that. But yeah guess marine characters needs to be uber super mega good to not be worthless junk
Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
SeanDrake wrote: Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
Rofl
It's true, before the FAQ when I saw my opponent pull out his 3 IH repulsors death castle against my chaos marines, all I thought was "thank god we are playing maelstrom and not ITC"
SeanDrake wrote: Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
Rofl
It's true, before the FAQ when I saw my opponent pull out his 3 IH repulsors death castle against my chaos marines, all I thought was "thank god we are playing maelstrom and not ITC"
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but yeah. Maelstrom is way less good for Iron Hands than ITC. Iron Hands are still great no matter the game mode, but they're much better when the rules give you vast amounts of points for just sitting back and shooting.
(Seriously. In an ITC game, if you can sit on one solitary objective and spray bullets every turn, assuming you picked your secondaries properly and the game goes to turn 6, you can still get 30 out of 42 possible victory points with very little effort. For every turn left after you wipe the board, you get an extra two points. This ruleset massively favors any army that can maximize DPS and durability over map control, which is incidentally what Iron Hands excel at.)
I'll challenge you to play pre-nerf iron hands in maelstrom, because the BFS list would have zero problems running you over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDrake wrote: Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
Rofl
I love people who dont play that think they have informed opinions.
As someone who's played vs IH in 3 separate events, all of which were different. Maelstrom, ITC and pure house rules. It didn't matter what missions we were playing. Literally didn't matter one bit. I got railroaded all 3 times. I was playing my Chaos Knights.
Yeah, I can safely say ITC has nothing to do with their power. A buddy of mine brought a mid-tier IH army against my CSM and I just got pubstomped by turn 3, in an eternal war game.
Smirrors wrote: Ferrios becomes a very situational pick not an auto-include which is a great thing.
Even IH flyers which are good are not necessarily an auto include.
Which IMO is exactly what a special character should be - something you base your list and theme around as being situational for what you're trying to build around, not an auto-include
I wonder how many black primed vehicles are going up on ebay atm?
It is actually good to see Games Workshop receiving feedback players' community and come out with quick results.
It would have been unimaginable during the heyday of pre-White Dwarf Ynnari and pre-nerf Knight-Castellans.
I hope Games Workshop could produce similar results in the future whenever any faction, not just Iron Hands, performs far better than other factions competitively.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: It is actually good to see Games Workshop receiving feedback players' community and come out with quick results.
It would have been unimaginable during the heyday of pre-White Dwarf Ynnari and pre-nerf Knight-Castellans.
I hope Games Workshop could produce similar results in the future whenever any faction, not just Iron Hands, performs far better than other factions competitively.
I really hope this is a watershed moment for the hysterical types.
There has been an increase of toxic people needling at the game since the IH codex dropped - trying to gloat in their self-justifications of their age old hatred. A number of them don't even play the game. They just came to pick over what they thought was a rotting corpse.
Finally, we get to see that the community has power and GW is becoming responsive. Finally, lazy posts about GW not making enough money on the kits can die.
I'm not sure that follows. Showing the community has power and GW will 'be responsive' demonstrates that hysteria works and being reasonable doesn't.
If anything your 'watershed moment' is launching point for MORE hysteria.
It something I'd hate to see, but I don't see this as anything about gloating, 'age old hatred' or 'rotting corpses.' Just GW giving in to pressure. While the rules change was overall positive this time, there isn't any guarantee it will be next time.
Voss wrote: It something I'd hate to see, but I don't see this as anything about gloating, 'age old hatred' or 'rotting corpses.' Just GW giving in to pressure. While the rules change was overall positive this time, there isn't any guarantee it will be next time.
I simply hope players to show same degree of enthusiasm when balance problem rises above the surface in the future.
Be it Imperial Fists, Salamanders, Aeldari flyers and grotesques after Psychic Awakening, etc.
If not, then perhaps people were more concerned about Iron Hands being a momentary outlier rather than the whole state of the balance.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure that follows. Showing the community has power and GW will 'be responsive' demonstrates that hysteria works and being reasonable doesn't.
Agreed. Reasonable feedback is often ignored. Hysteria CAN'T be ignored, even when it is unwarranted.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure that follows. Showing the community has power and GW will 'be responsive' demonstrates that hysteria works and being reasonable doesn't.
Agreed. Reasonable feedback is often ignored. Hysteria CAN'T be ignored, even when it is unwarranted.
Hysteria is even easier to ignore. The only reason this got changed at all is because we had just a crap ton of actual evidence backing up the IH being OP as balls (As well as rumors stating that there was a miscommunication with the playtesters that had a lot of them on the horn to GW after the book dropped).
I think people forget that literally every change that's ever been made to the game has been met with hysteria(ESPECIALLY on dakka). There was a period of time where people were 100% sure that the Sisters of battle beta codex was going to be the end of all space marines because of blessed bolters, and look how that turned out. Pre-8th ed was entirely hysteria top to bottom and it didn't change anything until there was actual data to back things up.
Also, just as a side bar, being emphatic in your declarations isn't hysteria. The guy who went through all tournament statistics post IH launch and found out they had a 78% win rate was pretty emphatic about them being OP, but that wasn't hysteria at all.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure that follows. Showing the community has power and GW will 'be responsive' demonstrates that hysteria works and being reasonable doesn't.
Agreed. Reasonable feedback is often ignored. Hysteria CAN'T be ignored, even when it is unwarranted.
Hysteria is even easier to ignore. The only reason this got changed at all is because we had just a crap ton of actual evidence backing up the IH being OP as balls (As well as rumors stating that there was a miscommunication with the playtesters that had a lot of them on the horn to GW after the book dropped).
I think people forget that literally every change that's ever been made to the game has been met with hysteria(ESPECIALLY on dakka). There was a period of time where people were 100% sure that the Sisters of battle beta codex was going to be the end of all space marines because of blessed bolters, and look how that turned out. Pre-8th ed was entirely hysteria top to bottom and it didn't change anything until there was actual data to back things up.
Also, just as a side bar, being emphatic in your declarations isn't hysteria. The guy who went through all tournament statistics post IH launch and found out they had a 78% win rate was pretty emphatic about them being OP, but that wasn't hysteria at all.
Being rational is not hysteria. I was certain they were OP as well.
There's a difference between people being upset and letting GW know and posts like I listed on page 4.
It's also not the first time GW reacted on feedback in 8th. We got Emperor's Children and World Eater Cult troops because of that for example, which were also very good changes. And that was quite at the start of the edition. People acting like this is something new have a very short memory.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
It's lazy effort when being play testers is part of their job, do some over time to grind out them games. Hire more play testers with all the super expensive new kit money they are pulling in. If they want to say they put out a quality top tier product they should actually put out that level of effort in all the quality. Not say how they give an ok effort to try and kind of half heart it so it's ok. Their prices aren't ok prices.
I suggest they use some of that money they save by not having an editor to hire more play testers who actually want to work hard at it.
Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems.
Imagine you have to play 1 game of sigmar narrative 1 game open play and 1 game of matched, then a meeting engagements game. Oh then do the same with 40k, an open, a narrative and then a matched play with an army, then an apoc game, then a kill team game. Then do that for all armies, on a 37.5 hour week.
If all they can pump out is 3 games a week, I can safely say they are not working that hard. I can say this as I play games of 40k, and various other ones. I can also say if I had said job I would be quite eager to put the best data out there for the customers. I have issue with the price when you should get what you pay for. If they want to run it top dollar, they should be giving top quality, that's how it works. If it was cheap, I could at least say, " eh, you know you get what you pay for. " This isn't cheap but that has little to do with their lack of end results. I don't think you needed much playing with say IH to see, hey, there's a problem here.
Also, why would you ever need to play test open play ? That whole point of that is anything goes, if there is anything wrong with it, the players literally have all the agency to fix it. Frankly, I think most players of the game wouldn't mind over time as a GW play tester, I'd even relish it because I'd like to know things like this don't happen and I could say, honestly, I did my very best. GW has a habit of putting out excuses and never really says they will do better. I just can't believe so many people want to give them a pass when if results ended up this borked for most of us, we'd be fired, or at the very least a stern warning. Why is it that the bigger the company the less you expect from them ? It's really boggling and probably why they get away with it, people
You don't need to be a game designer to know when mistakes were made, you don't need to program a game to realize if it sucks. I'd go so far as to say most of the player base that comments on here has as much experience or more I'd say than some of these play testers with the product over the decades of its life. At least more than enough to warrant an objective view point on what is working and not.
At the end, would just be great if they ever said " Hey, we're sorry, we'll fix it and make sure these issues don't happen again and if they do, we'll admit it and work on it. " Instead all it end up being is excuses and shrugs and " Hey, we tried ! "
Edit: Glad to see GW pumped the brakes on the IH a bit. Well done.
SeanDrake wrote: Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
Rofl
Right having one army dominating is obviously so good. But guess entitled marine players feel if they don't win automatically game is broken.
SeanDrake wrote: Aww shame that whiny bitch itc players masquerading as play testers just gutted an entire army so the meta could stay the same and favour themselves.
Expect the next batch of tournaments to e back being won by 95% elder and imp soup and not a gak will be given by the community as they have not been told to be upset.
Meh honestly makes me glad I don't play 8th unless I have too the game was pretty gak when GW were ot being manipulated by an outside bussiness
Rofl
Right having one army dominating is obviously so good. But guess entitled marine players feel if they don't win automatically game is broken.
Just mute the donkey, it admits it does not play, it's just braying for attention.
Daedalus81 wrote: I really hope this is a watershed moment for the hysterical types.
There has been an increase of toxic people needling at the game since the IH codex dropped - trying to gloat in their self-justifications of their age old hatred. A number of them don't even play the game. They just came to pick over what they thought was a rotting corpse.
Finally, we get to see that the community has power and GW is becoming responsive. Finally, lazy posts about GW not making enough money on the kits can die.
But we all know they won't.
It might be worth archiving the most hysterical and shrill quotes from threads like this, for the next time.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
It's lazy effort when being play testers is part of their job, do some over time to grind out them games. Hire more play testers with all the super expensive new kit money they are pulling in. If they want to say they put out a quality top tier product they should actually put out that level of effort in all the quality. Not say how they give an ok effort to try and kind of half heart it so it's ok. Their prices aren't ok prices.
I suggest they use some of that money they save by not having an editor to hire more play testers who actually want to work hard at it.
Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems.
Imagine you have to play 1 game of sigmar narrative 1 game open play and 1 game of matched, then a meeting engagements game. Oh then do the same with 40k, an open, a narrative and then a matched play with an army, then an apoc game, then a kill team game. Then do that for all armies, on a 37.5 hour week.
If all they can pump out is 3 games a week, I can safely say they are not working that hard. I can say this as I play games of 40k, and various other ones. I can also say if I had said job I would be quite eager to put the best data out there for the customers. I have issue with the price when you should get what you pay for. If they want to run it top dollar, they should be giving top quality, that's how it works. If it was cheap, I could at least say, " eh, you know you get what you pay for. " This isn't cheap but that has little to do with their lack of end results. I don't think you needed much playing with say IH to see, hey, there's a problem here.
Also, why would you ever need to play test open play ? That whole point of that is anything goes, if there is anything wrong with it, the players literally have all the agency to fix it. Frankly, I think most players of the game wouldn't mind over time as a GW play tester, I'd even relish it because I'd like to know things like this don't happen and I could say, honestly, I did my very best. GW has a habit of putting out excuses and never really says they will do better. I just can't believe so many people want to give them a pass when if results ended up this borked for most of us, we'd be fired, or at the very least a stern warning. Why is it that the bigger the company the less you expect from them ? It's really boggling and probably why they get away with it, people
You don't need to be a game designer to know when mistakes were made, you don't need to program a game to realize if it sucks. I'd go so far as to say most of the player base that comments on here has as much experience or more I'd say than some of these play testers with the product over the decades of its life. At least more than enough to warrant an objective view point on what is working and not.
At the end, would just be great if they ever said " Hey, we're sorry, we'll fix it and make sure these issues don't happen again and if they do, we'll admit it and work on it. " Instead all it end up being is excuses and shrugs and " Hey, we tried ! "
Edit: Glad to see GW pumped the brakes on the IH a bit. Well done.
Well that's what they did essentially, they admitted they jumped the gun and ignored external feedback due to deadlines.
But the plastic kits are top quality, those are the prices you're complaining about. The rules which you don't like are contained in 1 product, the price of plastic kits is irrelevant to the quality of their rules, many people get the kits to collect or hobby without playing with them.
Each playtesters gets 3 games with 1 book specifically in a week. I'm glad you have the spare time to manage 60+ games of 40k a week so you can use all armies more than 3 times.
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.
Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.
In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.
For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So some seemingly obvious things slip through. Is it due to incompetence, lack of due diligence, work load or some other reason? I do not know.
So is that to mean that 3 games a week is really all they can stomach of the game they play test ? As well I call total BS on some of that PR hot air. Some of these things, on their face just scream OP and they did from game 1. I'm talking core rules and not just the marines supplements. Maybe they should find the time to play like a game a day for the week ? That I think might help a little bit.
Well 20 people each using the new codex 3 times a week is 60, so not sure how they got 40 there. But that post is in response to new books, specifically the most recent release.
Bear in mind those 20 playtesters will work across all gw games probably and need to also regression test the older factiona for balance ch ages or new rule adjustments ala chapter approved. I agree 40 a week with the new product is fairly low for what you imagine, but when the reality of normal working hours and other factors like other games come into it, that's a decent effort.
It's lazy effort when being play testers is part of their job, do some over time to grind out them games. Hire more play testers with all the super expensive new kit money they are pulling in. If they want to say they put out a quality top tier product they should actually put out that level of effort in all the quality. Not say how they give an ok effort to try and kind of half heart it so it's ok. Their prices aren't ok prices.
I suggest they use some of that money they save by not having an editor to hire more play testers who actually want to work hard at it.
Wow, who says they dont work hard at it, who says those playtesters aren't full time playtesters? You have more of an issue with the price than the rules it seems.
Imagine you have to play 1 game of sigmar narrative 1 game open play and 1 game of matched, then a meeting engagements game. Oh then do the same with 40k, an open, a narrative and then a matched play with an army, then an apoc game, then a kill team game. Then do that for all armies, on a 37.5 hour week.
If all they can pump out is 3 games a week, I can safely say they are not working that hard. I can say this as I play games of 40k, and various other ones. I can also say if I had said job I would be quite eager to put the best data out there for the customers. I have issue with the price when you should get what you pay for. If they want to run it top dollar, they should be giving top quality, that's how it works. If it was cheap, I could at least say, " eh, you know you get what you pay for. " This isn't cheap but that has little to do with their lack of end results. I don't think you needed much playing with say IH to see, hey, there's a problem here.
Also, why would you ever need to play test open play ? That whole point of that is anything goes, if there is anything wrong with it, the players literally have all the agency to fix it. Frankly, I think most players of the game wouldn't mind over time as a GW play tester, I'd even relish it because I'd like to know things like this don't happen and I could say, honestly, I did my very best. GW has a habit of putting out excuses and never really says they will do better. I just can't believe so many people want to give them a pass when if results ended up this borked for most of us, we'd be fired, or at the very least a stern warning. Why is it that the bigger the company the less you expect from them ? It's really boggling and probably why they get away with it, people
You don't need to be a game designer to know when mistakes were made, you don't need to program a game to realize if it sucks. I'd go so far as to say most of the player base that comments on here has as much experience or more I'd say than some of these play testers with the product over the decades of its life. At least more than enough to warrant an objective view point on what is working and not.
At the end, would just be great if they ever said " Hey, we're sorry, we'll fix it and make sure these issues don't happen again and if they do, we'll admit it and work on it. " Instead all it end up being is excuses and shrugs and " Hey, we tried ! "
Edit: Glad to see GW pumped the brakes on the IH a bit. Well done.
Well that's what they did essentially, they admitted they jumped the gun and ignored external feedback due to deadlines.
But the plastic kits are top quality, those are the prices you're complaining about. The rules which you don't like are contained in 1 product, the price of plastic kits is irrelevant to the quality of their rules, many people get the kits to collect or hobby without playing with them.
Each playtesters gets 3 games with 1 book specifically in a week. I'm glad you have the spare time to manage 60+ games of 40k a week so you can use all armies more than 3 times.
The plastic kits mean nothing, if the rules are borked. They may be a model company but if they got rid of the game, people would mostly stop buying the models, that is the long and short of it. One really does push the other by a large margin.
The books are not cheap either, and those are the rules, you can find the kits worth every penny I have the right to disagree, on some kits I would agree though but that isn't the reason for this talk.
Unless you are claiming these rules for the game are free ? If they are free, then you know what ? I wouldn't even complain about how awful they are. That I can promise you.
As well, if I was a play tester, I wouldn't be needing to play all these games on my free time I'd squeeze most in on company time and still put in my own if the task warranted it.
That said, I really don't care who is to blame. I just want the problem spotted and fixed, that's it and I think that is reasonable for everyone to want at this point going forward with all books.
If you want to get hung up on me finding some of their model kits less than priced sane or worth it, keep up with that hoss, but I am saying you pay for the rules too and not a small amount. So yes I do expect quality from them too, unless you are saying GW are making the rules all free now and if so please please tell me because I thought they cost money as well. ( Outside of being a pirate, as we all know that can be done )
Rules have never been this cheap actually. The rules themselves come for peanuts in the starter boxes, and the marine codex is 20 euro.
That said, they still do sell those rules, so you should expect a certain level of quality.
This time they screwed up, but at least they were honest about it and fixed the issue.
I would be quite agry if it happened again though.
Spoletta wrote: Rules have never been this cheap actually. The rules themselves come for peanuts in the starter boxes, and the marine codex is 20 euro.
That said, they still do sell those rules, so you should expect a certain level of quality.
This time they screwed up, but at least they were honest about it and fixed the issue.
I would be quite agry if it happened again though.
The marine codex only comes out cheaper if you just buy the basic codex, factor in the supplements which most marine players get and it went up in price, at least in the US. It was a clever move on their part to break up the cost over two or more books. Assuming you buy all the supplements the main marine book is way more expensive and some people will buy more than one supplement with it.
Spoletta wrote: Rules have never been this cheap actually. The rules themselves come for peanuts in the starter boxes, and the marine codex is 20 euro.
That said, they still do sell those rules, so you should expect a certain level of quality.
This time they screwed up, but at least they were honest about it and fixed the issue.
I would be quite agry if it happened again though.
The marine codex only comes out cheaper if you just buy the basic codex, factor in the supplements which most marine players get and it went up in price, at least in the US. It was a clever move on their part to break up the cost over two or more books. Assuming you buy all the supplements the main marine book is way more expensive and some people will buy more than one supplement with it.
It has content enough for one or two campaign books. Unless you're buying 3+ supplements you weren't going to get things cheaper than this most likely. Like the Black Legion has to get at least one Vigilus book and a lot of CSM builds are locked away into the other one. SM still have some content locked away in Viglilus, but it's generally on a lower power level than the codex and supplements so you'd do it mostly for flavour.
Spoletta wrote: Rules have never been this cheap actually. The rules themselves come for peanuts in the starter boxes, and the marine codex is 20 euro.
That said, they still do sell those rules, so you should expect a certain level of quality.
This time they screwed up, but at least they were honest about it and fixed the issue.
I would be quite agry if it happened again though.
The marine codex only comes out cheaper if you just buy the basic codex, factor in the supplements which most marine players get and it went up in price, at least in the US. It was a clever move on their part to break up the cost over two or more books. Assuming you buy all the supplements the main marine book is way more expensive and some people will buy more than one supplement with it.
It has content enough for one or two campaign books. Unless you're buying 3+ supplements you weren't going to get things cheaper than this most likely. Like the Black Legion has to get at least one Vigilus book and a lot of CSM builds are locked away into the other one. SM still have some content locked away in Viglilus, but it's generally on a lower power level than the codex and supplements so you'd do it mostly for flavour.
Just because GW is utterly buggering chaos players isn't a reason I should rejoice for loyal marines to only have to buy two books for the low price of 70$.
Let me clarify yes, the basic marine codex is large for its cost. I'm not arguing that, I'm saying if you want all the bang for your buck you aren't just buying that book, you're getting the supplement to go with it. Which is yes, cheaper than what chaos has to do but we all know they like to smack down chaos. ( Sorry Chaos )
Spoletta wrote: Rules have never been this cheap actually. The rules themselves come for peanuts in the starter boxes, and the marine codex is 20 euro.
That said, they still do sell those rules, so you should expect a certain level of quality.
This time they screwed up, but at least they were honest about it and fixed the issue.
I would be quite agry if it happened again though.
The marine codex only comes out cheaper if you just buy the basic codex, factor in the supplements which most marine players get and it went up in price, at least in the US. It was a clever move on their part to break up the cost over two or more books. Assuming you buy all the supplements the main marine book is way more expensive and some people will buy more than one supplement with it.
It has content enough for one or two campaign books. Unless you're buying 3+ supplements you weren't going to get things cheaper than this most likely. Like the Black Legion has to get at least one Vigilus book and a lot of CSM builds are locked away into the other one. SM still have some content locked away in Viglilus, but it's generally on a lower power level than the codex and supplements so you'd do it mostly for flavour.
Just because GW is utterly buggering chaos players isn't an reason I should rejoice for loyal marines to only have to buy two books for the low price of 70$.
Let me clarify yes, the basic marine codex is large for its cost. I'm not arguing that, I'm saying if you want all the bang for your buck you aren't just buying that book, you're getting the supplement to go with it. Which is yes, cheaper than what chaos has to do but we all know they like to smack down chaos down. ( Sorry Chaos )
*bitter ironwarrior splintter ramblings acompanied with angry shovel shaking.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah you 100% need at least 1 supplement. And if you want to vary your units you need more to get the supplement that's optimal for your units.
It's just another case of cashgrab gw.
And I remain ardent that Gw new is just gw +PR Division.
The plastic kits mean nothing, if the rules are borked. They may be a model company but if they got rid of the game, people would mostly stop buying the models, that is the long and short of it. One really does push the other by a large margin.
Considering how GW manage their resources, I would highly doubt that.
You doubt if they stopped the game their sales would dry up ? I mean you can think that, I'm pretty sure the company might survive for a long while on IP rights but I bet they'd lose a hell of a lot of money in the slow spiral downward.
The plastic kits mean nothing, if the rules are borked. They may be a model company but if they got rid of the game, people would mostly stop buying the models, that is the long and short of it. One really does push the other by a large margin.
Considering how GW manage their resources, I would highly doubt that.
TBH that's probably correct, a lot of people use the minis for the game and the setting, without which they're just expensive alternate pieces for some other game, or display items.
But I just disagree that the quality of the plastic kits is determined by the rules behind them, they're premium kits and well designed regardless of rules.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah you 100% need at least 1 supplement. And if you want to vary your units you need more to get the supplement that's optimal for your units.
It's just another case of cashgrab gw.
And I remain ardent that Gw new is just gw +PR Division.
As we say here: There's a difference you (politeform) gakhole and you(direct form) donkey-cave.
GW learned the first.
But maintained the intention of the second. Except ofcourse they also (insert Mr.Krabs "I like money") want all money they can grab and are willing to sacrifice consumer goodwill.
The plastic kits mean nothing, if the rules are borked. They may be a model company but if they got rid of the game, people would mostly stop buying the models, that is the long and short of it. One really does push the other by a large margin.
Considering how GW manage their resources, I would highly doubt that.
TBH that's probably correct, a lot of people use the minis for the game and the setting, without which they're just expensive alternate pieces for some other game, or display items.
But I just disagree that the quality of the plastic kits is determined by the rules behind them, they're premium kits and well designed regardless of rules.
They're well sculpted and expensive, for sure. Well designed remains up for debate.
I cannot think of many GW models i would just buy from the 40k line these days without a game.
There are high quality, but i would much rather get something fantastic from so many of sellers online. Resen, or even metal if its just for a display mini.
Hell i would rather GW get there stuff together and at least hit a minimum standard for there resen stuff if it means they can put some kits into production for factions poorly needed in new minis.
Plastic for everything is great and all, but i wonder if its a huge issues in the back of the design process.
You can still get a 5++ on vehicles. I already have a dorito for that, Guy Fieri was just an extra bubble honestly.
I do feel for March of Ancients would have been fine with incremental CP increase rather than only 1. Was looking forward to an all dreadnought army with 0 starting CP honestly XD
tneva82 wrote: Yeah you 100% need at least 1 supplement. And if you want to vary your units you need more to get the supplement that's optimal for your units.
If you want to chase the meta by running some sort of stupid soup unit that's more a problem with you TBH
But if someone picks an army, because he likes a specific type of game play, then wouldn't it make most sense to also use the rule from a book the supports that type of game play the best?
If DA suddenly became a termintor power house, then playing BA termintor lists and then wondering why htey don't work, would be rather foolish.
We really had this whole talk with the blue iron hands thing. Very few players are going to run a sub par army list when they can take the better set of rules for their models. Holding yourself to what faction you actually picked out of some form of honor system just isn't a thing for most.
Chasing the meta is like it or not a part of this game for a great many people. So I'd imagine a few people have picked up multiple supplements or at the least pirated them all just for that meta chase.
Am not even sure it is chasing the meta. Someone may want to play an jump infantry army, it would make sense that taking the best codex to have a jump infantry based army is the proper way to go. But that doesn't mean that the jump infantry type army has to be the most dominant army in the game, or at least top 3.
Otherwise people get penalised twice, first when they pick a non top army, and then for picking the wrong rules to play them. And if rules were to be glued to how models are painted, then the penality is threefold
tneva82 wrote: Yeah you 100% need at least 1 supplement. And if you want to vary your units you need more to get the supplement that's optimal for your units.
If you want to chase the meta by running some sort of stupid soup unit that's more a problem with you TBH
Lol. That's what GW is basically forcing you to do. If you take units that benefit from chapter X more than chapter Y then you take chapter X. That's what you get when you give out free bonuses. If GW was really interested in balance salamander flame unit wouldnt' cost same as say raven guard flame unit because the units arent' same in value. But hey we are talking about GW whose business model is made by intentional imbalance.
There's nothing in 40k encouraging you to have one chapter/regiment/whatever and sticking to it. Meanwhile all the encouragements in the world to switch for your army lists based on what you are fielding.
Super simple example to illustrate point: You take necron army. You want doom scythes. You are railroaded to have 3 of them due to stratagem being only reason to take them. What reason you would have for any dynasty but sautekh and MAYBE mephrit(though rather wimps still)?
Nephrek? Wee! Automatically 6" advancing flyers! Oh wait fliers auto advance 20"(would this mean nephrek advancing flier would advance less than others...). Nihilikh? Need to stay stationary so no benefit. Novokh? Yey! Reroll hits when you charge! Doom scythes are soooooooooooooo often charging now aren't they?
I think they can make the feel of an army good without drowning you in free rules. They did a pretty good with the guard book. Some choices are just better than others but it's not by such a large degree they all don't have some merit in their selection and some point in trying them out.
I think though its an issue with GW selling/rules balance. I really think they want to make you have a reason to get multiple of the same models for a core and different specialist armies so you can double dip for them.
It's just hard to imagine another reason for all the super buffs otherwise. I just wish they'd give all the forces some love as such which I suppose we'll see in PA but I don't have high hopes.
Now i know why it took them so long. The 
