A common criticism of CA is that you have to pay money for point updates - at the same time many people say that there is no need to do so.

So, time for fact checking - do you own any copies of the Chapter Approved releases? It doesn't matter whether it's digital or a book, but you must have paid money for it.

I bought it as our play group is incredibly open to different missions and narrative type things, also it's nice to have a few copies to share among people on games nights.

Bought CA17 and 18 - had to get 18 as it had the Sisters Beta Dex

Physical copy only - also enjoyed the new missions in CA18

Not sure about 19.....

There are other items in each CA that I have utilized and purchased them each year upon release.

I prefer physical copies as it is easier for me to reference and use either at home or at a gaming venue.

Have bought all, will buy this one. Beats hoping opponent has one for scenarios since those invariably spreads to be the standard ones here.

Not to mention point drops for necrons/orks are handy to have.

Have bought it before, will be getting it this year, but I'm not really fussed about points updates. I'm more interested in the extra content, missions etc.

I've never bought any CA books.

Battlescribe has all of the points I need for the most part and if I need the missions, the shop I play in usually has an open copy.

Haven't bought it previously, but I did buy CA2019 for the missions; the new format was a selling point too.

I tend to buy all of the books, usually there are bits of interesting lore and stories that alone make the purchase worth it imo. plus the scenarios they come up with are usually pretty good so. It is still less than the cost of dinner and drink while providing orders of magnitude more time of entertainment playing games, reading etc.

Bought all of them so far as I enjoy the missions, and then get the updates along with it.

Friend gave me their CA 2018 when they bought the 2019 version, but I haven't bought nor would buy it on my own. When it comes to points I use Battlescribe, for anything else (alternate Land Raiders, the Eight) its not enough content worth buying.

I buy the CA's because I like to go to tournaments, and they usually require you to have the current rules.

Yes b.c i want the points for myself and don't trust places like BS (there is a mistake in almost every army i have seen). Also 2018 CA was amazing, the Custom Heroes, City of death, better terrain rules, better missions, etc...

I highly recommend that everyone get the 2018 one before its gone for those rules. To bad they are not in the core rules, GW really screws up in that way.

Well, I didn't buy any CA books.
Absolutely superfluous if you ask me.
We have one copy in your gaming club. That's enough.

 Jidmah wrote:
A common criticism of CA is that you have to pay money for point updates - at the same time many people say that there is no need to do so.

So, time for fact checking - do you own any copies of the Chapter Approved releases? It doesn't matter whether it's digital or a book, but you must have paid money for it.

I purchased the first one Jid but haven't since (nor will I).

I don't mind paying for point updates, I kind of expect it given the nature of the game, but I resent paying for point updates that are 6 months out of date on release.

I bought this one - the missions from last year were a great improvement for the game, and this year I want a hard copy to play the missions and to enable more people to play them in our club.

I really don't care at all about the points part, I don't think I have ever looked at the points section of a CA after the rumor season.

I did not buy CA'17 or '18. But with a comprehensive list of all points (not just updated points), and the overall enthusiasm for the CA'18 missions, I did buy CA'19

-

The new ways to play are why I buy CAs. Matched play missions, but also the Narrative and Open bits that my LGS crew ends up arguing over, analyzing and incorporating the bits we like into our shenanigans. CA2019 wont be a change to that pattern.

I purchased all three (17, 18 & 19). It's worth it for the missions, finalized / formalized beta rules, officially printed updated points and added content.

To this day I'm still amazed at how many people get Big FAQ and beta rules wrong and confuse mission specific rules as being core game mechanics because they didn't purchased and read the current CA book. They read XYZ on the internet and assume it's correct. They would know better if they just purchased and read the current CA book. And it's a lot of people; an absolute alarmingly high number IMO.

The CA books also update [GASP!] all the terrain rules. Like holy fething gak... There are actually terrain rules! A lot of them even, AND they're intuitive. OMG! But instead "players" will whine and bitch that there aren't any terrain rules. Well... How about you buy the CA book and read it before falsely whining about not having terrain rules.

I'll also add that I am unlikely to buy CA'20 when it comes out. While I like what CA stand for (a yearly rebalance), I do not want to buy a new book every single year. CA'19 was perfect for me as it has all changes and I can update it myself with a marker if CA'20 changes anything (which it very well may not at this point)

-

I bought '18, but it wasn't for the points update.

 oni wrote:
I purchased all three (17, 18 & 19). It's worth it for the missions, finalized / formalized beta rules, officially printed updated points and added content.

To this day I'm still amazed at how many people get Big FAQ and beta rules wrong and confuse mission specific rules as being core game mechanics because they didn't purchased and read the current CA book. They read XYZ on the internet and assume it's correct. They would know better if they just purchased and read the current CA book. And it's a lot of people; an absolute alarmingly high number IMO.

The CA books also update [GASP!] all the terrain rules. Like holy fething gak... There are actually terrain rules! A lot of them even, AND they're intuitive. OMG! But instead "players" will whine and bitch that there aren't any terrain rules. Well... How about you buy the CA book and read it before falsely whining about not having terrain rules.

The only change to terrain rules IIRC is to woods.

I bought 2017 & 2018 but won't be buying 2019 until they FAQ all of the dumb mistakes.

I play SW (the fast attack page is a bad copy paste)
DW (it's obvious GW doesn't have anyone on staff who plays them or gives a feth)
BA (missing wargear options)
and DA (don't know if anything needs changing but going to wait until our PA to get back into the game).

Not worth the hassle to pay full price for a product with this many obvious errors in it that I will need to supplement with a day 1 (or 14, because GW doesn't really care)...

No. I am boycotting GW books until they hire proofreaders for all of their products and start giving a damn about balance issues in 40k. The glaring issues with the recent Blood Bowl Coach's Handbook was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. My only recent GW purchase that I was completely satisfied with has been the Apocalypse box set, but even then GW still has issues with their published Apoc datasheets (which are free though, like chapter approved points updates should be . . .).

Have bought all three, as I like the non-points content for reading at home, varied missions of all types (mmm, tasty sieges...~) for playing and actual wording of improvements in general at hand being the most knowledgeable arbiter of our group. Points changes are interesting but ultimately of secondary importance, since they are all over the internet anyway.

I've bought all three (in paper), but I'm not happy about how they make us pay for corrections to their own unit-costing miscalibrations. At least I get some use out of the new missions.

With the latest Chapter Approved, at least, I've got all points costs in the same place, instead of needing two separate books to build an army list.

I just use battle-scribe for everything points related. I buy supplements for stratagems basically.

Bought '18, and regretted it.

Kind of ignoring '19, especially with talk of 9th on the horizon. Even if that is just tweaks, that may well call for another points adjustment, which may well invalidate it early

Bought '17 and '18 - no regrets. I got a lot of use out of the missions in both. I won a copy of '19, so didn't have to pay for it. I would have though. The Munitiorum Manual and revamped missions make it better than previous years.

Didn't buy any and don't plan to.

I purchased CA18 and held off on CA19 because there’s nothing on in my area until next year. From what I’ve been reading GW really doesn’t deserve any money for that effort so I’m saving my pennies for whatever the Space Mutts get in Psychic Awakening, if it’s good I might even celebrate by getting a model with what not buying CA19 saved me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 oni wrote:
I purchased all three (17, 18 & 19). It's worth it for the missions, finalized / formalized beta rules, officially printed updated points and added content.

To this day I'm still amazed at how many people get Big FAQ and beta rules wrong and confuse mission specific rules as being core game mechanics because they didn't purchased and read the current CA book. They read XYZ on the internet and assume it's correct. They would know better if they just purchased and read the current CA book. And it's a lot of people; an absolute alarmingly high number IMO.

The CA books also update [GASP!] all the terrain rules. Like holy fething gak... There are actually terrain rules! A lot of them even, AND they're intuitive. OMG! But instead "players" will whine and bitch that there aren't any terrain rules. Well... How about you buy the CA book and read it before falsely whining about not having terrain rules.

The only change to terrain rules IIRC is to woods.

I haven't dived into the terrain rules in CA19 yet, but IIRC, CA17 updated & added to the rulebook and then CA18 updated & added to CA17. So it's been an ongoing thing year to year.

I got it, but Im not sure if I need 2018 too, does anyone know if both are needed? I play CSM, and havent done anything other than paint for a few years now.

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
I got it, but Im not sure if I need 2018 too, does anyone know if both are needed? I play CSM, and havent done anything other than paint for a few years now.

No, CA19 totally invalidates CA18. Good for GW to sell you new, error riddled books by making your old, error riddled books unusable.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
I got it, but Im not sure if I need 2018 too, does anyone know if both are needed? I play CSM, and havent done anything other than paint for a few years now.

No, CA19 totally invalidates CA18. Good for GW to sell you new, error riddled books by making your old, error riddled books unusable.

Actually good for me because that means I dont need to buy out of date books at the very least

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
I got it, but Im not sure if I need 2018 too, does anyone know if both are needed? I play CSM, and havent done anything other than paint for a few years now.

You don't need '18 for Matched Play, as '19 has all the rules changes, points and the missions most places (other than ITC) will be using. The Sisters mini-dex that was a big part of '18 was superseded by the recently released Codex and the Renegade Knights mini-dex was replacement by Codex: Chaos Knights.

If you play T'au and want to field "The Eight" - they are not reproduced in '19 - so you'd need '18 to field them. Since you only play CSM, I wouldn't worry about it. As they weren't included in '19, they may be reproduced elsewhere next year (possibly in the CA'19 FAQ or in Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good).

'18 also has the rules for Ork Looted Wagons, Custom Characters (both Open Play only), Battle Honours and Cities of Death (both Narrative). Those are all pretty optional. Cities of Death was mostly replaced by Urban Conquest - leaving not much value left in the '18 book.

i just borrow one and update points in my codex.

I buy them for the points cost, and 2018 for the Sisters codex in addition.

Sometimes, the missions get used too, but mostly we use ITC missions.

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
I got it, but Im not sure if I need 2018 too, does anyone know if both are needed? I play CSM, and havent done anything other than paint for a few years now.

You do not need it for rules purposes, but there are some great missions in it. If you like having a large variety of missions to play I recommend getting it.

I'll see if someone in my gaming group buys it, if not, I will. Points aren't the reason though, but I was pretty fond of the other things in there, like veteran rules, refined terrain rules, Cities of Death, character rules and of course missions.

Yep - I bought CA 2018 and I just bought CA 2019 today. The new missions look good and I'm looking forward to reading through it now.

I find my playgroup buys about one copy per three people and shares them around.

The build-a-character rules was the only reason I asked for my friend’s copy rather than let it end up in the bin.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find my playgroup buys about one copy per three people and shares them around.

Pretty much this. Snag all the necessary rules changes, and point values - jot them down...and move on.

One word...Battlescribe

I found a pdf of 2019 easy enough.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
One word...Battlescribe

I'll give another word that applies to BS: Mistakes

Chapter Approved might as well be called "WH40k: Mistakes"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
One word...Battlescribe

From the comments, almost no one seems to be buying the book for the point updates.

How many rules updates (Boots on the ground, etc) are only printed in previous versions?
I got the softback '17, the digital '18, and expect to get '19 before I next play 40k. I don't recall seeing '17s rules in '18.

 Jidmah wrote:
Chapter Approved might as well be called "WH40k: Mistakes"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
One word...Battlescribe

From the comments, almost no one seems to be buying the book for the point updates.

TBF: The points beeing hidden behind in essence a paywall (that is easily circumvented) is a gakky thing that GW does.
However, the missions GW has provided sofar in them are actually surprisingly something that has hand and foot.

But considering that we have an about 25% ammount of people sofar that are not going to buy i think it speaks vollumes.

When you look at the numbers, just as many people have bought CA2019 as people which have never bought a single one. It's probably safe to assume that over half of the people here will not pay for CA, which is pretty damning when you consider that roughly 70% buy their codices.

 Jidmah wrote:
When you look at the numbers, just as many people have bought CA2019 as people which have never bought a single one. It's probably safe to assume that over half of the people here will not pay for CA, which is pretty damning when you consider that roughly 70% buy their codices.

I am surprised actually that it is even about 50%.
Also i feel like a lot of that is coloured by the incessant releases of books of frankly questionable quality.

I normally don't agree with BCB, but the ammount of rulessources is at this point just daft.

 Jidmah wrote:
When you look at the numbers, just as many people have bought CA2019 as people which have never bought a single one. It's probably safe to assume that over half of the people here will not pay for CA, which is pretty damning when you consider that roughly 70% buy their codices.

Do they? Where's this stat from bud?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
When you look at the numbers, just as many people have bought CA2019 as people which have never bought a single one. It's probably safe to assume that over half of the people here will not pay for CA, which is pretty damning when you consider that roughly 70% buy their codices.

Do they? Where's this stat from bud?

The poll this thread was created for?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
When you look at the numbers, just as many people have bought CA2019 as people which have never bought a single one. It's probably safe to assume that over half of the people here will not pay for CA, which is pretty damning when you consider that roughly 70% buy their codices.

Do they? Where's this stat from bud?

The poll this thread was created for?

The bit about codexes? Where? Have I missed something?

Not that I disbelieve the 70% stat, I'm just curious as to where it's been gleaned.

I dunno, did GW release numbers at one point?

I made a poll some time ago. But feel free to just create a new one, numbers might have changed in the meantime.

 Jidmah wrote:
I made a poll some time ago. But feel free to just create a new one, numbers might have changed in the meantime.

Nah, as I say it seems about right. Just curious as to the source.

 Jidmah wrote:
I made a poll some time ago. But feel free to just create a new one, numbers might have changed in the meantime.

that is actually quite interesting imo.

so we can assume that a substantial part of the 40k community allready probably shared their dexes arround.
Even moresoe with CA it seems.

That is still a higher reinvestment turn out then models probably and that would verify why GW has such a book fetish.

Well, if ITC was the way to play in our group, I wouldn't be buying the book either - and there really is no reason to buy it just for the points.

I bought the original, and kind of regretted it. As a consequence, I missed out 18.

In the end, the scenarios in 18 turned out to be fantastic, so I decided to bite the bullet and buy 19.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
One word...Battlescribe

That only gives you the points from the Munitorum Field Manual. If you dont want the new missions and fortification rules then go for it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I buy the CA's because I like to go to tournaments, and they usually require you to have the current rules.

We've found a use for tournaments at last - social pressure to people to not be pirates.

I sat out on the other CA as I could copy what few point changes were relevant off my friend's copy. But now that it has all points for every unit and wargear option I decided to get it. It's nice to have all points in one place and I can make my list as God intended again, lurking over my armybook without having to flip constantly back and forth between the datasheet and the points.
Furthermore I'm actually interested in Maelstrom games now that they seem less beholden to pure randomness, so having the rules for that is nice too.

I have not bought a 8th edition book since the blood Angel's codex as I just download them, if they cannot be bothered to proof read there books or not spread gak over half a dozen separate books for no reason other than a quick buck I am not going to reward them for this. Besides I bought the grey knights 8th codex and after that drek still bought a couple more so I am probably due some compensation.

So the product's rubbish but you still want it enough to steal it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
so I am probably due some compensation.

Yeah, there are some features on my car that dont work well so I guess I'll steal my next one

 Brother Castor wrote:
So the product's rubbish but you still want it enough to steal it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
so I am probably due some compensation.

Yeah, there are some features on my car that dont work well so I guess I'll steal my next one

Kind of need it since its a paid for balance patch to fix THEIR mistake. Its not a DLC.

Only GW have people defending a company for charging money for bug fixes. EA wish they had as gullible of a costumee base. Imagine how much they would earn for charging only 10$ for a day 1 patch.

30$ for 1-2 pages of mostly copy pasted numbers isnt far off being called a scam or exhortion.

Bad balance is not a bug.

Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

I would infer the Acolytes are supposed to be 5 pts., but the 25 bikers totally sounds like GW.

Anyways, I’m not one to buy these books, and I certainly wish GW would take more care with proofreading, but I don’t think releasing the book is a mistake - just something that doesn’t interest me and therefore I won’t buy. If someone else sees value in its content, I’m not going to call them sheep for going out and buying it. But I will laugh at someone who grumbles against it, then goes out and buys it anyway.

I don't think anyone has argued the book is a mistake, just the utter lack of editing or QA on it.

Now, whether it should be a book in the first place instead of a free PDF, that's another discussion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

Why does one matter and the other doesn't?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

Why does one matter and the other doesn't?

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but not on this. Common sense is a pretty good indicator in an extreme situation like this. It's overwhelmingly obvious that mistakes are made sometimes. You are smart enough to know that GW did not intend for 55point acolytes. Now go ahead and type up your reply calling out the relativity of common sense and how, by the rules, do you even define what common sense is. I am sure someone will care, but it won't be me.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but not on this. Common sense is a pretty good indicator in an extreme situation like this. It's overwhelmingly obvious that mistakes are made sometimes. You are smart enough to know that GW did not intend for 55point acolytes. Now go ahead and type up your reply calling out the relativity of common sense and how, by the rules, do you even define what common sense is. I am sure someone will care, but it won't be me.

You could easily just as argue that GW did not "intend" for re-rolls to be applied before modifiers, nor did they "intend" for negative hit modifiers to stack and make a unit unhitable, nor did they intend for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapon, but all are true and confirmed as intentional.

The sad truth is that reductio ad absurdum cannot

When both the error and the intended value are this obvious, there is no reason to just fix it.

In fact, if you argue that acolytes should be played as costing 55 points, you are doing this for no other purpose than intentionally trying to ruin the game for your opponent.

 Jidmah wrote:
When both the error and the intended value are this obvious, there is no reason to just fix it.

In fact, if you argue that acolytes should be played as costing 55 points, you are doing this for no other purpose than intentionally trying to ruin the game for your opponent.

Why? They are following the rules. By definition it's the opponent arguing to be allowed to break the rules is the one trying to ruin the game.

Because that's how the real world works.

If you insist on being a brainless text parser instead of a thinking human being, people will simply not play you.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

Ok, pretend I'm a new (or just a returning to 40k player) CSM or DW player right now, prior to any coming errata.
I'm set up with the codex & CA 2019 by the people at my local shop - neither of wich are abreast of all the minutia (like for ex the exact current pt costs of everything in the game) that makes up an edition of the game. While they both know how to play 40k in general, they have NO IDEA of the errors(?) this book contains. They know what their rep tells them about why a customer would want this book - new options, more missions, current pts values. "Oh, OK. Sounds like we need x of them on the next order."

As a CSM player? Yeah, I'll probably wonder about the HUGE pts change in the cultists.
But as a DW player? I see in my codex that bikers are 25 pts. I see in CA19 that they're 25 pts. What modicum of common sense would lead me to believe this is an error?

Probably the fact, that you don't have 25 bike models in your army?

 Jidmah wrote:
Because that's how the real world works.

If you insist on being a brainless text parser instead of a thinking human being, people will simply not play you.

Going to hazard a wild guess that this is *exactly why* Bcb has so much time to spend being performatively confused on the Internet, tbh.

ccs wrote:

But as a DW player? I see in my codex that bikers are 25 pts. I see in CA19 that they're 25 pts. What modicum of common sense would lead me to believe this is an error?

They aren't priced at 25, the unit size is 25 bikers in Veteran squads. It's obviously* a case where the old points were accidentally put into the Unit Size column, but a literal reading says each and every Veteran squad needs exactly 25 bikers, no more or less.

*Unless you're BCB of course.

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

It kinda was? Changing to a once per year PRINTED balance patch that costs money, but is full of blatant errors is a misstep.

Imagine if the Munitorum Field Manual was a free online PDF. Release the CA missions and charge for all the bonus content and sell a nice "Munitorum Field Handle" which is a glorified notebook that you can slide in and out the pages from the pdf. Typo? print a new page and replace the old bad one. Big Tournament coming up? Print a fresh copy of everything to sleeve in. GW can even milk whales by creating a warlord edition with Purity Seal bookmarks etc.

Piracy has been, and always will be a service issue. 55pt Acolytes and 25 bike DW bikers are clear evidence that the service sucks.

If Chapter Approved still had interesting additions to the game that don't get a proper codex or supplement, like Kroot Mercenaries or 40K in 40 Minutes like in the good old days, and not just points updates that are free anyway or missions that aren't worth a dime , I'd buy it.

There are many forces that need rules, not just Kroot. Tau Stealth-themed armies for example. Renegades? Cool flavourful armies that get shafted by GW's increasingly formulaic codices.

All subfactions are just reduced to a paragraph of miniscule effect and people are just choosing whichever one's least trash anyway, despite being clearly modelled as a different subfaction, and it makes me want to vomit.

And until CA is used as a tool for good and not evil I'll avoid everything about it.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

It kinda was? Changing to a once per year PRINTED balance patch that costs money, but is full of blatant errors is a misstep.

Imagine if the Munitorum Field Manual was a free online PDF. Release the CA missions and charge for all the bonus content and sell a nice "Munitorum Field Handle" which is a glorified notebook that you can slide in and out the pages from the pdf. Typo? print a new page and replace the old bad one. Big Tournament coming up? Print a fresh copy of everything to sleeve in. GW can even milk whales by creating a warlord edition with Purity Seal bookmarks etc.

Piracy has been, and always will be a service issue. 55pt Acolytes and 25 bike DW bikers are clear evidence that the service sucks.

Like I said, it’s immediately obvious that these are oversights/typos, and anyone worth playing the game with will acknowledge this and move on. It doesn’t in any way render the game unplayable, and I just kind of feel like if anyone’s going to get massively bent out of shape specifically about these two minor things, then they’re very fortunate to not have anything else more pressing in their life to get upset about.

 Nazrak wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

It kinda was? Changing to a once per year PRINTED balance patch that costs money, but is full of blatant errors is a misstep.

Imagine if the Munitorum Field Manual was a free online PDF. Release the CA missions and charge for all the bonus content and sell a nice "Munitorum Field Handle" which is a glorified notebook that you can slide in and out the pages from the pdf. Typo? print a new page and replace the old bad one. Big Tournament coming up? Print a fresh copy of everything to sleeve in. GW can even milk whales by creating a warlord edition with Purity Seal bookmarks etc.

Piracy has been, and always will be a service issue. 55pt Acolytes and 25 bike DW bikers are clear evidence that the service sucks.

Like I said, it’s immediately obvious that these are oversights/typos, and anyone worth playing the game with will acknowledge this and move on. It doesn’t in any way render the game unplayable, and I just kind of feel like if anyone’s going to get massively bent out of shape specifically about these two minor things, then they’re very fortunate to not have anything else more pressing in their life to get upset about.

I'm not especially worried about two obvious typos.

I'm worried about the things that look like typos, but I'm less sure about. Like all the points that reverted to Codex values.

I'm absolutely not buying the balance patch book if I'm going to need to download another balance patch on top of it if/when they errata it.

I use Battlescribe for the points but I buy the CA books because I want the new missions and new rules. I don't see a problem buying them on a yearly basis.

I buy them every year, no regrets. They're tools for the toolbox; I might not plan on actually playing using the actual Planetstrike expansion rules from CA17, but I have definitely thought about incorporating some of its ideas into games - and not just 40k, but Kill Team and Apocalypse as well.

I do think that points adjustments should be made free, though. Make CA more of a collection of changes and additions from throughout the year - include a physical copy of the points adjustments, add any missions or rules from White Dwarf, and sprinkle in some new stuff as well.

It's not as bad as the early-to-mid 2000s, where Chapter Approved was the only place you could really get FAQs (and it included literal cut-and-paste errata pages) because GW was still figuring out this whole "Internet" thing.

In my mind it's not whether you do or don't. It's that GW expects you too.