Within minutes i spotted two mistakes. The twin heavy bolter is S6, the heavy bolter is S5. The plasma pistol blows up on a hit roll of 1, plasma gun and cannon blows up on unmodified hit rolls of 1.
I was about to say the same thing. Also, weird discrepancies between certain factions too. Harlequin fusion pistols haven't been changed to the updated melta rules that have been given to inferno pistols. I don't recall seeing fusion guns or fusion blasters getting any changes, nor is there anything regarding heat lances.
Orks surprisingly weren't touched at all with regards to Power Klaws or Killsaws. Not sure if we're considered different or if they completely forgot about us (unsurprisingly).
I'll wait for the Deathwatch Codex to drop before I judge too harshly, but they've messed with my Fortis kill team compositions.
The new special issue ammo rules look fair and I have no complaints with them, unfortunately there's an egregious omission of a weapon list for special issue ammunition in the new get you by rules. This means I've no idea which guns they apply to!
For the time being I guess I'll agree with my opponents to use the current Codex list, but I don't know if that's right.
p5freak wrote: The twin heavy bolter is S6, the heavy bolter is S5.
Silly thought. Is this definitely a mistake? What FAQ is this in, and do we have other sources for twin heavy bolters that are S5, or is there a chance the +1S is simply a benefit of being twin-linked?
I've only looked at a couple of the FAQs so far, but happy to see that they're being pushed out now instead of waiting for the individual Codexes to drop.
And of course the Corvus Blackstar has been nerfed (I think by +20 points and Auspex no longer re-rolls 1s vs ground targets and now ignores cover). Blackstar rocket launcher is now maybe slightly better vs most infantry targets, in that it only has one profile but is blast 2d3 5, -1, 1. Loses its anti-air profile.
They seem determined to make sure that the one vehicle unique to Deathwatch will always be terrible to sub-par.
p5freak wrote: The twin heavy bolter is S6, the heavy bolter is S5.
Silly thought. Is this definitely a mistake? What FAQ is this in, and do we have other sources for twin heavy bolters that are S5, or is there a chance the +1S is simply a benefit of being twin-linked?
I've only looked at a couple of the FAQs so far, but happy to see that they're being pushed out now instead of waiting for the individual Codexes to drop.
The +1 Strength for being twin linked could be possible, though the Twin Linked Heavy Flamers are still Strength 5 so I dunno.
Huh. Early revision of the various old supplements AND real index for the chapters getting new supplements, with strats, datasheets and etc. Didn't expect that.
The weapon updates are low-effort though. No points changes, errors.
Grimskul wrote: I was about to say the same thing. Also, weird discrepancies between certain factions too. Harlequin fusion pistols haven't been changed to the updated melta rules that have been given to inferno pistols. I don't recall seeing fusion guns or fusion blasters getting any changes, nor is there anything regarding heat lances.
Orks surprisingly weren't touched at all with regards to Power Klaws or Killsaws. Not sure if we're considered different or if they completely forgot about us (unsurprisingly).
They told from get-go this would be imperium weapon update. They get free buffs, rest stay as they were
For now they cost what it says in Codex: Space Marines, unless the FAQ they just released has different points.
For Deathwatch vets they cost 12, for Deathwatch Terminator (squads) they cost 15.
It's interesting that the Xenophase blade costs 10 points but doesn't have an upgraded profile (so still no +1 str like regular power sword) which makes it really, really terrible. Just hoping it (and the corvus blackstar) get updates in their supplement, since those are unique to DW.
Also notable that the 8th Ed Marine Codexes for DW, SW and Angels are now no longer usable.
eg:
The rules presented in the 8th edition (printed 2018) version of Codex: Space Wolves are no longer supported, and cannot be used. Similarly, if a Space Wolves rule from Psychic Awakening: Saga of the Beast does not feature within this document, it cannot be used. When Codex Supplement: Space Wolves is released, all of the rules within that will then replace and supersede this entire document, at which point none of the rules here can be used
Um, Dark Angels inner circle has changed, infantry have built-in transhuman physiology (terminators and characters), and ravenwing jink is solid 5++, unless remains stationary. The Dark talon bombs got nerfed (dont know why)...
Spreelock wrote: Um, Dark Angels inner circle has changed, infantry have built-in transhuman physiology (terminators and characters), and ravenwing jink is solid 5++, unless remains stationary.
That's pretty good. Ravenwing rule makes sense, as the Chapter Tactic really wants a parking lot (+1 to hit if stationary), and that's rather dumb for Ravenwing.
Spreelock wrote: Um, Dark Angels inner circle has changed, infantry have built-in transhuman physiology (terminators and characters), and ravenwing jink is solid 5++, unless remains stationary. The Dark talon bombs got nerfed (dont know why)...
Also, the Aura of Dread ability of Interrogator-Chaplains makes enemy units count as below Half Strength for the Morale phase, so models flee on a 1 or 2 in the attrition phase.
Expected. Keep in mind its not a 'universal' Xenos thing. Tau and Craftworlds got flamer (and powersword) upgrades, because they use the same name weapons.
The rest we knew would happen when the codexes rolled around. For example the Necron Triarch Stalker has the heat ray, which functions like a multimelta or a flamer. It got buffed up to the new weapon stats.
Spreelock wrote: Um, Dark Angels inner circle has changed, infantry have built-in transhuman physiology (terminators and characters), and ravenwing jink is solid 5++, unless remains stationary. The Dark talon bombs got nerfed (dont know why)...
Well they screwed the Imperial Fists again and are the only chapter trait to get nerfed. Now you only get the +1 damage if it is in the devestator doctrine, with a heavy weapon, and the weapon is S7 or higher.
I’m beyond annoyed at GW for nerfing IF again. They were already the bottom tier of SMs now their supplement is basically useless. Why did they do this? It seemed they wanted you to be a bolter weapon heavy list, but now their supplement works on such a few weapon choices. In total you may get 2-5 extra damage a game due to this now seriously GW??? Why not just make it only work on bolter weapons or give us an entirely new ability to focus on bolter weapons?
Well I’m done with GW. The constant year long nerfs have been stupid to say the least.
broxus wrote: Well they screwed the Imperial Fists again and are the only chapter trait to get nerfed. Now you only get the +1 damage if it is in the devestator doctrine, with a heavy weapon, and the weapon is S7 or higher.
I’m beyond annoyed at GW for nerfing IF again. They were already the bottom tier of SMs now their supplement is basically useless. Why did they do this?
Well I’m done with GW. The constant year long nerfs have been stupid to say the least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broxus wrote: Well they screwed the Imperial Fists again and are the only chapter trait to get nerfed. Now you only get the +1 damage if it is in the devestator doctrine, with a heavy weapon, and the weapon is S7 or higher.
I’m beyond annoyed at GW for nerfing IF again. They are lumped in with the IH, Salamanders, and Ravenguard, but were already the bottom tier of SMs. Their supplement is useless as it was full of nothing but nerfs. Why did they do this?
Well I’m done with GW. The constant year long nerfs have been stupid to say the least.
Completely dominating a WHW event tends to be a death kneel for a faction.
Also looks like the Space Wolves are missing Iron Priests and Wolf Priests (except for the 1 special character). And now we can't advance and charge with Wulfen...but can with all the Thunderwolves.
stinkyjunk wrote: Also looks like the Space Wolves are missing Iron Priests and Wolf Priests (except for the 1 special character).
Quite a few entries in Codex Space Marines have a [If Space Wolves, gains X keyword] clause. Pretty sure Chaplains and Techpriests work that way.
Same for Ravenwing and Deathwing, incidentally.
And now we can't advance and charge with Wulfen...but can with all the Thunderwolves. But the biggest is that NONE of the original Relics or Strategems are available...just those from Saga of the Beast. Good bye wulfen stone and armor of russ...it was great while it lasted.
(some of) those relics will probably come back with the supplement in a couple weeks.
Expected. Keep in mind its not a 'universal' Xenos thing. Tau and Craftworlds got flamer (and powersword) upgrades, because they use the same name weapons.
The rest we knew would happen when the codexes rolled around. For example the Necron Triarch Stalker has the heat ray, which functions like a multimelta or a flamer. It got buffed up to the new weapon stats.
Yeah the 2 things that doesn't really matter, and it wasn't even all flamers but 1 flamer out of many. Everyone knows how bad Fire Dragons are now compare toe Eradicators (yes yes yes everything is bad compare, but you get the point) this was the PERFECT time to say "Hey CWE players, here is something at least" but nope.
Expected. Keep in mind its not a 'universal' Xenos thing. Tau and Craftworlds got flamer (and powersword) upgrades, because they use the same name weapons.
The rest we knew would happen when the codexes rolled around. For example the Necron Triarch Stalker has the heat ray, which functions like a multimelta or a flamer. It got buffed up to the new weapon stats.
Yeah the 2 things that doesn't really matter, and it wasn't even all flamers but 1 flamer out of many. Everyone knows how bad Fire Dragons are now compare toe Eradicators (yes yes yes everything is bad compare, but you get the point) this was the PERFECT time to say "Hey CWE players, here is something at least" but nope.
I mean, it wasn't a perfect time, since they've said for months that they're not doing that.
Just the shared weapons on the list, and everything else wasn't going to change until the relevant codex.
I get the frustration, but what you're asking for was denied nearly two months ago:
August 13th wrote:‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.
Expected. Keep in mind its not a 'universal' Xenos thing. Tau and Craftworlds got flamer (and powersword) upgrades, because they use the same name weapons.
The rest we knew would happen when the codexes rolled around. For example the Necron Triarch Stalker has the heat ray, which functions like a multimelta or a flamer. It got buffed up to the new weapon stats.
Yeah the 2 things that doesn't really matter, and it wasn't even all flamers but 1 flamer out of many. Everyone knows how bad Fire Dragons are now compare toe Eradicators (yes yes yes everything is bad compare, but you get the point) this was the PERFECT time to say "Hey CWE players, here is something at least" but nope.
I mean, it wasn't a perfect time, since they've said for months that they're not doing that.
Just the shared weapons on the list, and everything else wasn't going to change until the relevant codex.
I get the frustration, but what you're asking for was denied nearly two months ago:
August 13th wrote:‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.
Oh my bad, sorry that they "technically" don't share the same "name" but did share and still do share the same rules for 25yrs. Stop being a fan boy and see how GW f over everyone but Imperial.
And we all know Imperial/marines are getting most the codices first, some armies will have ot wait a year, yep a full year without updates that this was suppose to help.
broxus wrote: Well they screwed the Imperial Fists again and are the only chapter trait to get nerfed. Now you only get the +1 damage if it is in the devestator doctrine, with a heavy weapon, and the weapon is S7 or higher.
I’m beyond annoyed at GW for nerfing IF again. They were already the bottom tier of SMs now their supplement is basically useless. Why did they do this? It seemed they wanted you to be a bolter weapon heavy list, but now their supplement works on such a few weapon choices. In total you may get 2-5 extra damage a game due to this now seriously GW??? Why not just make it only work on bolter weapons or give us an entirely new ability to focus on bolter weapons?
Well I’m done with GW. The constant year long nerfs have been stupid to say the least.
GW didn't want damage 3 heavy bolter spam, or 2 damage 24 shot heavy onslaught gladiators.
Expected. Keep in mind its not a 'universal' Xenos thing. Tau and Craftworlds got flamer (and powersword) upgrades, because they use the same name weapons.
The rest we knew would happen when the codexes rolled around. For example the Necron Triarch Stalker has the heat ray, which functions like a multimelta or a flamer. It got buffed up to the new weapon stats.
Yeah the 2 things that doesn't really matter, and it wasn't even all flamers but 1 flamer out of many. Everyone knows how bad Fire Dragons are now compare toe Eradicators (yes yes yes everything is bad compare, but you get the point) this was the PERFECT time to say "Hey CWE players, here is something at least" but nope.
I mean, it wasn't a perfect time, since they've said for months that they're not doing that.
Just the shared weapons on the list, and everything else wasn't going to change until the relevant codex.
I get the frustration, but what you're asking for was denied nearly two months ago:
August 13th wrote:‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.
Oh my bad, sorry that they "technically" don't share the same "name" but did share and still do share the same rules for 25yrs. Stop being a fan boy and see how GW f over everyone but Imperial.
And we all know Imperial/marines are getting most the codices first, some armies will have ot wait a year, yep a full year without updates that this was suppose to help.
Its not 'being a fan boy' to not expect things you're explicitly told aren't happening.
If you're surprised that some armies have to wait for their codex to be updated after 9 editions of a one-at-a-time update cycle, I don't know what to tell you.
this just means "we knew that the next Edition was already done while we wrote that book" and nothing more
always had been that way, no need to be suprised
Who believed that anyway? When it had rules made irrelevant with 9e. Even sisters codex was taunted as "9e in mind" yet had special rules made 100% useless and virtually useless as well.
Which sells better? "Buy this book despite new edition in horizon. It's designed it in mind!" or "buy this book! It will be invalidated in few months time!"
Voss wrote: Its not 'being a fan boy' to not expect things you're explicitly told aren't happening.
If you're surprised that some armies have to wait for their codex to be updated after 9 editions of a one-at-a-time update cycle, I don't know what to tell you.
I would be less if they hadn't clearly decided to use the points costs from playtesting of the new stats which we won't get untill we get the new codex's, which would be less egregious if we didnt know that will take over a year for some Codex's.
broxus wrote: Well they screwed the Imperial Fists again and are the only chapter trait to get nerfed. Now you only get the +1 damage if it is in the devestator doctrine, with a heavy weapon, and the weapon is S7 or higher.
I’m beyond annoyed at GW for nerfing IF again. They were already the bottom tier of SMs now their supplement is basically useless. Why did they do this? It seemed they wanted you to be a bolter weapon heavy list, but now their supplement works on such a few weapon choices. In total you may get 2-5 extra damage a game due to this now seriously GW??? Why not just make it only work on bolter weapons or give us an entirely new ability to focus on bolter weapons?
Well I’m done with GW. The constant year long nerfs have been stupid to say the least.
GW didn't want damage 3 heavy bolter spam, or 2 damage 24 shot heavy onslaught gladiators.
Then just change the rule entirely these are things that could ready be done. It is utter garbage now and will likely net you 2-5 extra damage a game. I mean It only work in the devastator doctrine. IF are hands down with no debate the worst supplement and worst super trait now. They could have given bolt weapons a buff such as reroll ones in the tactical doctrine or something.
I kind of like chainfists more than other the alternatives... higher AP, about the same dammage as a powerfist but not as reliable at splatting MEQ's, but excellent and carving vehicles up and just as good at 3W models on average...
Tau got surprisingly more weapon updates than expected. 6 Ion weapons got updated despite not being part of the Imperial arsenal. However I don't know the difference between the new profile and the old profile, as I don't play Tau.
[edit]Maybe just replace "Roll of 1" with "Unmodified roll of 1"?[/edit]
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Tau got surprisingly more weapon updates than expected. 6 Ion weapons got updated despite not being part of the Imperial arsenal. However I don't know the difference between the new profile and the old profile, as I don't play Tau.
[edit]Maybe just replace "Roll of 1" with "Unmodified roll of 1"?[/edit]
Pretty sure. They just made the wound/kill yourself consistent with plasma.
Voss wrote: Its not 'being a fan boy' to not expect things you're explicitly told aren't happening.
If you're surprised that some armies have to wait for their codex to be updated after 9 editions of a one-at-a-time update cycle, I don't know what to tell you.
I would be less if they hadn't clearly decided to use the points costs from playtesting of the new stats which we won't get untill we get the new codex's, which would be less egregious if we didnt know that will take over a year for some Codex's.
Here's the thing: they didn't.
The CA2020 points and the new SM points are not the same. Neither (before people complain about 'but space marines') are necrons.
There is overlap, but quite a few things are different
Examples- basic terminator is 38 rather than 36, Impulsors went up 10, Repulsor are even more expensive, necron warriors are +1 ppm, flayed ones are -1 ppm, tesla carbines are 2 points, skorpekhs dropped 5 points each, wratihs are down 10, monoliths are up 90, etc, etc
--
The 'over a year' complaints are just amusing. Does no one else remember 5-10 year turn around for some armies?
I'm not sure if people are being unreasonably optimistic (and are going to be disappointed) or if GW made some promises I didn't see.
Updating the army books are traditionally an edition-long endeavor. Settle in.
Waiting for army updates is part of the Warhammer cycle, good or bad, its neither new nor surprising.
Shouldn't the various types of heretic astartes and traitor legionaries get the two wound bump in these FAQs? Or are they waiting for each codex?
In that case it'll be hilarious if Black Legion plague marines and rubrics end up with 2 wounds while Deathguard and Thousand Sons still play with single wound guys.
Chamberlain wrote: Shouldn't the various types of heretic astartes and traitor legionaries get the two wound bump in these FAQs? Or are they waiting for each codex?
GW stated they would stay at their old wounds until their Codex was released.
Just put a thing in the FAQ with the updated profile and points cost. A paragraph in three different PDFS that they are *updating anyway* is all it would take.
Just put a thing in the FAQ with the updated profile and points cost. A paragraph in three different PDFS that they are *updating anyway* is all it would take.
This whole edition just feels bungled so far.
They could have re-released the free rules from before with updated profiles, but the whole thing would have favored chaos a lot more than xenos. I suppose they could have just not updated anyone's stuff except space marines and necrons...
Who believed that anyway? When it had rules made irrelevant with 9e. Even sisters codex was taunted as "9e in mind" yet had special rules made 100% useless and virtually useless as well.
Which sells better? "Buy this book despite new edition in horizon. It's designed it in mind!" or "buy this book! It will be invalidated in few months time!"
People keep assuming "designed with 9th in mind" means "designed with 9th in mind, at a far higher quality level than normal". Misbalanced and error-ridden rules that get and/or need errata which may or may not totally change how a rule is played, that is how GW rules for a current edition work. If PA was designed with 9th in mind but also to actually function in the edition they were released this is exactly what I would expect to see.
it has always been that way with 3rd and 8th being the exception
yet this is also a way for GW to build up the hype to get the updates for the factions and keep people active by talking/complaining about it until it happens
there is no interest for GW to add updates for all factions at the same time
Here's the thing: they didn't.
The CA2020 points and the new SM points are not the same. Neither (before people complain about 'but space marines') are necrons.
There is overlap, but quite a few things are different
Examples- basic terminator is 38 rather than 36, Impulsors went up 10, Repulsor are even more expensive, necron warriors are +1 ppm, flayed ones are -1 ppm, tesla carbines are 2 points, skorpekhs dropped 5 points each, wratihs are down 10, monoliths are up 90, etc, etc
The weapons on their base models don't seem to have changed from MFM2020, obviously were extra wounds have been handed out yes they have changed.
But All the reports I have seen is weapons didnt change GW shuffled the cost of basically default loadouts to the models but 2000 points of MFM marines and 2000 points of Codex marines doesn't look like it's changed much especially when you discount the points added for extra wounds at 2-3 points per model.
stinkyjunk wrote: Also looks like the Space Wolves are missing Iron Priests and Wolf Priests (except for the 1 special character).
Also known as Techmarines and Chaplains...
Spoken like someone who doesn't or hasn't played Wolves. Iron Priests come default with Helfrost pistols and Tempest Hammers (and used to be able to ride Thunderwolves). Not Techmarines. The Wolves have never ever had Chaplains (and are big in the fluff of never ever going to have them). The Wolf Priests combined the role of the apothecary and chaplain into one, with the inclusion of (now litanies) and healing balms. Wolves cannot take Apothecaries, and can now no longer take Wolf Priests thus removing any healing ability from the army.
Voss wrote: The 'over a year' complaints are just amusing. Does no one else remember 5-10 year turn around for some armies?
I'm not sure if people are being unreasonably optimistic (and are going to be disappointed) or if GW made some promises I didn't see.
Updating the army books are traditionally an edition-long endeavor. Settle in.
Waiting for army updates is part of the Warhammer cycle, good or bad, its neither new nor surprising.
The problem is... GW have now shown us multiple times that the wait needn't be that long.
First up, everybody got an Index at the start of 8th, followed by new Codexes for everybody within 3 years (and most well within 2). That's with an update to the new datasheet system and to brand new power-levels, which meant a complete rework of the army lists for each faction.
While we're now in a new edition, the studio should be familiar enough with datasheets that you can't really use that as an excuse for slowing down.
Lastly, they've just shown us that Codexes can in fact be released two at a time - and full Codexes too, not supplement size. And speaking of supplements - we now know that a full 4 books that would previously have been full Codexes, will now be supplements instead - so that's got to free up a lot of room in the schedule.
It's true that rushing the Codexes out that fast may well have been a big reason for some of those Codexes being lackluster and underpowered (*cough*ELDAR*cough*ORKS*cough*DAEMONS).
But it remains that not only can Codexes be released quicker than the old days... people will now expect it to be quicker.
Voss wrote: The 'over a year' complaints are just amusing. Does no one else remember 5-10 year turn around for some armies?
I'm not sure if people are being unreasonably optimistic (and are going to be disappointed) or if GW made some promises I didn't see.
Updating the army books are traditionally an edition-long endeavor. Settle in.
Waiting for army updates is part of the Warhammer cycle, good or bad, its neither new nor surprising.
The problem is... GW have now shown us multiple times that the wait needn't be that long.
First up, everybody got an Index at the start of 8th, followed by new Codexes for everybody within 3 years (and most well within 2). That's with an update to the new datasheet system and to brand new power-levels, which meant a complete rework of the army lists for each faction.
While we're now in a new edition, the studio should be familiar enough with datasheets that you can't really use that as an excuse for slowing down.
Lastly, they've just shown us that Codexes can in fact be released two at a time - and full Codexes too, not supplement size. And speaking of supplements - we now know that a full 4 books that would previously have been full Codexes, will now be supplements instead - so that's got to free up a lot of room in the schedule.
It's true that rushing the Codexes out that fast may well have been a big reason for some of those Codexes being lackluster and underpowered (*cough*ELDAR*cough*ORKS*cough*DAEMONS).
But it remains that not only can Codexes be released quicker than the old days... people will now expect it to be quicker.
See I consider that last point (rushed, lackluster and underpowered) the key bit. They shouldn't be doing this churn and burn, and players shouldn't want it. Its terrible, and people are actively wasting money on things like the PA garbage.
Quality, not quantity should definitely be king. I'd love to go back to a 5 or 6 year cycle. Settle down with an army or two and expect consistency for a good long while.
As for two codexes simultaneously... I rather suspect that's a Covid delay, not an intentional release plan.
Yes, the supplement conversion will help, but consider for a moment, that we've got two (potentially backlogged) books in October. Another full codex before years end (Death Guard) and the next full codex is an unnamed Xenos Codex in 'early 2021.' (Which I'd guess as Feb). That's 4 in ~5 months. Even if they keep that up, are they really going to get the rest done in a year? Skipping a few small imperial sub-subfactions (assassins, inquisitors, sisters of silence), I make that to be 18, assuming Ynnari will actually get one of their own. So.. 20-22 months as an estimate? If they push?
And don't forget they have other games and a new 'PA style' series for AOS, and we're just now finally getting through the Spring/early summer releases for AoS (Elves were aimed at April, with Giants to follow 'soon'). There's a backlog there, and it will likely impact other releases.
Automatically Appended Next Post: -------
Slight update: the pdfs (at least the ones I checked) have been corrected.
plasma pistols get 'unmodified 1' and
twin heavy bolters are back down to S5.
Meanwhile in the T.Sons side of the river, a cultist flamer is 12" but a Rubric warpflamer is 8". A Defiler twin heavy flamer is 12" but a heavy warpflamer is 8".
An aspiring sorcerer with his staff is str 7 but Ahriman with his staff is str 6.
Swear to god the design team of GW are in fact three racoons in a trenchcoat.
Yes, the supplement conversion will help, but consider for a moment, that we've got two (potentially backlogged) books in October. Another full codex before years end (Death Guard) and the next full codex is an unnamed Xenos Codex in 'early 2021.' (Which I'd guess as Feb). That's 4 in ~5 months. Even if they keep that up, are they really going to get the rest done in a year? Skipping a few small imperial sub-subfactions (assassins, inquisitors, sisters of silence), I make that to be 18, assuming Ynnari will actually get one of their own. So.. 20-22 months as an estimate? If they push?
Here's a shocking thought: Release ALL new codexes at the same time as an edition launch. One big go for everything, then every 6 months do balance faqs.
Start designing ALL the 10 ed codexes NOW, keep re-designing while getting feedback from 9th edition games and tournaments. This way nobody feels left out, even if their codex is sub par they hope to get their faq every 6 months to address the issues, and you avoid power creep in the first place.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Meanwhile in the T.Sons side of the river, a cultist flamer is 12" but a Rubric warpflamer is 8". A Defiler twin heavy flamer is 12" but a heavy warpflamer is 8".
You haven't got a new Codex yet. That's why you don't have new rules.
Start designing ALL the 10 ed codexes NOW, keep re-designing while getting feedback from 9th edition games and tournaments. This way nobody feels left out, even if their codex is sub par they hope to get their faq every 6 months to address the issues, and you avoid power creep in the first place.
Good for players, bad for GW's pocket lines as their sale stratagem relies on impulse purchaces. You don't impulse purchace anybody to start 5 armies at once. You can get them start 5 armies spread longer with full on hype each time...
It also creates a massive workload imbalance, geared towards crunching, rather than spreading the work out for the team over an edition's lifecycle. Not to mention, that leaves you much less room to take onboard feedback from tournaments etc for what can be improved from this edition.
I don't believe anyone who seriously thinks crunching out the Codexes in one go has ever come close to running a successful business.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Meanwhile in the T.Sons side of the river, a cultist flamer is 12" but a Rubric warpflamer is 8". A Defiler twin heavy flamer is 12" but a heavy warpflamer is 8".
You haven't got a new Codex yet. That's why you don't have new rules.
Yes I know that. My remark is on GW taking its well known inconsistency and booming it up a whole new level.
Just put a thing in the FAQ with the updated profile and points cost. A paragraph in three different PDFS that they are *updating anyway* is all it would take.
This whole edition just feels bungled so far.
This is the way I look at it, and honestly I don't think the Rona is to blame for bad rules.
I sold one of my 40K armies for an Imperial Armada for SWA and that game is hella better than this pile of trash we're seeing for 9th. I'm considering bailing on 40K period so that I can pick up the other three SWA factions.
Super Ready wrote: It also creates a massive workload imbalance, geared towards crunching, rather than spreading the work out for the team over an edition's lifecycle. Not to mention, that leaves you much less room to take onboard feedback from tournaments etc for what can be improved from this edition.
I don't believe anyone who seriously thinks crunching out the Codexes in one go has ever come close to running a successful business.
No it doesn't. That's why I said, start developing the 10th edition codexes NOW. Go slowly, got all the time ahead and several years worth of feedback to gain knowledge and re-adjust. Where's the crunch in that?
It also leaves you MUCH MORE room to take feedback from tournaments. Right now the tournament results are being used (perhaps) to enrich 9th edition, but nothing is being done towards the 10th.
Since it is definite that a 10th edition will be coming, create a business line now, start building it slowly, learn and adapt from 9th, get all the time in the world to develop all the codexes, and finally (the horror), be able to release one fully fledged version in one go.
You know, like every other freaking product in the world does.
Imagine going to the croccery store to get some orange juice, then the dude goes: "sorry sir, you can only take the bottle right now. The orange juice we still need to develop. But rest assured, when it comes it will be fully optimized!"
Would you buy the bottle and wait for the juice? So why would you with warhammer?
Who believed that anyway? When it had rules made irrelevant with 9e. Even sisters codex was taunted as "9e in mind" yet had special rules made 100% useless and virtually useless as well.
Which sells better? "Buy this book despite new edition in horizon. It's designed it in mind!" or "buy this book! It will be invalidated in few months time!"
People keep assuming "designed with 9th in mind" means "designed with 9th in mind, at a far higher quality level than normal". Misbalanced and error-ridden rules that get and/or need errata which may or may not totally change how a rule is played, that is how GW rules for a current edition work. If PA was designed with 9th in mind but also to actually function in the edition they were released this is exactly what I would expect to see.
I'm almost positive "Designed with 9th in mind" is marketing speak that literally was just gibberish designed to distract you from the change over. To be honest I actually forgot that PA even happened, and as far as I can tell all the rules from those books that were "good" only saw extremely high level play. I certainly have yet to see anything outside of some of the new model data sheets used on the tabletop.
topaxygouroun i wrote: No it doesn't. That's why I said, start developing the 10th edition codexes NOW. Go slowly, got all the time ahead and several years worth of feedback to gain knowledge and re-adjust. Where's the crunch in that?
People join and leave companies, if you take years to update everything, then some people working on them towards the end may well not know what was intended by people who started them.
And if you try to tell me "that should be documented" - you've clearly never run an actual project.
It also leaves you MUCH MORE room to take feedback from tournaments. Right now the tournament results are being used (perhaps) to enrich 9th edition, but nothing is being done towards the 10th.
Since it is definite that a 10th edition will be coming, create a business line now, start building it slowly, learn and adapt from 9th, get all the time in the world to develop all the codexes, and finally (the horror), be able to release one fully fledged version in one go.
That means that all the feedback you get, will be for rules that you already know will be outdated. Meanwhile, you get absolutely no feedback on the changes you're planning. If you wind up with a dozen Codexes that have Ynnari/Riptide/Eradicator level balance problems, that aren't spotted before the rules leave the studio, then that's suddenly a lot of problems you take on all at once - so, either more crunch, or an awful long time before they're fixed (and let's face it, we know GW, it'd be the latter).
You know, like every other freaking product in the world does.
Imagine going to the croccery store to get some orange juice, then the dude goes: "sorry sir, you can only take the bottle right now. The orange juice we still need to develop. But rest assured, when it comes it will be fully optimized!"
Would you buy the bottle and wait for the juice? So why would you with warhammer?
You're seriously comparing Warhammer to orange juice?! There are a thousand other examples of products you could have gone with, but the most relevant ones (other wargames) don't follow your example.
Again... I have serious doubts that you've ever done anything like running a business, and it shows. You're talking about an idea that would be great for the customer, but just isn't feasible to keep a company going long-term.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Meanwhile in the T.Sons side of the river, a cultist flamer is 12" but a Rubric warpflamer is 8". A Defiler twin heavy flamer is 12" but a heavy warpflamer is 8".
You haven't got a new Codex yet. That's why you don't have new rules.
Yes I know that. My remark is on GW taking its well known inconsistency and booming it up a whole new level.
Same with 9 inch plague spewers which are basically a flamer with a the added plague weapon re-roll
Super Ready wrote: That means that all the feedback you get, will be for rules that you already know will be outdated.
Uuuh...They already are outdated. There's stuff already coming making feedback now rather pointless except for errata's. Which doesn't change either way.
Super Ready wrote: If you wind up with a dozen Codexes that have Ynnari/Riptide/Eradicator level balance problems, that aren't spotted before the rules leave the studio, then that's suddenly a lot of problems you take on all at once - so, either more crunch, or an awful long time before they're fixed (and let's face it, we know GW, it'd be the latter).
If GW's rules writers weren't incompetent, there wouldn't be Ynnari/Riptide/Eradicator level balance problems.
People join and leave companies, if you take years to update everything, then some people working on them towards the end may well not know what was intended by people who started them.
And if you try to tell me "that should be documented" - you've clearly never run an actual project.
People joining and leaving companies is irrelevant. Every project has a roadmap, and the roadmap is being generated in program level based on marketing input. Who types the keyboard is irrelevant. As is irrelevant if X faction will get Y or Z functionality, as long as both of them serve the roadmap.
That means that all the feedback you get, will be for rules that you already know will be outdated. Meanwhile, you get absolutely no feedback on the changes you're planning. If you wind up with a dozen Codexes that have Ynnari/Riptide/Eradicator level balance problems, that aren't spotted before the rules leave the studio, then that's suddenly a lot of problems you take on all at once - so, either more crunch, or an awful long time before they're fixed (and let's face it, we know GW, it'd be the latter).
So how short sighted actually do you expect a development team to be? Most rules don't get outdated, as most editions have a well 70% carry over. Most of the rules that change are actually tweaks which can be developed perfectly well by data collection and building models for them. Entry new units (eradicators) can be tricky indeed, but with 6 month update plans the balance problem will be fixed sooner than it will take to address it on next christmas with a silly point change which most often achieves nothing. Also, you end up with Eradicator level balance problems more often when you have 6 months to build a codex rather than when you have 3 years to do it.
You're seriously comparing Warhammer to orange juice?! There are a thousand other examples of products you could have gone with, but the most relevant ones (other wargames) don't follow your example.
What example would you prefer?
Again... I have serious doubts that you've ever done anything like running a business, and it shows. You're talking about an idea that would be great for the customer, but just isn't feasible to keep a company going long-term.
I work the semiconductor industry. The company I work for makes products with a 250 million price tag. Some of these products are not going to be on the market for several years ahead. We still have departments the size of ~1000 people working on them for 3 years ALREADY. It's a glorious black hole of burning research funds and it has been the model of the company for the last 20+ years. It has also put us light years ahead of the competition and has given us a 88% market share. The company celebrates 45 years soon. I'd say this qualifies as long term.
No I haven't run a business. But I have been involved in one that thrives because it puts quality and development to the top pedestal.
I don't know what kind of company you run, but if you agree with the model of GW I wouldn't see myself being your customer. As I have stopped being a GW customer for a good 2+ years now, and wish I would have done that sooner.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I work the semiconductor industry. The company I work for makes products with a 250 million price tag. Some of these products are not going to be on the market for several years ahead. We still have departments the size of ~1000 people working on them for 3 years ALREADY. It's a glorious black hole of burning research funds and it has been the model of the company for the last 20+ years. It has also put us light years ahead of the competition and has given us a 88% market share. The company celebrates 45 years soon. I'd say this qualifies as long term.
Fair enough! It sounds like you guys have your projects under MUCH better control than GW, or indeed most companies...
What example would you prefer?
As I say, other wargames would be a good start. I'm not aware of one that releases rules for all its factions in one go, unless it's a brand new game that needs to drop multiple factions at once.
It's just not a good way to keep the money flowing while you're putting in all that work to be able to drop the updates later, and most wargames wouldn't survive the three years you suggest.
Maybe GWcould pull this off by dipping into cash reserves to do it? But good luck convincing the shareholders, and not getting yourself "amicably parting ways" when they see the first year's profit drop.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not aware of one that releases rules for all its factions in one go, unless it's a brand new game that needs to drop multiple factions at once.
This is a fairly common practice with medium-small companies, including multiple editions in, not only because they need to get things rolling but because once established it keeps everyone interested, since you know you're getting some kind of new toy when the next expansion book hits.
This is harder for something like 40k with a vast number of large armies. But, for instance, Necromunda could have theoretically maintained a model where every so often a book drops, and everyone gets their new specialist unit and veteran option and there's a new gang added, and they played with that before with the Kill Team commanders expansion, for instance. And chapter approved kind of follows this model. It's also kind of what GW seems to be doing with their campaign books, they've just (as they tend to) cluttered things by driving exciting new rules and power shifts in a way that led to a new edition. If they'd done a slow burn it could have easily lasted them much longer.
If you have a stable enough game, you can do slow and spread out releases, but that's not (regardless of my opinion of this choice) GW's MO.
As I say, other wargames would be a good start. I'm not aware of one that releases rules for all its factions in one go, unless it's a brand new game that needs to drop multiple factions at once.
It's just not a good way to keep the money flowing while you're putting in all that work to be able to drop the updates later, and most wargames wouldn't survive the three years you suggest.
Maybe GWcould pull this off by dipping into cash reserves to do it? But good luck convincing the shareholders, and not getting yourself "amicably parting ways" when they see the first year's profit drop.
Games Workshop was able to do this. Quite recently in fact. And I'm not talking about some temporary update to make things work in a new edition, but simultaneously updating the core rules and every single profile in the game at that time. Now, their Middle-earth game may not consist of quite as many unique entries as 40k, but then again they can have many more people working on it - much of the Middle-earth work was done by one guy as far as I'm aware. I also don't think it would generate as many sales as incrementally updating books over and over again. But dang, the Middle-earth game was among the best GW produced in their entire history, and after the update it was in a better place than it had ever been. By updating everything at once, any likely rules interactions could be spotted and clarified, similar aspects could be updated across the range, some semblance of balance could be implemented. Of course, with it being a continually supported game, new things will be added, but those can be measured against the standard of "everything else", rather than the latest/strongest/average power level of existing things. For the quality of the game, it's the best choice I'd say, and one that appears absolutely feasible. If that's what they'd want. Which it isn't.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I work the semiconductor industry. The company I work for makes products with a 250 million price tag. Some of these products are not going to be on the market for several years ahead. We still have departments the size of ~1000 people working on them for 3 years ALREADY. It's a glorious black hole of burning research funds and it has been the model of the company for the last 20+ years. It has also put us light years ahead of the competition and has given us a 88% market share. The company celebrates 45 years soon. I'd say this qualifies as long term.
Fair enough! It sounds like you guys have your projects under MUCH better control than GW, or indeed most companies...
What example would you prefer?
As I say, other wargames would be a good start. I'm not aware of one that releases rules for all its factions in one go, unless it's a brand new game that needs to drop multiple factions at once.
It's just not a good way to keep the money flowing while you're putting in all that work to be able to drop the updates later, and most wargames wouldn't survive the three years you suggest.
Maybe GWcould pull this off by dipping into cash reserves to do it? But good luck convincing the shareholders, and not getting yourself "amicably parting ways" when they see the first year's profit drop.
Warmachine is probably the biggest wargame in terms of rules and models which used to update all factions at the same time when a new edition hits but... let's say that it didn't exactly make the balance or the rule's quality better...
I think the issues with the launch don't require them to do all the armies at once to fix.
They said all the weapons are changing so they can just go through and find all the ones that have flamer like rules and change them. Put it in the FAQ file you are updating anyway.
They said marines are getting +1 wound and that tacticals are going up 20% in points as a result. So just put a similar points increase in the FAQ file you are updating anyway. So what if it's way off? It's always way off and then tweaked months later.
If you tell people on a warhammer community article that there army is getting it too, just do it. Put it in the FAQ.
Chamberlain wrote: I think the issues with the launch don't require them to do all the armies at once to fix.
[...]
They said marines are getting +1 wound and that tacticals are going up 20% in points as a result. So just put a similar points increase in the FAQ file you are updating anyway. So what if it's way off? It's always way off and then tweaked months later.
Good point! Yeah, they totally could have done a stop-gap, "these units are going up 1 w; here's their new temp cost," and yeah it's not esp. stable, but things already aren't stable and this at least makes them closer to even.
The current inconsistency is just strange, especially in a system that so heavily emphasizes narrative blah blah blah.
I'm glad they remembered to update the Tau flamer, a bit disappointed they forgot about the fusion blaster. Giving me cool flashbacks to when we were stuck with 12" meltas while the imperial counterparts were all 18".
Quasistellar wrote: I would suspect that for the weapons that didn't get updated, there might be different things in store for them to reflect their faction.
Ah to not be as synical as I am I suspect they will get the same rules as their imperial counterparts just they aren't being FAQ'd so their is actually a poor boost to make you want the codex.
Super Ready wrote: It also creates a massive workload imbalance, geared towards crunching, rather than spreading the work out for the team over an edition's lifecycle. Not to mention, that leaves you much less room to take onboard feedback from tournaments etc for what can be improved from this edition.
I don't believe anyone who seriously thinks crunching out the Codexes in one go has ever come close to running a successful business.
Very good point - I am in fact a frequent customer of it.
Though, I'm glad that the crunch environment publishers have taken for granted for so long is getting backlash.
...of course, you could take the analogy a step further, and liken the thousands of possible PC combinations making quality control and bug-fixing very difficult - together with the balancing act of multiplayer games - and apply that to balancing hundreds of units, weapons and stratagems across multiple factions. ...it's actually a really good analogy, well played.
Super Ready wrote: It also creates a massive workload imbalance, geared towards crunching, rather than spreading the work out for the team over an edition's lifecycle. Not to mention, that leaves you much less room to take onboard feedback from tournaments etc for what can be improved from this edition.
I don't believe anyone who seriously thinks crunching out the Codexes in one go has ever come close to running a successful business.
Ever heard if the video games industry?
I've both heard of and seen the result of that, yeah. At any rate, discussing all codex being released at once is irrelevant; it will not happen. The reasons are many, from development crunch to stocking to linking it up with model design to sales inconsistency.
Mr Morden wrote: Should have done 9th Edition Indexes for all but Marines and Necrons (with new codexes)
And override every book in print in one go?
Again, 9th didn't need an Index for every army because every Codex in print is still valid.
You point out the exact problem they want to highlight -old codexes are still valid.
GW decided to do a big change in the game system with more powerfull stats (or a bigger/more diverse scale). But they chose to just give it to lojalist marines for now. So, atleast weapons should have been updated Index style.
Its an awfull way to treat the customers. Together with the patchwork, soon to be invalidated, PA series, updated powerlevels and points in separate publications, poorly consistent FaQs and weird scenery supplements, 9th is just a huge mess. So its no wonder people think back to the plesant and balanced days of 8th edition Index rules -the golden age of 40k.
I dont see huge problem in reality though. Personally I play lots of armies, and could focus on my Space Wolves for now, but then again, most people I play with dont run loyalist marines, so in the end it probably ad up. And, i mean, factions like Daemons and Orks you dont expect to be competetive anyway
Mr Morden wrote: Should have done 9th Edition Indexes for all but Marines and Necrons (with new codexes)
And override every book in print in one go?
Again, 9th didn't need an Index for every army because every Codex in print is still valid. This isn't the shift like 7th to 8th was.
Exactly. It's not a problem at all for armies like marines which got their 8th edition codex early in the edition, they got a codex 2.0 plus all supplements mid 8th edition AND they get a new codex in 9th edition.
Meanwhile armies like Tyranids have to wait possibly another year or even more, looking back and forth wondering how tf is it ok for other armies to be getting 3x the releases on rules and 140x the releases on models, all while knowing that even when their 9th edition codex comes, any bs still remaining (like the fact that they're the only army in the game still carrying over an army trait that's a penalty) they will have to stick with for the upcoming 4-5 years to go.
Because how dare they expect a 2.0 codex or any sort of fair treatment in PA kind of releases.
Overall, it's pretty damn poor of you to suggest "hey your codex is still valid, why are you complaining?"
Same problems we had in 6th with AA weapons only available with new Codex
or in 7th with formations
this is GW's business model to keep the game running as constant change and imbalance created by not every faction being up to date make people buy more than needed and keep them active waiting and talking about it
the main advantage here is for GW and there is no need to change it
Fayric wrote: You point out the exact problem they want to highlight -old codexes are still valid.
I don't see that as a problem. Invalidating all the Codices would be a massive "feth you" to the fanbase only one cycle into this new rules base.
Fayric wrote: GW decided to do a big change in the game system with more powerfull stats (or a bigger/more diverse scale). But they chose to just give it to lojalist marines for now. So, atleast weapons should have been updated Index style.
Weapons have been updated. We just got FAQs for that. And I wouldn't call what they did with Marines a "big change to the game system". It's a big change to Marines, and that's all.
Fayric wrote: Its an awfull way to treat the customers. Together with the patchwork, soon to be invalidated, PA series, updated powerlevels and points in separate publications, poorly consistent FaQs and weird scenery supplements, 9th is just a huge mess.
Those are all bad, but really have nothing to do with invalidating every 8th Codex to make yet another round of Indices, all of which would be invalidated almost as quickly as that Chapter Approve 2020 points book is about to be.
Fayric wrote: So its no wonder people think back to the plesant and balanced days of 8th edition Index rules -the golden age of 40k.
There was nothing pleasant or balanced about 8th. Anyone thinking that is delusional.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Because how dare they expect a 2.0 codex or any sort of fair treatment in PA kind of releases.
Why should anyone expect a 2.0 Codex within one edition?
The whole point of the PA books was to update all the armies prior to the launch of 9th, and from everything I've seen (and I'm a Tyranid player who focused almost exclusively on my 'Nids during my time with 8th), our PA was pretty good.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Overall, it's pretty damn poor of you to suggest "hey your codex is still valid, why are you complaining?"
Why? Who wants a book that gets invalidated the moment a new edition comes out.
The only downside to not having new Codices for everyone is that those races are missing out on the Crusade stuff. I really want the Tyranid and Chaos Crusade stuff, more than anything, but Marines and Necrons get it first.
Fayric wrote: GW decided to do a big change in the game system with more powerfull stats (or a bigger/more diverse scale). But they chose to just give it to lojalist marines for now. So, atleast weapons should have been updated Index style.
Weapons have been updated. We just got FAQs for that. And I wouldn't call what they did with Marines a "big change to the game system". It's a big change to Marines, and that's all.
The only downside to not having new Codices for everyone is that those races are missing out on the Crusade stuff. I really want the Tyranid and Chaos Crusade stuff, more than anything, but Marines and Necrons get it first.
Oh really everyone's got weapon updates that's funny as GW has once again ignored the FW index's for all factions.
Yeah we now have Heavy 4 stubbers for only marines because GW competence, Fusion being melta with a different name just a straight up weaker version for more points.
Oh and all that D2 you'll need for marine's hope you never have to shoot it at a dreadnaught.
The balance in 9th between tiers of codex is so insane it's actually probably worse than 8th edition.
Yeah we now have Heavy 4 stubbers for only marines because GW competence,
Space Marines don't have stubbers, they have Ironhail stubbers, differant weapon, which you fething well know.
IronHail just means have free AP-1 not magical extra shots.
It's just GW putting out a minimum efforts FAQ so that marketing can claim they have updated all the factions.
Yeah we now have Heavy 4 stubbers for only marines because GW competence,
Space Marines don't have stubbers, they have Ironhail stubbers, differant weapon, which you fething well know.
IronHail just means have free AP-1 not magical extra shots.
It's just GW putting out a minimum efforts FAQ so that marketing can claim they have updated all the factions.
Ironhail means whatever GW fething wants it to mean. THEY ARE DIFFERANT WEAPONS.
Look if GW made the boltgun range 30, would you be insisting GW had to have made the bolt rifle range 36 because "boltrifles are boltguns with extra range"?
now MAYBE when the guard get their dex GW'll revist the heavy stubber, but GW does not owe you a magic heavy stubber revamp just because a marine weapon that's similer got revamped.
As it is, I can't belive any guard player would be complaining given the MASSIVE upgrade to a number of weapons guard where just handed.
Ice_can wrote: Oh really everyone's got weapon updates that's funny as GW has once again ignored the FW index's for all factions.
GW hasn't cared about FW rules for a long time, and they're not about to update rules they didn't write when they've got a book that they did write covering FW units coming up soon.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah we now have Heavy 4 stubbers for only marines because GW competence...
Which has exactly zero relevance to anything I said in my previous post*...
Ice_can wrote: Fusion being melta with a different name just a straight up weaker version for more points.
Ok? And? They said they'd update all the weapons that were the same. Some races don't have "Melta" weapons. They have "Fusion" weapons, so they updated anyone that had "Melta", and left the "Fusion" alone. For all we know, "Fusion" weapons could be in for a completely different set of rules when their time comes. Or, what is more likely, they were just updating all the same weapons across the game rather than worrying about slight racial variations (y'know, like the Death Guard not-Flamer, or the Thousand Sons not-Hand Flamer). They said they'd update Melta weapons across the board, and that's exactly what they did. You'll note that Eldar got Power Sword updates because they still use power swords, rather than something with a different name. Tau got Flamer updates because, you guessed it, they still use flamers. Tau don't use Melta weapons, so they didn't get updated. This isn't rocket science.
"But they updated Ion weapons!!!"
Yes, to bring them in line with the 9th wording for overload/get's hot/etc. special rules.
Ice_can wrote: The balance in 9th between tiers of codex is so insane it's actually probably worse than 8th edition.
Ok... but none of that changes that GW updated exactly what they said they were going to update.
*I think Marines having Stubbers is bone-headed, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The only downside to not having new Codices for everyone is that those races are missing out on the Crusade stuff. I really want the Tyranid and Chaos Crusade stuff, more than anything, but Marines and Necrons get it first.
If you don't share the name if a weapon you don't get the buffed damage output would be 1 downside.
They have added to the power imbalances in the game which aren't exactly small currently.
I agree they did what they actually committed to doing and in some ways actually a bit more by making the on 1 and on 6's rules all consistent finally.
Just instead of trying to bring the factions from 1 to 20 on the power creep scale to say 5 to 15 they decided not to bother and leave the faction imbalances in the dumpsterfire they created with MFM2020.
Also have you seen a release date for the FW book yet? Genuinely interested as this is the third time GW have said they are releasing that (now book was books before), my level of trust in them actually delivering the book is wearing thin.
dhallnet wrote: It's like the release schedule has been delayed by about 3 months for some obscure reason.
You realise that GW said the FW book would be out over a year ago, this is a covid delay this is inter studio politics screwing over the consumer and managment not keeping the middle managment BS in check.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Weapons have been updated. We just got FAQs for that. And I wouldn't call what they did with Marines a "big change to the game system". It's a big change to Marines, and that's all.
Ah yes. Sad day for 40k when game is rendered as Imperium only.
Because obviously only imperium stuff is relevant. Nothing else exists. Imperium got toys updated, game is perfect.
I'm not aware of one that releases rules for all its factions in one go
Actually, outside of adding new models when they get sculpted and released, I cannot think of a popular game outside of FoW (is it still popular?) that doesn't drop all the stats with the new edition. Infinity does it, Malifaux does it, not sure about Privateer but they used to. Dropzone/Dropfleet certainly does. GW, Warlord Games (run largerly by GW refugees if I recall) and Battlefront are the main if not only ones sticking to the old model of not updating everything at once.
Except GW used to do it with 3rd ed 40k and 6th ed WFB, (and later mucked it up with codex/AB releases that superseded these army lists).
I would have been absolutely furious if they had made 9th edition indexes. So many books invalidated at one time, by another hold me over you would be paying for. Feth that.
So, we've gotten FAQs for weapons in a lot of codexes and supplements, including some we know have new books coming out soon, but still nothing for fw units. If we don't get a fwFAQ this week can we assume that the release of the Imperial Armour Compendium will be soon? Because most of units in that book are for loyalists, and I doubt gw will leave its favourite faction without updated rules for its resin toys for long.
Like literally every other time you've asked about it, we don't know when the FW book will be out. But it will be out sometime.
Continually asking about it or getting frustrated it's not out yet? That won't make it go faster.
Kanluwen wrote: Like literally every other time you've asked about it, we don't know when the FW book will be out. But it will be out sometime.
Continually asking about it or getting frustrated it's not out yet? That won't make it go faster.
No, it won't, but getting a FAQ for any weapons affected by the new rules would be nice. Sorry if my speculation bothers you.
dhallnet wrote: It's like the release schedule has been delayed by about 3 months for some obscure reason.
You realise that GW said the FW book would be out over a year ago, this is a covid delay this is inter studio politics screwing over the consumer and managment not keeping the middle managment BS in check.
dhallnet wrote: It's like the release schedule has been delayed by about 3 months for some obscure reason.
You realise that GW said the FW book would be out over a year ago, this is a covid delay this is inter studio politics screwing over the consumer and managment not keeping the middle managment BS in check.
They said "shortly after 9ed", no ?
No that was the 3rd self imposed deadline shift (after they announced 9th edition) having previously promised an updated before the middle of 8th.
Like seriously who actually is in control of the design team, as they really need to get some training on what project scheduling is.
Also don't forget we don't even have the codex for Marines nor Necrons. Two things that should have been hot on the heels of Indomitus. There is politics in GW regarding FW as well as management issues - but this is purely a covid situation messing up the release scheduled.
Overread wrote: Also don't forget we don't even have the codex for Marines nor Necrons. Two things that should have been hot on the heels of Indomitus. There is politics in GW regarding FW as well as management issues - but this is purely a covid situation messing up the release scheduled.
I'm surprised we got the PDF updates last weekend*. I thought they'd be out this weekend alongside the new Codices.
*Actually I think it's amazing that they updated the non-Marine armies at all. This isn't something GW did in the past. We'd just have Heavy Bolters with different profiles in two books for 6-months to a year until another book with HBs in them (Guard, Chaos, etc.) came out. And people still find a reason to complain.
Overread wrote: Also don't forget we don't even have the codex for Marines nor Necrons. Two things that should have been hot on the heels of Indomitus. There is politics in GW regarding FW as well as management issues - but this is purely a covid situation messing up the release scheduled.
I'm surprised we got the PDF updates last weekend*. I thought they'd be out this weekend alongside the new Codices.
*Actually I think it's amazing that they updated the non-Marine armies at all. This isn't something GW did in the past. We'd just have Heavy Bolters with different profiles in two books for 6-months to a year until another book with HBs in them (Guard, Chaos, etc.) came out. And people still find a reason to complain.
I agree that some update for some armies (mostly Imperial) is good....its not as good as general Index update.
The other issue is the armies that are actually getting supplements soon got super special updates which will be replaced in a short time but the armies that wonlt get one for six months to a year got nothing.
Overread wrote: Also don't forget we don't even have the codex for Marines nor Necrons. Two things that should have been hot on the heels of Indomitus. There is politics in GW regarding FW as well as management issues - but this is purely a covid situation messing up the release scheduled.
I'm surprised we got the PDF updates last weekend*. I thought they'd be out this weekend alongside the new Codices.
*Actually I think it's amazing that they updated the non-Marine armies at all. This isn't something GW did in the past. We'd just have Heavy Bolters with different profiles in two books for 6-months to a year until another book with HBs in them (Guard, Chaos, etc.) came out. And people still find a reason to complain.
agreed. the whining from eldar players that they didn't get an update when the marine codex came out is honestly kind of hilarious.
Mr Morden wrote: I agree that some update for some armies (mostly Imperial) is good....its not as good as general Index update.
Which would instantly invalidate every existing in-print Codex. No. That's not better.
Mr Morden wrote: The other issue is the armies that are actually getting supplements soon got super special updates which will be replaced in a short time but the armies that wonlt get one for six months to a year got nothing.
The Space Marine Codex update took away tons of units from Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and especially Space Wolf players. All their unique units were lost overnight. They needed an Index so they could keep playing their armies rather than just using generic First Born/Primaris units.
This is why they got an Index and, for example, Tyranids didn't, as the Tyranid Codex is completely valid and hasn't been replaced or had vast swathes of it removed by a more recent Codex.
Mr Morden wrote: I agree that some update for some armies (mostly Imperial) is good....its not as good as general Index update.
Which would instantly invalidate every existing in-print Codex. No. That's not better.
Mr Morden wrote: The other issue is the armies that are actually getting supplements soon got super special updates which will be replaced in a short time but the armies that wonlt get one for six months to a year got nothing.
The Space Marine Codex update took away tons of units from Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and especially Space Wolf players. All their unique units were lost overnight. They needed an Index so they could keep playing their armies rather than just using generic First Born/Primaris units.
This is why they got an Index and, for example, Tyranids didn't, as the Tyranid Codex is completely valid and hasn't been replaced or had vast swathes of it removed by a more recent Codex.
So having the game balance be totally broken and to then buff stats only on thing's that arbitrarily share a name, was better for game balance and the long term health of the player base/community than GW admitting to what the fact that they're currently rebaslining the statblocks for 9th and you know owning it and being proactive instead of just hand waiving
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
When the win ratios are for some 65% to 35% yeah game balance is not good.
Mr Morden wrote: I agree that some update for some armies (mostly Imperial) is good....its not as good as general Index update.
Which would instantly invalidate every existing in-print Codex. No. That's not better.
Mr Morden wrote: The other issue is the armies that are actually getting supplements soon got super special updates which will be replaced in a short time but the armies that wonlt get one for six months to a year got nothing.
The Space Marine Codex update took away tons of units from Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and especially Space Wolf players. All their unique units were lost overnight. They needed an Index so they could keep playing their armies rather than just using generic First Born/Primaris units.
This is why they got an Index and, for example, Tyranids didn't, as the Tyranid Codex is completely valid and hasn't been replaced or had vast swathes of it removed by a more recent Codex.
you'd think Mr Morden would understand that since he keeps insisting he's a space marine player.
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
When game already had factions that have higher WR than others which now get 100% free buffs(not even paying new points) when damage output for weapons doubles or even more...yeah.
It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Not that unlikely?
on the other hand some are still there right?
Who knows, GW does start with a design paradigm , it doesn't really work out then changes mid edition...
tneva82 wrote: It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
You're referring to Chaos/Sisters/Guard/etc., that is to say all the armies that didn't just get a new Codex with new prices for everything?
tneva82 wrote: It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
You're referring to Chaos/Sisters/Guard/etc., that is to say all the armies that didn't just get a new Codex with new prices for everything?
honestly I'd say sisters proably came out the best from this change. normally WHC articles on power etc is often disconnected from reality (to put it mildly) but they weren't wrong when they said retributor sistyers are crazy good now
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Did salamanders lose their? Ultramarines their? Might be missing but those seems still valid.
Rather PA got removed for good now as the replacement comes in few months. New salamander/ultramarine/etc supplements are bit longer to 2021.
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Phasing out Super Doctrines, or phasing out Black Templars?
In the case of the BA/DA/SW, I imagine their Super Doctrine will reappear in their Supplement, but the BT are in a slightly odd spot - then again, if nothing has said their content from PA is invalid, then it remains valid (while the other three have text which invalidates both their PA and their existing 'dexes).
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Phasing out Super Doctrines, or phasing out Black Templars?
In the case of the BA/DA/SW, I imagine their Super Doctrine will reappear in their Supplement, but the BT are in a slightly odd spot - then again, if nothing has said their content from PA is invalid, then it remains valid (while the other three have text which invalidates both their PA and their existing 'dexes).
Wasn't SW super doctrine exploding 6's in assault phase? That's still there at least. Blood angels get additional attack when charge/charged/heroic intervening. Still there.
(okay maybe that was separate thing and marines had even more of stuff...)
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Phasing out Super Doctrines, or phasing out Black Templars?
In the case of the BA/DA/SW, I imagine their Super Doctrine will reappear in their Supplement, but the BT are in a slightly odd spot - then again, if nothing has said their content from PA is invalid, then it remains valid (while the other three have text which invalidates both their PA and their existing 'dexes).
Wasn't SW super doctrine exploding 6's in assault phase? That's still there at least. Blood angels get additional attack when charge/charged/heroic intervening. Still there.
(okay maybe that was separate thing and marines had even more of stuff...)
Pass - I didn't pick up any of the PA books, and was working off what Brian said. I take it you're referring to "Save Echoes", in the case of the Blood Angels?
Also, it'd be nice to know what's going on with the datasheets for the proper versions of Ragnar and Mephiston, given they don't appear to be in the BA or SW temporary PDFs, and they've not appeared in Legends yet.
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Phasing out Super Doctrines, or phasing out Black Templars?
In the case of the BA/DA/SW, I imagine their Super Doctrine will reappear in their Supplement, but the BT are in a slightly odd spot - then again, if nothing has said their content from PA is invalid, then it remains valid (while the other three have text which invalidates both their PA and their existing 'dexes).
Wasn't SW super doctrine exploding 6's in assault phase? That's still there at least. Blood angels get additional attack when charge/charged/heroic intervening. Still there.
(okay maybe that was separate thing and marines had even more of stuff...)
gak you're right, space wolves still have theirs as do blood angels and dark angels. makes me suspect that black templars lost theirs by omission. think I'll send GW an email
Also, it'd be nice to know what's going on with the datasheets for the proper versions of Ragnar and Mephiston, given they don't appear to be in the BA or SW temporary PDFs, and they've not appeared in Legends yet.
I found Ragnar(the guy that throws up ridiculous number of attacks with exploding 4+ with 1CP stratagem) in PDF. Mephiston found on page 10 of BA PDF errata.
edit: and yes if you meant non-primaris...Gone. Poof. No more.
BrianDavion wrote: So it just occured to me, all the various marine factions that got a super doctrine in their PA just lost it. including black templars whom, as far as we know, aren't getting a supplement. could GW be moving to phase them out?
Phasing out Super Doctrines, or phasing out Black Templars?
In the case of the BA/DA/SW, I imagine their Super Doctrine will reappear in their Supplement, but the BT are in a slightly odd spot - then again, if nothing has said their content from PA is invalid, then it remains valid (while the other three have text which invalidates both their PA and their existing 'dexes).
Wasn't SW super doctrine exploding 6's in assault phase? That's still there at least. Blood angels get additional attack when charge/charged/heroic intervening. Still there.
(okay maybe that was separate thing and marines had even more of stuff...)
Pass - I didn't pick up any of the PA books, and was working off what Brian said. I take it you're referring to "Save Echoes", in the case of the Blood Angels?
Also, it'd be nice to know what's going on with the datasheets for the proper versions of Ragnar and Mephiston, given they don't appear to be in the BA or SW temporary PDFs, and they've not appeared in Legends yet.
if by proper versions you mean the "non-primaris" versions, they don't exist. I mean, if you want a first born Ragnar, just squint and use Krom
gak you're right, space wolves still have theirs as do blood angels and dark angels. makes me suspect that black templars lost theirs by omission. think I'll send GW an email
Entirely possible(it's GW we are talking about ) so yeah send away. Can't hurt in any case and if it's "whoops" enough noise about that could sort it out.
Though...SW/BAPA got deleted by respective errata. Without anything saying otherwise...BT one is still valid.
gak you're right, space wolves still have theirs as do blood angels and dark angels. makes me suspect that black templars lost theirs by omission. think I'll send GW an email
Entirely possible(it's GW we are talking about ) so yeah send away. Can't hurt in any case and if it's "whoops" enough noise about that could sort it out.
Though...SW/BAPA got deleted by respective errata. Without anything saying otherwise...BT one is still valid.
BT one specificly says it's invalid too. although frankly I think it'd be a dick move not to let the black templars use the super doctrine from F&F when playing agaisnt one. I mean....... it's hardly game breaking
gak you're right, space wolves still have theirs as do blood angels and dark angels. makes me suspect that black templars lost theirs by omission. think I'll send GW an email
Entirely possible(it's GW we are talking about ) so yeah send away. Can't hurt in any case and if it's "whoops" enough noise about that could sort it out.
Though...SW/BAPA got deleted by respective errata. Without anything saying otherwise...BT one is still valid.
BT one specificly says it's invalid too. although frankly I think it'd be a dick move not to let the black templars use the super doctrine from F&F when playing agaisnt one. I mean....... it's hardly game breaking
BT don't have specific errata on their name. And at least I didnt' find in faith and fury. What PA they were?
gak you're right, space wolves still have theirs as do blood angels and dark angels. makes me suspect that black templars lost theirs by omission. think I'll send GW an email
Entirely possible(it's GW we are talking about ) so yeah send away. Can't hurt in any case and if it's "whoops" enough noise about that could sort it out.
Though...SW/BAPA got deleted by respective errata. Without anything saying otherwise...BT one is still valid.
BT one specificly says it's invalid too. although frankly I think it'd be a dick move not to let the black templars use the super doctrine from F&F when playing agaisnt one. I mean....... it's hardly game breaking
BT don't have specific errata on their name. And at least I didnt' find in faith and fury. What PA they were?
Helpfully, the BTIA document isn't linked to from the FAQ section, only the WHC post about the updates - Brian, if you're emailing GW about the Super Doctrine, you might want to mention that too.
And, yes, the "proper" versions of Ragnar and Mephiston are the non-Primaris ones - if we can have the datasheets for the two proper versions of Marneus in Legends, they can crop up there too. They probably shouldn't've been given exactly the same datasheet name in the first place...
Mr Morden wrote: I agree that some update for some armies (mostly Imperial) is good....its not as good as general Index update.
Which would instantly invalidate every existing in-print Codex. No. That's not better.
Mr Morden wrote: The other issue is the armies that are actually getting supplements soon got super special updates which will be replaced in a short time but the armies that wonlt get one for six months to a year got nothing.
The Space Marine Codex update took away tons of units from Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and especially Space Wolf players. All their unique units were lost overnight. They needed an Index so they could keep playing their armies rather than just using generic First Born/Primaris units.
This is why they got an Index and, for example, Tyranids didn't, as the Tyranid Codex is completely valid and hasn't been replaced or had vast swathes of it removed by a more recent Codex.
you'd think Mr Morden would understand that since he keeps insisting he's a space marine player.
I am space marine player -Mate - get over yourself
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
When game already had factions that have higher WR than others which now get 100% free buffs(not even paying new points) when damage output for weapons doubles or even more...yeah.
It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
I mean...objectively all the weapons that got changed were ALREADY a major balance issue because they were all almost unfixably terrible. Generic flamers were a meme weapon for new players to waste points on, multimeltas were arguably the worst weapon for the points in the game and were so bad that that crippled any vehicle that HAD to take them, and heavy bolters were mediocre at the absolute best.
So they fixed a significant balance issue at the expense of making sisters way stronger, guard and chaos quite a bit stronger, and marines a bit stronger. It's ultimately a sidegrade at the moment, but with the POTENTIAL to be a superior balance decision considering you no longer have to figure out how to cost a weapon as awful as the old multimeltas without just making it the same price as a regular melta gun.
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
When game already had factions that have higher WR than others which now get 100% free buffs(not even paying new points) when damage output for weapons doubles or even more...yeah.
It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
I mean...objectively all the weapons that got changed were ALREADY a major balance issue because they were all almost unfixably terrible. Generic flamers were a meme weapon for new players to waste points on, multimeltas were arguably the worst weapon for the points in the game and were so bad that that crippled any vehicle that HAD to take them, and heavy bolters were mediocre at the absolute best.
So they fixed a significant balance issue at the expense of making sisters way stronger, guard and chaos quite a bit stronger, and marines a bit stronger. It's ultimately a sidegrade at the moment, but with the POTENTIAL to be a superior balance decision considering you no longer have to figure out how to cost a weapon as awful as the old multimeltas without just making it the same price as a regular melta gun.
honestly I see this whole debate as being basicly down to short vs long term thinking. the people against it are worried about their army not being as strong for 6 months to a year or however long it takes to get a new 'dex.
the people defending it understand those concerns but reckongize that in the long term this'll be benifical
Unless GW fails to properly balance the new weapons with appropriate point costs and/or changes their design paradigm halfway through the edition. In which case it will be 6-12 months of horrid imbalance leading to 6-12 months of merely bad balance leading back to horrid imbalance again. I imagine many people will read that and think 'isn't that how 40k normally operates?' Which gets to the root of the complaint; people believe that these changes will increase lethality and worsen the current balance for no long-term gain. Is that position justified? A lot of different responses there.
I don't know why people are acting as if this is somehow a unique situation. An army changed, not the fundamentals of the game (that happened at the start of the previous edition).
The only significant thing that happened is that they took the time to update all the same weapons across every army that has them. That's something they would not have done in the past.
When game already had factions that have higher WR than others which now get 100% free buffs(not even paying new points) when damage output for weapons doubles or even more...yeah.
It's not even that weapons got changed. But that they got buffed significantly and stayed same price when the factions were already at the top.
I mean...objectively all the weapons that got changed were ALREADY a major balance issue because they were all almost unfixably terrible. Generic flamers were a meme weapon for new players to waste points on, multimeltas were arguably the worst weapon for the points in the game and were so bad that that crippled any vehicle that HAD to take them, and heavy bolters were mediocre at the absolute best.
So they fixed a significant balance issue at the expense of making sisters way stronger, guard and chaos quite a bit stronger, and marines a bit stronger. It's ultimately a sidegrade at the moment, but with the POTENTIAL to be a superior balance decision considering you no longer have to figure out how to cost a weapon as awful as the old multimeltas without just making it the same price as a regular melta gun.
honestly I see this whole debate as being basicly down to short vs long term thinking. the people against it are worried about their army not being as strong for 6 months to a year or however long it takes to get a new 'dex.
the people defending it understand those concerns but reckongize that in the long term this'll be benifical
Having a new rebalance/ vaugely level playing field at one specific point is a much better idea than updating some now, some in a month, some in six months, some in a year but liekly at the same time as you are updating the first lot again.
Mr Morden wrote: Having a new rebalance/ vaugely level playing field at one specific point is a much better idea than updating some now, some in a month, some in six months, some in a year but liekly at the same time as you are updating the first lot again.
But that's how GW always does it. The difference here is that they bothered to update all identical weapons across the other armies that use them rather than just giving the new stats to whomever got the most recent Codex. And, on top of that, they consolidated all* Marines into one book to further limit the spread of different armies having different stats for the same thing.
Now, obviously, that's not technically true. A lot of people care about the rules for their Forge World minis, but they are such a small group that doing any sort of FAQ for them at this time isn't something GW would consider, especially given that GW aren't in the business of dealing with another group's rules anymore.
Plus, they have their own separate rule compendium coming out that will cover FW units that they themselves wrote, rather than FW.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Unless GW fails to properly balance the new weapons with appropriate point costs and/or changes their design paradigm halfway through the edition. In which case it will be 6-12 months of horrid imbalance leading to 6-12 months of merely bad balance leading back to horrid imbalance again. I imagine many people will read that and think 'isn't that how 40k normally operates?' Which gets to the root of the complaint; people believe that these changes will increase lethality and worsen the current balance for no long-term gain. Is that position justified? A lot of different responses there.
As far as specifically the weapon profiles go:
Flamers saw boosts to usability, not lethality. Heavy bolters are only better at killing targets heavy bolters don't necessarily wanna be shooting at, the multimelta finally makes sense at 25pts on vehicles(even if that may lean a bit towards the overly generous side of things). Melta in general was across the board inferior to plasma anyway so it's debatable if the +2 damage is even an increase in lethality at all when everyone not named Sisters of Battle was taking better guns anyway.
The only factions that saw a very significant bump as a result of this are Guard, Chaos, and Sisters. Guard got more powerful sponsons and some of their vehicles with built in mandatory weapons but most of their gains were in flexibility, not in lethality. Same with Chaos who have some optional weapons that are now useful and some vehicles with built in guns that got a power boost.
Sisters were, if we're being honest, a nearly pure CQC army before these changes. Being stuck with meltas, multimeltas, flamers, and heavy bolters as the VAST majority of your weapons meant that the most shooting you saw in sisters lists was Deadley Descent seraphim and MAYBE 2 exorcists. I'm not gonna lie and pretend these aren't HILARIOUSLY powerful boosts to sisters as a shooting army but it's still debatable if this actually represents an increase in lethality. A sisters of battle CQC force is still likely stronger than a sisters shooting army, it's just a little less ridiculous to bring shooting support than it was before when all of their guns were utter, utter, trash. Again, even in the faction that benefits more from these changes than any other it STILL represents more of a boost to FLEXIBILITY and your number of viable options than it does raw increase in output.
TLDR: If you account for the opportunity cost associated with the weapons you're giving up to be able to use the new profiles, the overall increase in lethality is very small and nowhere near as significant as the increase in flexibility.
Now, obviously, that's not technically true. A lot of people care about the rules for their Forge World minis, but they are such a small group that doing any sort of FAQ for them at this time isn't something GW would consider, especially given that GW aren't in the business of dealing with another group's rules anymore.
Plus, they have their own separate rule compendium coming out that will cover FW units that they themselves wrote, rather than FW.
Well, that's quite a reaction for a statement that I retracted immediately after making. I don't expect major changes, just the ones for the weapons covered by all the other FAQs: 2D heavy bolters, 2 shot multi-meltas, etc. If fw units have to pay the points for those rules they should get them. And gw cared enough to write FAQs for fw for every big errata so far in 9th.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well, that's quite a reaction for a statement that I retracted immediately after making.
To be fair, I made it before you retracted it. I thought it would be dishonest to suddenly delete my entire post (especially with the jackals who post here to nickpick every minor detail and split every possible hair they can, looking for every 'gotcha!' moment they can manage to find, no matter how far outside the realms of context and common sense it takes them).
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't expect major changes, just the ones for the weapons covered by all the other FAQs: 2D heavy bolters, 2 shot multi-meltas, etc. If fw units have to pay the points for those rules they should get them. And gw cared enough to write FAQs for fw for every big errata so far in 9th.
Your right about everything except that last part. The reason they don't care now is because, as I said, they're about to release a FW book, and updating someone else's rules moments before releasing that just isn't worth their time.
Remember that there's a real weird relationship between GW proper and FW, and it's not a healthy one.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well, that's quite a reaction for a statement that I retracted immediately after making.
To be fair, I made it before you retracted it. I thought it would be dishonest to suddenly delete my entire post (especially with the jackals who post here to nickpick every minor detail and split every possible hair they can, looking for every 'gotcha!' moment they can manage to find, no matter how far outside the realms of context and common sense it takes them).
Ok, cool. And dang, you're a fast reader/typer.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I don't expect major changes, just the ones for the weapons covered by all the other FAQs: 2D heavy bolters, 2 shot multi-meltas, etc. If fw units have to pay the points for those rules they should get them. And gw cared enough to write FAQs for fw for every big errata so far in 9th.
Your right about everything except that last part. The reason they don't care now is because, as I said, they're about to release a FW book, and updating someone else's rules moments before releasing that just isn't worth their time.
Remember that there's a real weird relationship between GW proper and FW, and it's not a healthy one.
I can agree with that, but speculating earlier that the lack of a FAQ for fw meant that the Imperial Armour Compendium was close at hand caused a negative reaction, so I thought I should drop that line of thought. Agreed on the gw/fw relationship.
over everyone but Imperial.
if they hadn't clearly decided to use the points costs from playtesting of the new stats which we won't get untill we get the new codex's, which would be less egregious if we didnt know that will take over a year for some Codex's.
) so yeah send away. Can't hurt in any case and if it's "whoops" enough noise about that could sort it out.
