Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah. I really like Centurions. Certainly a lot cooler than fugly dog-head Terminators.

I am still disappointed my Space Wolves cannot have them. They'd be awesome with some pelts added, IMO.

I always liked Centurions, since their release some years ago. I was playing GK at the time and I was sad for not being able to use them.
Once I started a small SM force they've been the first unit I've bought. Red Scorpions Centurions look badass.

Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah. I really like Centurions. Certainly a lot cooler than fugly dog-head Terminators.

I am still disappointed my Space Wolves cannot have them. They'd be awesome with some pelts added, IMO.

I love those terminators!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.

It's funny honestly, they approach it like it's an RPG, where you pick things because it sounds cool in the moment which I love. And then, with mild apologies to the tournament community, "That-guy fest 2020" rolls around and complains that they can break the crap out of the rules because they prioritize winning over an interesting list or a pile of cool things that do the thing.

Power levels are probably the best evidence of how they think. It makes building the pile of cool things infinitely faster than being fiddly about it and who cares about the minor discrepancies. Then along comes the guy who makes his D&D character with 9 books and complains about how stupid the rules writers are to not have explicitly told him not to do that. Seriously, I flash back to college D&D games regularly reading rules discussions around here. That guy looks at power levels and rather than grabbing pre-existing squads that are fluffy, he just dumps his most expensive models into a unit and goes for broke. And as insulting as I'm sure folks will take that, it's really just a different mind set. One does things for the sake of doing them, the other does it for the sake of having the best thing.

But I think I can safely say one thing, GW does not write rules with competitive players in mind. And honestly, it makes the game more interesting for those of us with our pile of cool things. I've lost a lot of cool things about my army to the demands of competitive players, but looking at these changes it looks like they managed to only really knock off most of the worst edge cases with out destroying the primary focus of the faction. If more of the competitive balance changes look like this and less like blanket bans on my faction functioning I'm in.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.

How many times in a row did that man feth up Tyranids? I don't believe a word coming out of his mouth.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
The biggest fault Centurions have visually is that they always felt like a retread of Terminators, except more so.

Now you know how a lot of us feel about Primaris Marines.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.

It's funny honestly, they approach it like it's an RPG, where you pick things because it sounds cool in the moment which I love. And then, with mild apologies to the tournament community, "That-guy fest 2020" rolls around and complains that they can break the crap out of the rules because they prioritize winning over an interesting list or a pile of cool things that do the thing.

Power levels are probably the best evidence of how they think. It makes building the pile of cool things infinitely faster than being fiddly about it and who cares about the minor discrepancies. Then along comes the guy who makes his D&D character with 9 books and complains about how stupid the rules writers are to not have explicitly told him not to do that. Seriously, I flash back to college D&D games regularly reading rules discussions around here. That guy looks at power levels and rather than grabbing pre-existing squads that are fluffy, he just dumps his most expensive models into a unit and goes for broke. And as insulting as I'm sure folks will take that, it's really just a different mind set. One does things for the sake of doing them, the other does it for the sake of having the best thing.

But I think I can safely say one thing, GW does not write rules with competitive players in mind. And honestly, it makes the game more interesting for those of us with our pile of cool things. I've lost a lot of cool things about my army to the demands of competitive players, but looking at these changes it looks like they managed to only really knock off most of the worst edge cases with out destroying the primary focus of the faction. If more of the competitive balance changes look like this and less like blanket bans on my faction functioning I'm in.

If you paly a game, theres generaly a winner and a looser. Winning feels better than loosing. Some people like winning so you are always going to pick the best option...This is quite a common paradigm I would assert. So then when one sides best options are just miles ahead of other sides best options this creates a problem for people playing games.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.

How many times in a row did that man feth up Tyranids? I don't believe a word coming out of his mouth.

Remember he was merely the lead dev, not yhe sole dev on those books.

 Galas wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:


Although I do here the screams of the tourni players echoing through time and space

Tourney players will just adapt as they always do. The cries you'll earn are from those lesser tournament players that copypaste a list from the internet and then rolfstomp their FLGS.

Truth

I suspect soup will be back with ADMECH and AM as a major ingredient

Still some odd things at least with ravenguard and infiltrating start for those odd units as well as other not so stealthy units benefiting from the warlord trait. That one feels more like a shot at centurions in general as opposed to a well thought out fix.

I feel, not bad at all, for those who selectively bought a twinked list to exploit it all and now wasted cash.

I say this to all warhammer players, making a balanced list won't always win every game but GW can't selectively nerf every single unit in a codex unless the army itself is just awful. If you want to future proof your buys as much as possible don't buy into the flavor of the moment and get a somewhat diverse build.

This is yet another lesson learned or should be learned. High end pros won't give a crap as they don't really love the factions as is, they just love to win and if its impossible this way they'll find another or another faction to win with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Shame the players had to be Betatesters once again.

Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.

But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.

Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.

It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness

I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.

That is such a tired excuse though. How old are the designers ? How much evidence must they have that players will exploit broken rules, combos, choices. At some point they need to get their heads in the actual game they are writing rules for and stop assuming wrongly over and over and over and over and etc. etc. All his words meant is exactly gak gak and more gak. It is basically just saying they realize they don't know what they are doing at all.

If they care about game balance at higher levels then begin to think how people have played their game since at least 3rd edition now and that gamers will game and exploit the best units, choices, rules that is what they do. Not at all but to win tournaments ? Every single time they will.

Or, they need to just keep gak as they write it and say sorry not sorry, this is the game we made. Like it or not, this is our game, period.

They are waffling side to side and that empty explanation is nothing but admittance they don't know what they are doing or its a lie. Neither way to look at it is very flattering for them.

Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.

The fact they are getting paid to do that job does rather hint they should know what they are doing as well as hint to some idea of how gamers take game rules. You don't need to be a vet to see this, you simply need to have a couple years experience and maybe attend some tournaments. It's a weak cop out excuse they gave.

" It's not our fault, here at GW high tower we all play gentlemans roxburry rules of army design ! I'd never dreamed someone would stay in the most brutal doctrine that links directly to their super power the whole game ! The prospect people would exploit all positives and no negatives is completely unheard of here ! All of my IH lists field bolter scouts, assault marines and land raiders to transport storm bolter terminators into assault ! I didn't even know what a thunder fire cannon did as I never managed to put mine together !! Reeee ! "

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.

I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.

I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.

As someone who has paid hundreds of dollars for "obvious errors" in textbooks I have to say people have a severely over inflated sense of how "obvious" things are and how perfect they insist the game should be.

To a point I get it. There is nothing wrong with wanting better rules and tighter wording but there is a serious need To the community to take a step back about the things we claim "should" happen when talking about the game.

The game can't be perfect. No game can. Taking shots at the devs for not meeting that unrealistic expectations is fallacious at best and toxic at worst. Critic the product, don't attack the people behind it.

Soapboxing aside, I appreciate them taking RAW more in line with RAI and hopefully they walk away from this with a stronger understanding of the larger player base. We've seen some steps towarss reigning the players in and I honestly hope for more to bring even the crunchiest atmies more align with the lore and how they intend for us to play things.

More 0-1 and 0-2 options per detachment would be a start.

But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.

The fact that they don't is telling.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.

The fact that they don't is telling.

Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.

I'm not talking about the 40K Internet sphere as a whole. I'm talking about just the people here. I mean, all it takes is like 3 people no more than 10m to find all the errors in the rules FW puts up. Maybe bump that up to 12 people an a couple of hours for a Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not talking about the 40K Internet sphere as a whole. I'm talking about just the people here. I mean, all it takes is like 3 people no more than 10m to find all the errors in the rules FW puts up.

Maybe bump that up to 12 people an a couple of hours for a Codex.

Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.

You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.

And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.

And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.

Yes. "Can't see the woods for the trees" is a common error in writing. That's what proof readers and testers are for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.

And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.

Yes. "Can't see the woods for the trees" is a common error in writing. That's what proof readers and testers are for.

We know they have playtesters and editors as well, but that opens a new can of worms: how many of these problems were missed because of more obvious issues? How many were caused by correcting other issues?

How many rounds of testing and editing do they do? I don't know if it's even been made public. And even if you want to respond with "not enough" there is a limit on how many resources can be poured into a single codex before the cost exceeds the project budget.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.

I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.

As someone who has paid hundreds of dollars for "obvious errors" in textbooks I have to say people have a severely over inflated sense of how "obvious" things are and how perfect they insist the game should be.

To a point I get it. There is nothing wrong with wanting better rules and tighter wording but there is a serious need To the community to take a step back about the things we claim "should" happen when talking about the game.

The game can't be perfect. No game can. Taking shots at the devs for not meeting that unrealistic expectations is fallacious at best and toxic at worst. Critic the product, don't attack the people behind it.

Soapboxing aside, I appreciate them taking RAW more in line with RAI and hopefully they walk away from this with a stronger understanding of the larger player base. We've seen some steps towarss reigning the players in and I honestly hope for more to bring even the crunchiest atmies more align with the lore and how they intend for us to play things.

More 0-1 and 0-2 options per detachment would be a start.

I do try to see things from their perspective, and approach things from a reasonable standpoint of accepting human error will occur. Most importantly I always try to be patient with mistakes of people doing something I cannot do myself. But I can do it myself. I was part of those who made point costs for AoS when it had none, I have repeatedly seen balance concerns from reading be borne out in practice, I have completely re-written one of GWs supplements to expand and improve it. Is it flawless? Hardly. But I'm not asking for flawless, I'm asking for GW to at the very least do the basic algebra of different equipment loadouts to notice that maybe something with vastly higher average damage should cost a bit more. For GW to consider that just maybe a sub-faction granting +1 to the save characteristic for the entire army is going to be imbalanced. For countless other things that require the barest effort to notice and fix to be noticed and fixed at least with the two-week FAQ rather than letting it wreck the meta for six months.

At the end of the day my personal experience with writing rules is precisely why I am so critical of the GW design team.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.

The fact that they don't is telling.

Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.

I don't have hundreds of eyes I have 2, or 4 if you count my glasses. I'm not saying I'm a super genius all I'm saying is I'm tired of their same pulled out line of bull gak of not understanding how something can be used in the game they designed. People can keep swallowing that if they want but at a point I have to say enough it's either they are the dumbest people on earth or they are lying. Let me say I don't think they are that dumb, and I resent them lying to me bold faced over and over again.

That's a good point: No one is expecting flawless rules.

For all my vaunted error-seeking talents, there are still things I have missed the first time around. The errors in the Keeper of Secrets profile in the Deathwatch book Mark of the Xenos still bug me because I knew I read that entry over a couple of times before it went to print.

But when you create a large set of rules that affect everything (Doctrines), and then a set of rules that alter those base rules (Chapter-specific Doctrine modifications) and cannot theory out the implications and interactions with certain units, you have to wonder what they were thinking. It didn't take a year to work out the quirks of the IH book. They were up front and winning in no time after that book came out.

Jesus ... snowflake much?

Hardly the death of Centurions. Those same units will just use the Shadows stratagem and Master of Ambush will either be replaced with Aggressors or by a Phobos units using Lord of Deceit.

Who... are you replying to?

As far as Centurions go, add me to the hate train. I have a huge dislike of the models, and name should itself should just be an alternate name for captain in some chapters.

 Galas wrote:
Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"

I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.

I can respectfully disagree with the Centurion hate train ... but wouldn't it be more productive if . . .


. . . We get back On Topic and discuss the Effects the Space Marine Errata & FAQ will have moving forward?

The effects will be it'll hurt DA lists, IH will lose some steam. Ravenguard aren't really touched too bad as there will be other ways to get those centurions to the line and aggressors will take their place. So they get a small slap on the wrist but otherwise are fine.

Most other of the space marine chapters got better by not being hampered much at all with this change and it'll require wolves to have a day 1 errata, glorious day, praise the sun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
The biggest fault Centurions have visually is that they always felt like a retread of Terminators, except more so.

Now you know how a lot of us feel about Primaris Marines.

Oh, I'm one of those people as well. My chapter is one of the 6%ers who have no Primeboys in their ranks at all. Mostly because as far as the Administratum knows, they were wiped out, so a new Primaris-only chapter was formed to honor their sacrifice on the ruins of their old homeworld, inheriting their regalia and name. They just don't know that the OG chapter is currently fighting their butts off on a crusade elsewhere. Eventually, the OG will pass into immortal Legends status, and maybe I'll start a kill team with the Eternity Wardens Mk Zwei. I already have one Intercessor painted up.

 Murrax9 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"

I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.

It is a bit funny, considering GK get Dreadknights, which are in essence a very similar design with presumably a similar in-universe pedigree. Throw some incinerators and hurricane psycannons on those boyos and you'd have one mean demon-pulverizing machine.