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.

"Chapter Approved brings a series of quality-of-life improvements to matched play. These aren’t radical changes; instead, you’ll find a series of tweaks designed to integrate some of the great feedback we’ve had from both the community and from our dedicated playtesting team, making the matched play field more balanced and – most crucially – more fun than ever before."

From the community blog, make matched play feild more balanced,

And heres what i missed, that only popular armies get the love.

"3: Chapter Approved
As new codexes arrive, and certain styles of army come in and out of fashion, the relative effectiveness of certain units in matched play will change. So we’ll be using Chapter Approved as a chance to reassess the points values of all units across the game (just like we did with the first Chapter Approved)."

I play an unloved army and dont use those big bang for buck units so i set myself up for loss. After losing a few games i expect to lose so now ive destined myself to just lose this edition till something changes.

vaurapung wrote:
I play an unloved army and dont use those big bang for buck units so i set myself up for loss. After losing a few games i expect to lose so now ive destined myself to just lose this edition till something changes.

Eldar have been top tier for the last 3 editions. You can't be serious in saying they are a neglected army?

I can afford it. I'd just feel like a rube if I actually spent money on it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is the most subjective question ever.

How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.

Personally I love it just for the mission variation.

Yea this is probably a fair point. Those of us richie riches can squeeze out $25-35 without too much concern. Then again if that amount causes you distress this might not be the best hobby.

Of course my eyes are far bigger than my wallet could ever sustain and I actually don't buy that often.

Careful mocking people for not having as much money as you is a violation of rule one.

I bought it and feel like a rube. I opened it once to double check the point costs and it has sat in my gaming bag since.

If they would have at least included all of the FAQs, designer commentary and the like I wouldn't feel so ripped off but I mostly play ITC so the missions don't mean much, the customize a land raider was ridiculous and there was nothing else of note in there for me.

Lesson learned, I will not be buying it again (yes I will but I'll probably feel even dumber about it next time...)

hobojebus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is the most subjective question ever.

How much disposable income do you have? Lots? Then you'll probably have it and think it was worth it. Not as much? You probably won't have it and will think it's a rip off.

Personally I love it just for the mission variation.

Yea this is probably a fair point. Those of us richie riches can squeeze out $25-35 without too much concern. Then again if that amount causes you distress this might not be the best hobby.

Of course my eyes are far bigger than my wallet could ever sustain and I actually don't buy that often.

Careful mocking people for not having as much money as you is a violation of rule one.

Yea I could see how you could take it like that. My intention was the cost of the hobby and not the income of the players. My apologies.

What is top teir, a combination of units and rules that abuse the whole system to be better than their points worth.

A rounded out eldar army can not cut it in a kill or be killed meta.

Ive never built my army to abuse a units abilities. My method is to to pick the units that i like, then look at how i want to use them and then decide what weapons loadout with most benifit the unit and spread my army with some tank busters, some heavy infantry guns and more infantry guns. Its a horrible method that builds an army thats not specialised enough to run up against other players.

Ive tailored a couple list to keep up with an opponent but that crazy. Why cant my equal power list hold its own (thats what balance is) and gw stated that the goal of CA is to balance the game. But oh yeah they said only the favored units will get adjusted which means my units that have been below par for three editions are still below par and worse the way i build my list.

vaurapung wrote:
What is top teir, a combination of units and rules that abuse the whole system to be better than their points worth.

A rounded out eldar army can not cut it in a kill or be killed meta.

Ive never built my army to abuse a units abilities. My method is to to pick the units that i like, then look at how i want to use them and then decide what weapons loadout with most benifit the unit and spread my army with some tank busters, some heavy infantry guns and more infantry guns. Its a horrible method that builds an army thats not specialised enough to run up against other players.

Ive tailored a couple list to keep up with an opponent but that crazy. Why cant my equal power list hold its own (thats what balance is) and gw stated that the goal of CA is to balance the game. But oh yeah they said only the favored units will get adjusted which means my units that have been below par for three editions are still below par and worse the way i build my list.

From what I've read of your comments the issue isn't the army but the player. We're currently running a club tournament where two Eldar armies are doing just fine. The Meta isnt highly competitive, and both Eldar lists aren't highly optimized.

One is a iyanid list of wraith-anything lead by a spirit seer.
The other is an ulthwe list of wave serpents, 3squads each of fire dragons and dire avengers, 3fire prisms and a mix of HQs.

The later player I've played multiple times and the only real issue he had was that he simply wasn't very experienced with 8th edition and didn't use all the stuff available as an Eldar. It also takes a bit to manage a proper deployment.

Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.
If your meta is highly competitive you need a highly competitive list.

Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).

vaurapung wrote:
Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).

There isn't a way. It doesn't exist.

Best you can do is set the point limit and build you list within the points. If one person optimizes within that point limit and the other person refuses to then the highly optimized person is likely to crush the other. List building matter a lot in 40k.

vaurapung wrote:
Well then how do you just make a matched play game type that forces the armies to be equal. I felt CADs in 7th always leveled the playing feild pretty well (not perfect but well enough).

7th was a pile of garbage when it comes to balance, even when restricting yourself to Combined Arms. Just ask any Tyranid, Orc or Imperial Guard player, to name a few.
If you really wanted to match e.g. Tyranid vs Eldar, you'd have to have the Eldar player be seriously drunk when building the list AND when playing the game - then you'd have a chance at a balanced game.

nekooni wrote:

Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.

Imperial Guard are one of the best close combat armies in the game. Bullgryn are insane.

 Fafnir wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Lastly not every list is supposed to be viable. If someone builds a close combat imperial guard list and expects it to do well against khorne berserkers that's not really an issue.

Imperial Guard are one of the best close combat armies in the game. Bullgryn are insane.

And slow and expensive. And Khorne Berserkers will still tear them apart. It's fun, but not really a viable list in Matched Play, because you can do the trick only with one squad of 10 Bullgryns. 40 Bullgryn won't win.
And I'd like to see some backing on the "one of the best cc armies" claim, tbh - does anyone play that at tournaments?

The nice thing about IG assault armies is that they're also still the best shooting armies. 40 Bullgryn won't win, but you take 10 or 20, mix them with Celestine, and then enough ranged fire support to clear whatever else you'd like.

 Fafnir wrote:
The nice thing about IG assault armies is that they're also still the best shooting armies. 40 Bullgryn won't win, but you take 10 or 20, mix them with Celestine, and then enough ranged fire support to clear whatever else you'd like.

Yeah, but if you're investing 3/4 of your army into ranged fire support you're not really a close combat army, are you?
Don't get me wrong, IG is pretty powerful and Bullgryn ARE good, especially with a priest and IG psykers supporting them, but that one unit doesn't turn IG into a close combat army. It's just no longer "gunline only".

But that's very much besides the point.

If you run an army of purely Sternguard Veterans and Tech Marines where everyone has a combiflamer and a thunderhammer, you'll loose pretty much every game. That's fine. Your list is crap, and you shouldn't win.

I'm always amazed at the reverence people show for 7th edition these days. Where can I purchases these glasses that have a hue so rosy as to make 7th edition look balanced?

7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

Wayniac wrote:
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?

The balance of 7th was bad all over at every lvl.

HH works better because 90% of it is one codex: Heresy space marines.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?

Formations weren't essential for 7th ed as hh shows beating 8th ed in tactics, balance, logic and fun even without marines

tneva82 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

So 7th edition wasn't bad minus all the parts that made it bad?

Formations weren't essential for 7th ed as hh shows beating 8th ed in tactics, balance, logic and fun even without marines

Cool subjective opinion you've got there. It doesn't matter if they were essential - they were marketed as a major part of the game and drove much of it so they still have to considered when looking at 7th as a whole.

7th edition lost me at the hour long psychic phases.

Just like now chapter approved will be "balancing" the game every 6 months and probably just to push sales arounds.

Ive got it. My rose tinted glasses for 7th. In 7th i played with a competive group that pushed me to be better in my next game, each game i played my opponents would go through at the end and teach me what i done wrong and show me how i could be better with little changes.

Now my group in 8th is still competive but missing those key people that i use to play woth that helped me understand how i could be better.

Its like the difference between getting your butt kicked by an instructor vs a bully.

So you're incapable of taking the lessons you learned during 7th and applying them to 8th without help?

Or learning lessons yourself?

Also, are you blaming the edition for the opponent? Its not like 7th made people nicer or 8th meaner.

My personal issues in 8th were on another post and mostly i dont like 8ths lack of core rules and that usrs were done away with. This post started with an issue in our play group where i have to clarify what rules we are using during the middle of a game because theres the core rules the gametype(because every game type has its own set of rules too) the index and codexes and faqs and house rules that are liable to change on the spot it seems and now chapter approved will be adding removing and changing rules every 6 months so one of our new players refuses to use those. Its just a load of confusion compared to 7ths concrete rulebook that gave you all the rules you needed to play in one book that didnt change (at least not to my knowledge) all disputes were settled by a quick look in the index for the keyword that described your question.

And i have learned from my losses. That if i dont by reapers hemlocks and some shining spears i might as well not play eldar.

CA promised balances but only to favored armies i found out. Not bringing weaker models up to the op models levels or vice versa.

Chapter approved is once a year. Not 6 months.

It nerfed the most OP things in the game when it dropped conscripts down. Maybe it went a little too far with it's hit to commissars too. But to say it did othing for balance is insanity.

Wayniac wrote:
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.

JakeSiren wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
7th edition was not bad other than formations (which I still think was a really cool idea, just they went way overboard. I liked having a "shopping list" to look forward to) and the codex bloat with supplements.

Horus Heresy kinda shows that 7th can work well with a solid set of rules.

I take it you never played against a Daemon Summoning list in 7th? Playing a 1500 point game and having the Daemon player summon another 1500 points is BS - this coming from a Daemon player who exploited the crap out of this.

Also 5 different resolution methods.
Random tables for almst everything in the damn game.
Book keeping to keep track of results on random tables.
Roll for your warlord trait
Roll for your psychic powers
The entire psychic phase being bull gak.
Assault armies being crap because the assault rules were crap.

7ths was a train wreck.

vaurapung wrote:
This post started with an issue in our play group where i have to clarify what rules we are using during the middle of a game because theres the core rules the gametype(because every game type has its own set of rules too) the index and codexes and faqs and house rules that are liable to change on the spot it seems and now chapter approved will be adding removing and changing rules every 6 months so one of our new players refuses to use those. Its just a load of confusion compared to 7ths concrete rulebook that gave you all the rules you needed to play in one book that didnt change (at least not to my knowledge) all disputes were settled by a quick look in the index for the keyword that described your question.

...

CA promised balances but only to favored armies i found out. Not bringing weaker models up to the op models levels or vice versa.

Your group's stubborness is not GW can male a rule for.
And I don't know why I need to reitrate that the first CA would have been written like 4 months into 8th Edition so its hardly representitive of what future CAs will bring.