Rumour has it points will change and some restrictions will come in place with the faq on Saturday

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.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

VIlacom wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Lol this is deja vu for me as a warmachine player, extensive playtesting will never EVER compare to a public release.

As to the people wishing for 6 months of open playtesting, here is a question for you.

How many models have you purchased since 8th edition was announced? Maybe a few of you have kept up with buying stuff consistantly or started a new faction but I can tell you I've bought almost nothing since the announcement(and I am someone who owns 9 warmachine factions in at max field allowance). Once the rules are solidified and I know what I'm buying I'll start buying my nids again but simply put a company cannot go through 6-7 months of drastically reduced sales while people wait and see what they are going to want to play with the new rules.

For the most part just be happy that GW is willing to make the changes right away, its something miniatures games have been lacking a long time and it looks like finally companies like GW and PP are on board with it. Its a huge change in a good direction and despite my expensive limited edition rule book being not up to date the day I pick it up, I'd rather have a good balanced game that isn't afraid to make changes for the good of the game compared to one that leaves a broken game in place so I dont have to occasionally consult an FAQ

Models purchased since 8th edition was announced - 12 if I'm counting correctly, but I was going to buy them anyway, they were already slotted to be purchased this summer.
Models that 8th edition made me consider purchasing - a squad of the basic primaris marines because I like the sculpts. I may actually get them from Ebay.

I am happy that GW is willing to correct any cock-ups they make. It's just a shame that they made them to begin with and had to put up the whole "massive playtesting was made" front when in 8th ed. day 1 it may be proven otherwise

**Pedroig**

No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Publishing takes time, one can argue print versus digital, but if something is not working as intended, or more likely it was working as intended and then someone found a way to "break" it, and it needs a correction/clarification it is better to leave it "as is"?

Testing anything is always tricky, too small of a group and "Group think" comes into play, too large of a group and consensus is never reached, or testing is not actually happening at all. But testing is a process, an ongoing process, QA is not something that was establishe in the past, but an ongoing system of test, verify, review, update, etc.

As far as GW can do no wrong, did you even play 7ed?

add: You understand that if there was no playtesting there would be no FAQ, and there is no way playtesting will catch EVERYTHING before a GO/NO GO decision to launch has to be made. There were already tweaks made to the system during playtesting which got them to the point where they felt the "bones" were good enough for release, but that did not mean they were fully tested, vetted, or even perfect at the time that the decision to go to print was made.

**vipoid**

Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Here's an even more shocking fact for you - not all change is good.

**Pedroig**

Change is neither good nor bad, it merely is...

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Publishing takes time, one can argue print versus digital, but if something is not working as intended, or more likely it was working as intended and then someone found a way to "break" it, and it needs a correction/clarification it is better to leave it "as is"?

Testing anything is always tricky, too small of a group and "Group think" comes into play, too large of a group and consensus is never reached, or testing is not actually happening at all. But testing is a process, an ongoing process, QA is not something that was establishe in the past, but an ongoing system of test, verify, review, update, etc.

As far as GW can do no wrong, did you even play 7ed?

1 - Not all change is good;

2 - I played from 3rd through to 8th with a few months off here and there due to family stuff. And dabbled with a few 2nd edition games a couple of years ago for fun. Your point being? Do you think I can't point the flaws in 7th? or 6th? Or any of the others? Oh my sweet summer child...

3- You are indeed defending something the moment you say that "this is to be expected". No, it's not. Don't lower your standards and stop expecting half finished things with Day 1patches/faqs to attempt to cover up the crap they didn't bother to follow through when they were meant. This is a symptom of design and playtesting lazyness, and worse, absurdly low standards when it comes to a product's quality.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pedroig wrote:
Change is neither good nor bad, it merely is...

Aka "Suck it up and deal with it"?

Not good enough.

**Mr Morden**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
I really don't understand why GW is printing this first batch of rules at all. They would have been much smarter releasing all of these as digital rules. Then, once the millions of playtesters (us) start finding all of the ways to break them that the early playtesters missed, they could immediately ammend the rules as warranted and let's us see if we can break them some more. Six months later or so, they could have integrated the needed amendments into printed codexes if they wanted to.

A year from know, imagine how good of a well tested, smooth running machine GW could be offering its customers.

One reason is that they would not have sold the rules and Indexes at Launch to people like me - I would only buy digital if there is no print alternative..........

**Trickstick**

vipoid wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
No, I'm not defending anything. Here is a shocking fact of life for you, the only thing constant in life is change.

Here's an even more shocking fact for you - not all change is good.

The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.

**MaxT**

Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

**Khadorstompy**

Hmm well I find this annoying a bit. Decided to jump back in 8th after quitting and decided to roll with AM/IG trading my Nintendo switch for a starter army. Really hope they aren't wrecking my plans too much. Cause I got alot of HWTs in that trade. Hmm on the other hand would be nice if the uped the power of the Deathstrike a bit (Considering its one shot I would make it auto hit and deal 3d6 mortal wounds given its hour is nigh rule.)

Eh I hope the faq is more clarifications then re-balancing.

Still makes me glad I held off buying the rest I was planning on (Was waiting on the forgeworld books to drop)

**Karhedron**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

It's not just GW, FFG have had the same problems with X-Wing lately. The Tie Defender (billed as the most advanced fighter in the game) was horribly overpriced/underpowered when it was first released. After a while FFG issued a patch for it in the form a title that gave it a points discount and a free evade token. The trouble is they over-compensated and suddenly competitive lists were popping up with 3 of the things crammed into a standard tournement. Now they have released an online errata to try and correct it again.

It is not just GW, it is not just FFG. This reflects the fact that companies are testing games designed to be played for fun rather than planes/trains/automobiles where lives will be at risk if anything fails that should have been tested.

I have worked in safety-critical SW development and I know the rigour it takes to test something to destruction with even a limited number of variables. Yes it is frustrating when a games company misses something that seems obvious to us but hindsight is always 20:20.

**WrentheFaceless**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

**Purifier**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

Only the Omnissiah is perfect, brother Wren.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

He really isn't. Your point is just utter trash.

**daedalus**

MaxT wrote:
Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

Yeah, I saw it right here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/728560.page

I'd watch out for that thread though. Lots of people panicking about not a whole lot of evidence.

**Trickstick**

daedalus wrote:
MaxT wrote:
Please please can someone link to or state where GW has said that they'll be releasing a large FAQ and errata on Saturday ?

Yeah, I saw it right here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/728560.page

I'd watch out for that thread though. Lots of people panicking about not a whole lot of evidence.

Now I'm stuck in an infinite loop!

**Youn**

So, supposedly I am supposed to win the lottery on Saturday. I wonder if it's true....

Note: This holds same amount of fact as the OP.

**ZebioLizard2**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Or the dozens or so playtesters they have cant compare to the amount of data and things that 1000's of players around the world can as soon as the rules got leaked.

In house development teams can test all they can but still will never be able to find everything, and not nearly as much as the community as a whole can

But yes, to no surprise people that complained about GW never FAQ'ing anything are now also complaining about them being proactive with balance changes

You see that? That thing over there, Waaaaaaay above your head? That's the point - and you're missing it.

Not in particular. Your point isn't really worth anything at all.

**SilverAlien**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.

Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

With a 6+ armor save I'd point out. .

Honestly it really isn't hard though conscripts at 4 (so the same as gaunts) and guardsman at 5 (same as cultists) isn't a big deal. They are still arguably better than the other options at those values, but are at least ballpark correct.

**Unit1126PLL**

SilverAlien wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.

Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

With a 6+ armor save I'd point out. .

Honestly it really isn't hard though conscripts at 4 (so the same as gaunts) and guardsman at 5 (same as cultists) isn't a big deal. They are still arguably better than the other options at those values, but are at least ballpark correct.

People really read way too much into the 6+ save. Every time I see something comparing cultists to conscripts there's a whole list of reasons conscripts are worse and then the Chaos players are like "BUT SIX PLUS ARMOUR!" lol.

**SilverAlien**

Like I said, it's a marginal difference between cultists and normal guardsman. Not enough to merit cultists at 4 points imo, they should be 5 with normal guard (and again conscripts at 4). I just mention it for the "Well the guard should have the best GEQ" crowd. So they can see, yes at 5 points they still have guard which slightly edge out similar options in other armies who have a different focus.

**Medicinal Carrots**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

Incorrect. It's necessary if the playtesting done beforehand wasn't 100% complete and perfect. The playtesting could've been crap, decent, good, or even great, and it's still not going to be perfect. Problems slip through and get caught after it's been sent to print. If those are caught after it's sent to print and before release, then a day 1 FAQ should be put out to fix those. It doesn't invalidate all playtesting done before or mean it was sloppy/pointless, it just means they didn't catch 100% of everything.

Do you really believe that testing is either perfect or pointless with no middle ground?

I'm not saying they did a great job with playtesting, I honestly don't know. But things will slip through even the best of testing. A quick FAQ at or shortly after release would tell us that they continued to test after sending the books to print, and that they've continued to try to improve the product instead of sitting around waiting for their customers to sort everything out after the fact.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

Incorrect. It's necessary if the playtesting done beforehand wasn't 100% complete and perfect. The playtesting could've been crap, decent, good, or even great, and it's still not going to be perfect. Problems slip through and get caught after it's been sent to print. If those are caught after it's sent to print and before release, then a day 1 FAQ should be put out to fix those. It doesn't invalidate all playtesting done before or mean it was sloppy/pointless, it just means they didn't catch 100% of everything.

Do you really believe that testing is either perfect or pointless with no middle ground?

I'm not saying they did a great job with playtesting, I honestly don't know. But things will slip through even the best of testing. A quick FAQ at or shortly after release would tell us that they continued to test after sending the books to print, and that they've continued to try to improve the product instead of sitting around waiting for their customers to sort everything out after the fact.

I am not expecting playtesting or the proofreading to be 100% perfect and immaculate either. We are all humans and nothing is ever perfect. I am, however, expecting that abominations like IG Conscripts not to come through the playtesting phase.

I will have no issues if the faq has just a couple of rules clarification and errata to mistakes made during the printing process. That's fine. But I'll reserve judgement until Saturday to see if the FAQ comes at all.

**ERJAK**

Everybody all flagellating/fellatiating over conscripts and I'm over here just wonder how the feth Acts of Faith are supposed to work :(

**CthuluIsSpy**

ERJAK wrote:
Everybody all flagellating/fellatiating over conscripts and I'm over here just wonder how the feth Acts of Faith are supposed to work :(

A summary -

Roll a D6 at the start of your turn. On a 2+ you get to use one act of faith for one unit.
There are abilities that allow you to use multiple acts of faith in a turn (such as the from Imagifiers on a 4+), but no unit can do multiple acts of faith.

**Snugiraffe**

I asked them a question on FB. They didn't answer it or say when the FAQ was coming, but said it would be shortly:

**zamerion**

Snugiraffe wrote:
I asked them a question on FB. They didn't answer it or say when the FAQ was coming, but said it would be shortly:

Thanks!

Reply them if points change is coming too

**xmbk**

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
But I'll reserve judgement until Saturday to see if the FAQ comes at all.

Too late.

Seriously, if conscripts are an abomination then the dark side may already have consumed you. If you've been playing since 2nd, you know how bad it can be when GW deserts the players. This is improvement. If you've played any other game, you know that complicated games like this will never be released without flaws. There is going to be a learning curve for everyone, but this at least has the potential to be heading in the right direction.

**Jpr**

Last i've heard is they wanted to get the faq out with release, but may end up delayed due to the sheer amount of questions being asked/raised.

**macluvin**

SilverAlien wrote:
Like I said, it's a marginal difference between cultists and normal guardsman. Not enough to merit cultists at 4 points imo, they should be 5 with normal guard (and again conscripts at 4). I just mention it for the "Well the guard should have the best GEQ" crowd. So they can see, yes at 5 points they still have guard which slightly edge out similar options in other armies who have a different focus.

If its any consolation I am a chaos player that believes that Gaurd should have the most points efficient GEQ becausd having GEQ access in a power armor army is a huge advantage in of itself, is fluffy, and also they should NOT be doing all the leg work of your list. At most a cultist squad is an expendable unit to be sacrificed for greater things like tying stuff up that could be killing actual marines (catching overwatch bullets before the charge or throwing their bodies into a melee they wont survive so that the marines dont get assaulted) or catching bullets captooring eet for kayoss. I hope they make that a reality on the FAQ.

**Melissia**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
A summary -

Roll a D6 at the start of your turn. On a 2+ you get to use one act of faith for one unit.
There are abilities that all you to use multiple acts of faith in a turn (such as the from Imagifiers on a 4+), but no unit can do multiple acts of faith.

Yeah. It's really not hard to understand at all. In fact, it's the simplest system for Acts of Faith yet. Though by far not the best IMO. Certainly the simplest.