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.

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

But cynicism is what brought me back to 40k D:

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

But cynicism is what brought me back to 40k D:

M.

A grimdark setting needs a grimdark fanbase? Honestly, the toxicity of the 40k fanbase still surprises me at times.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

But cynicism is what brought me back to 40k D:

M.

A grimdark setting needs a grimdark fanbase? Honestly, the toxicity of the 40k fanbase still surprises me at times.

It does! Back in 3e/4e, the only local game shop had the most ridiculous playerbase. It was a weird shop populated by people who'd been gaming there since the 80s, and had become cliqueish. I was not in that clique.

I remember playing a game against an Ork guy; after turn 1 ended he sorta wandered away from the table and didn't come back...

Anyways, I spent ages trying to get local wargamers on board with other, better-written games. The best responses I got were glazed eyes and an appeal to just playing 40k.

M.

Hrm...looking at the Chapter Approved list of balance changes, at least for IG and CSM's, it's looks like they pretty much just took a dart and threw it at a board and decided to up points costs on whatever it hit, most of the stuff that really needed help didn't get it, what little did didn't get much, and a lot of random stuff got hit with price increases, while pretty much all the FW stuff included just got arbitary price bumps, often for seemingly inoffensive units (the Armageddon pattern Medusa and Griffon needed nerfs...really?)

If that's the quality of the Errata we're gonna get, which appears to be pretty classic Games Workshop, I'm not expecting this will have any meaningful effect.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm...looking at the Chapter Approved list of balance changes, at least for IG and CSM's, it's looks like they pretty much just took a dart and threw it at a board and decided to up points costs on whatever it hit, most of the stuff that really needed help didn't get it, what little did didn't get much, and a lot of random stuff got hit with price increases, while pretty much all the FW stuff included just got arbitary price bumps, often for seemingly inoffensive units (the Armageddon pattern Medusa and Griffon needed nerfs...really?)

If that's the quality of the Errata we're gonna get, which appears to be pretty classic Games Workshop, I'm not expecting this will have any meaningful effect.

Except it isn't random. They repriced things that were mis-priced since the indexes. They priced up things that were seeing tons of use (literally everything in the AM list) and priced down things that have not.

AM Melta Guns for BS3+ models is consistent with every single other model that can carry that weapon.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm...looking at the Chapter Approved list of balance changes, at least for IG and CSM's, it's looks like they pretty much just took a dart and threw it at a board and decided to up points costs on whatever it hit, most of the stuff that really needed help didn't get it, what little did didn't get much, and a lot of random stuff got hit with price increases, while pretty much all the FW stuff included just got arbitary price bumps, often for seemingly inoffensive units (the Armageddon pattern Medusa and Griffon needed nerfs...really?)

If that's the quality of the Errata we're gonna get, which appears to be pretty classic Games Workshop, I'm not expecting this will have any meaningful effect.

Except it isn't random. They repriced things that were mis-priced since the indexes. They priced up things that were seeing tons of use (literally everything in the AM list) and priced down things that have not.

There's tons of stuff that seems to have gotten missed in both directions, and much of the stuff that did get touched (in both directions) seems to have been of less concern than stuff that didn't make the cut, and a lot of stuff that needed help didn't get much meaningful. Stuff like forgetting to adjust the FW variant Leman Russ tanks to use the Codex base cost or the Shadowsword needing a toning down or the Deathstrike needing...literally anything it can get. Then we're left with further questions like "why bother having a distinct Conscript entry if Guardsmen are the same price now but better in every way?" Why did the Forgefiend get missed, and why does anyone think a mere 12pt discount on the Defiler is going to help it at all?

AM Melta Guns for BS3+ models is consistent with every single other model that can carry that weapon.

which are in other armies with different points costs for lots of various wargear because they're different platforms. Not the end of the world, but odd, especially given the value next to the plasma gun, but oh well.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To take a quote from reddit:

Just a few moments ago Pete discussed the process, going forward, for FAQs. During the weekly 40k Twitch stream he talked about how they want to formalize the FAQ process so players can be more confident that units purchased based on a new codex won't be rapidly altered immediately after the codex's release (e.g. commissar changes right after AM codex came out). The process will be this: two weeks after every codex release they will produce an FAQ that ONLY clarifies the wording of rules if there's any confusion in the community. For balance, twice annually they will do an FAQ where they change how units work, update points, etc. based on competitive feedback; once in March and once in September. Thoughts? Comments?

So, FAQs 2 weeks after codex release, Fixes every 6 months. All this says to me is that we're going to have 6 month cycles where one broken army list rules the roost before they can fix it.

totally reasonable. If you do it too fast, all we have to go off of for balance is internet outrage and circlejerking based off of hearsay and panic. Most people haven't even played a game against a new codex within a week of it coming out and rarely are you going up against an optimized list within a month of it dropping. It takes time for things to work out and figure out what the actual problems are. Watch what happens every single time teasers are released about codexes. People will freak out saying things are OP and UP and too expensive or not expensive enough or this unit is trash while another claims its the worst thing since Charles Manson. And you say this like it's any different than how it is now. There will always be a BS army that is a bit too powerful. All you can really hope to do is keep changing the meta up enough at a fast enough rate to where TFG's can't afford all the models they need to abuse the system, which just hurts everyone. You could change the rules every week and there'd still be people taking broken abusive lists.

Giving the meta time to shake out means that reasonable changes can be made and actually thought out. The handling of conscripts and commissars immediately comes to mind. People immediately freaked out about these units and GW jumped on a fix before having time to test their new fixes. This meant that the conscript nerf got rolled out in phases that ranged from "this does absolutely nothing" that caused an even bigger outrage (the "nerf" that limited them to 20-30 man units) to "what is the point in this unit anymore" (4pts per model) These nerfs would have had drastically different receptions based on when they had dropped. For example, 4pts per model conscripts at 20-30 makes sense with the index commissar rules, they're worth it there but not too powerful, there's a tradeoff to where it's a legit sidegrade to infantry squads, not superior. Alternatively, you could've left conscripts as they were at release (3pts per man, 50 man units, guaranteed orders) but with the commissar nerf would've been pretty heavily nerfed into mediocrity. After the commissar is nerfed, and they're not so reliable on orders, and their unit size is capped, and they go up in points, it goes too far.

The commissar nerf on the other hand came out within a week of the book dropping. This blindsided and outraged many IG players who had bought models or were just learning the rules only for them to change again. And instead of a reasonable nerf, Commissars went from crazy OP to so bad that sometimes they actually made your army worse just by standing there. This was mainly because commissars were nerfed to bring conscripts in line, but nobody had had time to play with the first draft nerf of conscripts to see if that had done the job or if it needed to go further. We got what, 1 tournament worth of data and people immediately claimed the sky was falling?

With a 6 month guaranteed window, and set times that people know the FAQ's drop, this improves confidence in the books people buy and gives them a chance to read and test things. GW can test potential tweaks and watch the meta to make sure said tweaks are ACTUALLY NEEDED. Granted they need to actually playtest for this to work but the base idea is sound. For example, why nerf something in a week when perhaps the reason it is crushing people is just because it's new and nobody knows a counter yet? And think of the brightsides, with a known "rules update" date, think of all the cheap, unpainted models you'll be able to pick up on ebay as the latest version of malefic lords or Guilleman rotates out and the TFG's need to fund their latest beatsticks

It's a bummer manticores and wyverns only went up 10 points. I guess AM will continue to just say "I exist" and therefore imperium will auto-beat most of the Xenos (yay Eldar?)

Sorcererbob wrote:
Dakkanauts, pat yourselves on the back. This is the least toxic, most positive thread I’ve seen in a long time.

IMO this demonstrates that GW is moving towards a more open gaming platform. I’m looking forward to a time in the future where we’re making minor adjustments - 5-or10-point adjustments for a unit. I wonder if we’ll ever get there.

We already are there in some places. Look at the adjustments to adeptus mechanicus for example... -2 pts to this weapon, -1 points to that troop, -10 points in that hq.

I think the only current problem is that their "buffs" are gradual and reasonable, but their nerfs appear heavy handed.

Also that people think it's reasonable to plead for a balanced game and then rage when super chicken and the like are priced out of matched play.

How can you balance a unit like the super chicken? Make it so that in a 2000 pt game it has insufficient backup around it. If you have one and want to play it, great - play a 3000 pointer in your garage.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's a bummer manticores and wyverns only went up 10 points. I guess AM will continue to just say "I exist" and therefore imperium will auto-beat most of the Xenos (yay Eldar?)

How much more do they need to be...?

Comparing a Manticore to a Night Spinner (probably the closest two between the codexes) if the leaked prices are to be believed, they'll be the same base price. The Manticore, assuming no BS modifiers for moving or target special rules or anything, is putting out about 25% more average wounds against MEQ's in the open and 20% better in terms of average wounds inflicted against T7 3+sv vehicles (dropping to 11% and 6.6% respectively once a single -1 to hit penalty is applied and swinging in the Night Spinners favor if a -2 is applied), the two are about identical against GEQ's in the open, but at the same time the Manticore is dramatically less mobile, slightly less resilient, lacks Fly, has a lower BS (and thus anything that hits that hurts more), and only gets 4 turns of fire in a game no matter how long it goes (losing potentially 1-3 turns of fire over the Night Spinner).

So, ultimately, the Manticore is a bit better at killing elite infantry and the vast majority of tanks for the first 4 turns while sitting stationary in a back corner, while the Night Spinner is a bit better in every other respect.

Manticores don't seem wildly undercosted in that light.

 Silentz wrote:

Sorcererbob wrote:
Dakkanauts, pat yourselves on the back. This is the least toxic, most positive thread I’ve seen in a long time.

IMO this demonstrates that GW is moving towards a more open gaming platform. I’m looking forward to a time in the future where we’re making minor adjustments - 5-or10-point adjustments for a unit. I wonder if we’ll ever get there.

We already are there in some places. Look at the adjustments to adeptus mechanicus for example... -2 pts to this weapon, -1 points to that troop, -10 points in that hq.

I think the only current problem is that their "buffs" are gradual and reasonable, but their nerfs appear heavy handed.

If something is broken its easier for balance to nerf it hard then bring it back up than nerf it slightly only to find it wasn't enough and its still broken.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm...looking at the Chapter Approved list of balance changes, at least for IG and CSM's, it's looks like they pretty much just took a dart and threw it at a board and decided to up points costs on whatever it hit, most of the stuff that really needed help didn't get it, what little did didn't get much, and a lot of random stuff got hit with price increases, while pretty much all the FW stuff included just got arbitary price bumps, often for seemingly inoffensive units (the Armageddon pattern Medusa and Griffon needed nerfs...really?)

If that's the quality of the Errata we're gonna get, which appears to be pretty classic Games Workshop, I'm not expecting this will have any meaningful effect.

I'm going to guess this was feedback from tournament gamers. There was some rumblings around about Scions with Meltaguns being "the next big thing" after the Plasma nerf.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's tons of stuff that seems to have gotten missed in both directions, and much of the stuff that did get touched (in both directions) seems to have been of less concern than stuff that didn't make the cut, and a lot of stuff that needed help didn't get much meaningful. Stuff like forgetting to adjust the FW variant Leman Russ tanks to use the Codex base cost or the Shadowsword needing a toning down or the Deathstrike needing...literally anything it can get. Then we're left with further questions like "why bother having a distinct Conscript entry if Guardsmen are the same price now but better in every way?" Why did the Forgefiend get missed, and why does anyone think a mere 12pt discount on the Defiler is going to help it at all?

I don't think the forgefiend needed help at all. 119 for T7 W12 (9.9 per wound). Defiler is 140 for T7 W14 (10 per wound). If weapons are the issue the base cost isn't going to shift. The rules for base on those two are nearly identical in every other way except smoke launchers, which the Defiler is paying for in the per wound cost.

Conscripts are the only unit allowed to go to 30. That's why you take them.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's tons of stuff that seems to have gotten missed in both directions, and much of the stuff that did get touched (in both directions) seems to have been of less concern than stuff that didn't make the cut, and a lot of stuff that needed help didn't get much meaningful. Stuff like forgetting to adjust the FW variant Leman Russ tanks to use the Codex base cost or the Shadowsword needing a toning down or the Deathstrike needing...literally anything it can get. Then we're left with further questions like "why bother having a distinct Conscript entry if Guardsmen are the same price now but better in every way?" Why did the Forgefiend get missed, and why does anyone think a mere 12pt discount on the Defiler is going to help it at all?

I don't think the forgefiend needed help at all. 119 for T7 W12 (9.9 per wound). Defiler is 140 for T7 W14 (10 per wound). If weapons are the issue the base cost isn't going to shift. The rules for base on those two are nearly identical in every other way except smoke launchers, which the Defiler is paying for in the per wound cost.

Conscripts are the only unit allowed to go to 30. That's why you take them.

Naw see you don't understand, it's not the "best" choice, therefore it's garbage that nobody will ever play because people only take the most "optimal" choices...

Wayniac wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's tons of stuff that seems to have gotten missed in both directions, and much of the stuff that did get touched (in both directions) seems to have been of less concern than stuff that didn't make the cut, and a lot of stuff that needed help didn't get much meaningful. Stuff like forgetting to adjust the FW variant Leman Russ tanks to use the Codex base cost or the Shadowsword needing a toning down or the Deathstrike needing...literally anything it can get. Then we're left with further questions like "why bother having a distinct Conscript entry if Guardsmen are the same price now but better in every way?" Why did the Forgefiend get missed, and why does anyone think a mere 12pt discount on the Defiler is going to help it at all?

I don't think the forgefiend needed help at all. 119 for T7 W12 (9.9 per wound). Defiler is 140 for T7 W14 (10 per wound). If weapons are the issue the base cost isn't going to shift. The rules for base on those two are nearly identical in every other way except smoke launchers, which the Defiler is paying for in the per wound cost.

Conscripts are the only unit allowed to go to 30. That's why you take them.

Naw see you don't understand, it's not the "best" choice, therefore it's garbage that nobody will ever play because people only take the most "optimal" choices...

When the units are:

Conscripts--WS/BS5+ LD4 with the remainder being the same statline as a Guardsman and receiving Orders on a 4+ with zero weapon options and their "gimmick" being cheap, expendable troops that can be taken in units of up to 30(which is down from before I might add, as it's still 20 models base with the option to add more)
Infantry Squad--WS/BS 4+ LD6(7 on Sergeant) with a single special and a heavy weapon team option along with the ability to take a Vox-Caster and Orders don't have to be rolled for.

Both of those units are now 4 ppm. One of those units dies much easier than the other and one of those loses more models to morale than the other.
It's like if Tactical Marines were put at the same points as Sternguard. They're basically the same unit...except for those parts where they're not and then you wonder why you don't ever see one option on the table.

6 months are very reasonable. Many armies still don't have a codex, that's the greatest issue of 40k now. I couldn't care less about tournament lists, but even in friendly metas playing index vs codex is a big deal. There are no FAQs that can't fix that, only the release of the missing codexes.

After that some FAQs that fix some inbalanced stuff should be handy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's tons of stuff that seems to have gotten missed in both directions, and much of the stuff that did get touched (in both directions) seems to have been of less concern than stuff that didn't make the cut, and a lot of stuff that needed help didn't get much meaningful. Stuff like forgetting to adjust the FW variant Leman Russ tanks to use the Codex base cost or the Shadowsword needing a toning down or the Deathstrike needing...literally anything it can get. Then we're left with further questions like "why bother having a distinct Conscript entry if Guardsmen are the same price now but better in every way?" Why did the Forgefiend get missed, and why does anyone think a mere 12pt discount on the Defiler is going to help it at all?

I don't think the forgefiend needed help at all. 119 for T7 W12 (9.9 per wound). Defiler is 140 for T7 W14 (10 per wound). If weapons are the issue the base cost isn't going to shift. The rules for base on those two are nearly identical in every other way except smoke launchers, which the Defiler is paying for in the per wound cost.

Conscripts are the only unit allowed to go to 30. That's why you take them.

Naw see you don't understand, it's not the "best" choice, therefore it's garbage that nobody will ever play because people only take the most "optimal" choices...

When the units are:

Conscripts--WS/BS5+ LD4 with the remainder being the same statline as a Guardsman and receiving Orders on a 4+ with zero weapon options and their "gimmick" being cheap, expendable troops that can be taken in units of up to 30(which is down from before I might add, as it's still 20 models base with the option to add more)
Infantry Squad--WS/BS 4+ LD6(7 on Sergeant) with a single special and a heavy weapon team option along with the ability to take a Vox-Caster and Orders don't have to be rolled for.

Both of those units are now 4 ppm. One of those units dies much easier than the other and one of those loses more models to morale than the other.
It's like if Tactical Marines were put at the same points as Sternguard. They're basically the same unit...except for those parts where they're not and then you wonder why you don't ever see one option on the table.

Conscripts suffer from being 3,5 points models. As is clear from the rest of the point changes, GW has decided that when in doubt they prefer to have a unit underperform rather than overperform.

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

After 20 years I get the right to be cynical, especially when 8th edition had so much promise.

Just balance Orks godammit

WatcherZero wrote:

Ecdain wrote:

WatcherZero wrote:
They also said Smite balance wouldn't be dealt with till the FAQ in March.

Where is this said?

Write up of the Twitch on Spikeybits.

Can't find that, do you have a link?

https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/inside-warhammer-tv-chapter-approved.html

Though since the previews of the Chapter Approved book are out now we know it certainly isn't addressed in that. All that did was rewrite the cant target character unless nearest visible rule to apply to units you cant see as well.

So if for example theres a character on the opposite side of a wall 3 inches away from you and one right in front of you 8 inches away you cant shoot at either of them, which makes perfect sense

seems weird that GW can't actually have 3.5 point models for conscripts though, I mean they are bought in a block of 20 - just start them at 70 points - then maybe have them 3ppm for the next 10 and be done with it, the base number doesn't need to be a whole one as you in effect buy them in a unit

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

After 20 years I get the right to be cynical, especially when 8th edition had so much promise.

Been playing as long (a little longer in fact) so therefore I have the right, to tell you, you don't have the right, to be cynical. Like it, be constructive, or leave. It really is that simple.

They are going to actually clarify rules within 2 weeks :O That would be amazing, Otherwise every 6 months is good if they do not stuff it up as badly as they mostly do.

WatcherZero wrote:
https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/inside-warhammer-tv-chapter-approved.html

Though since the previews of the Chapter Approved book are out now we know it certainly isn't addressed in that. All that did was rewrite the cant target character unless nearest visible rule to apply to units you cant see as well.

So if for example theres a character on the opposite side of a wall 3 inches away from you and one right in front of you 8 inches away you cant shoot at either of them, which makes perfect sense

I think that came about because unscrupulous people were doing things like moving their own vehicle to block LOS to the unit blocking LOS to the character, and then saying they could therefore target the character as the unit was not visible. So basically like most everything else, people found a loophole to abuse the rule, so it gets changed. The solution is simple: Ask yourself "Does this feel like it's abusing the rules as intended?" if the answer is yes, DON'T DO IT.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gladius and Scatterbikes lasted longer than that. I'm content with 6 month cycles as that's the nature in Yugioh.

Taking Yu-gi-oh as a good example of anything - other than how to fleece kids with terrible Japanese art - is a mistake.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

After 20 years I get the right to be cynical, especially when 8th edition had so much promise.

Saying you have the right to do something is the last possible defense for an action. Of course you have the right to be cynical. But does that cynicism help anything or anybody? Is it noble or good? When the only possible explanation you have for your actions is "You can't tell me I can't!" then it's not terribly interesting.

8th edition hasn't been the seamless, perfect version of 40k we wanted. But for every thread complaining about infrequent errata or updates, you have threads complaining about how often things are changing. Guess what? Satisfying a world wide, broad and deep player base is tough, and you might not get exactly what you want.

6 month cycles is great; means we can always be ready for the rules changes and fixes in the wings. As well, it will mean we see less "knee jerk" reactions, making OP units basically unusable.

Thing is, some things will balance out in the end; a unit can seem OP in the beginning until people find ways to neutralize or work around them. So far in 8th Smite Spam has been the biggest issue overall

 Polonius wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

After 20 years I get the right to be cynical, especially when 8th edition had so much promise.

Saying you have the right to do something is the last possible defense for an action. Of course you have the right to be cynical. But does that cynicism help anything or anybody? Is it noble or good? When the only possible explanation you have for your actions is "You can't tell me I can't!" then it's not terribly interesting.

8th edition hasn't been the seamless, perfect version of 40k we wanted. But for every thread complaining about infrequent errata or updates, you have threads complaining about how often things are changing. Guess what? Satisfying a world wide, broad and deep player base is tough, and you might not get exactly what you want.

Yeah I'm starting to think I jumped in with both feet a bit quick. Not even rolled dice yet (army still WIP) but I'll say the wind's a bit out of my sails, now.

M.

Somehow it always annoys me when companies issue a "FAQ" document that really changes how rules work. This is an errata, or a rules change, because the previous rules were wrong/imbalanced.