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.

It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.

I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.

I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.

craggy wrote:
It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.

I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.

I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.

The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.

The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically...GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.

 darkcloak wrote:
I agree. Forcing players to buy yet another book on top of all the other books already required to play is just another layer of cash grabbing.

The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Okay. Rant off.

And yet it's still cheaper then needing to buy an entirely unrelated faction so you can get the proper upgrades for your X-wing ships, because at least CA is attempting to balance the units on their own right rather then you hoping that this new unit you may not even want has the upgrade that'll hopefully fix your been useless for a while due to power creep ships.

I really don't like FFG's model to say the least.

sure and D&D put out two rules books every month back in the days of 3.5. one rule book a year isn't that much.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
I agree. Forcing players to buy yet another book on top of all the other books already required to play is just another layer of cash grabbing.

The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?
Okay. Rant off.

And yet it's still cheaper then needing to buy an entirely unrelated faction so you can get the proper upgrades for your X-wing ships, because at least CA is attempting to balance the units on their own right rather then you hoping that this new unit you may not even want has the upgrade that'll hopefully fix your been useless for a while due to power creep ships. .

I really don't like FFG's model to say the least.

As a TIE swarm player I have to really laugh at people who think it's the ship that wins the game. I have beaten every single meta list with both Howlrunner + Friends and Rageswarm. XWing really is a skill game and anyone who says otherwise is pushing for a nerf somewhere. Or they're a filthy Fly Casual TFG expecting you to handicap your list because they wanna fly Trench Run.

All in all XWing has done a very fine job of keeping their game tight and as a TO I have never had an easier time. Would I even try to TO a warhammer tourney? feth no. So many convoluted rules and now so many sources, the first guy who tried to lawyer me would get ejected.

And how is Chapter Approved more cost efficient than an Xwing expac? Does CA come with a model you can use right out of the box? I understand the gripe that you might have to buy a ship to get a card but... How is that any different than buying a book full of fixes if you only play one faction? At least Xwing gives you a model to use or even trade or sell. CA is going to sit on your shelf until the next CA comes out, at which point you have to buy it in order to play comp. And how long is that going to last until GW says okay, new edition time?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And more to the point, why is a model company so interested in a regular rules publication and why can't these updates be folded into the already existing White Dwarf magazine? That at least is not without precedent and gives a value back to WD that has been missing for a long time.

I mean, I realize this 'model company' statement is a bit of a bluff on GWs part to excuse their haphazard rules making but if it's a false statement, why hide behind it now?

So we have either a model company or a game company. If GW is going to be a model making company then they need to Make Models! Instead we see them removing units from the rules because.. they don't have models. One, this is removing an aspect of the hobby that is very important, player driven army building creativity. Two, why are they not making these models? Some options have existed in codices for nearly twenty years but now are gone. GW had 20 years to make a bloody model! If GW makes models then why have some lines languished in antiquity while others see only partial updates and then one has new models every year? If GW is a game company, which from all evidence they are very much a game company, then why are they not towing the line with other game systems? The days of 40k supremacy are over. There is competition and it is good. If GW really wants to survive long term then they need to adapt their business psychology and from what I see that's simply not happening.

GW appears very much to be changing, but some of the core problems still exist after decades of business. One has to ask, are they truly trying to adapt to their market or merely trying to appear as such?

Wasn't the model company thing a long time ago? And didn't gw obviously change their attitude and approach to the community/feedback?

The point values should have been errata to the individual books.

CA has content besides that, the new missions are great, for example. For me, that other content would've been fine on its own.

It would've been nice to get the "preview rules" for the Index armies for free, but at least it's something new and not a fix to existing rules.

I think in the future CA will be more important, my gut feeling is that CA will be where new models released after a codex releasde are included. so if say we see Primaris terminators in september, just for example, then the next december's CA will collect those datasheets. this will be conveniant for people who don't wanna have to take a hundred little datasheets to games

Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?

tneva82 wrote:
Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?

hell no, I expect them to put the stuff out in chapter approved AND do codex revisions. honestly some 8th edition armies could use a "codex 8.5" (looking at you grey Knights)

If you're only after the points increases then just use an app like Battlescribe where its community driven and the points are updated in the software.

Personally think that CA was slightly over-done and could have been a much more concise book, but the new missions in it are good enough that I wont quibble over purchasing it.

tneva82 wrote:
Nah more likely new version of codex. You seriously expect GW to stop their time honoured strategy of redoing codexes all the time?

Every 5 years is hardly "all the time".

I think the biggest problem seems to be people buying physical books, but depends what they put in CA and what people need.

As far as I can tell, all the points updates have been migrated into the digital books, including the Indexes.

Can only hope they do the same for new models, rather than relying on basic, non-points, rule sheets in the boxes.

Just use battlescribe. Or photocopy the three or so relevant pages. I won't be buying any CA books myself.

I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.

Did yiu really expect major game overhauls 5 months into 8th edition and with only a handful of fully updated codexes?

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.

Did yiu really expect major game overhauls 5 months into 8th edition and with only a handful of fully updated codexes?

I don't think the amount of changes compared to the timeframe was the problem (tho Some might have wanted more relics/stratagems/traits for factions without a codex). I think its mostly a money vs content complaint.
Either have the book be cheaper or offer the changes for free online.

I didnt want a book that overrides the existing rulebook.

8th is the "most playtested edition ever" but has so many flaws that armies who spam loop holes are leagues above a regular army and make matched play worse that a drag.

What i wanted from chapter approved were clear concise rules that outlined how to play. I simply want to play by the same rules as everyone else but the prevelence of house rules to fix issues makes that impossible. All the rules that can be added by narrative or open play should already be in the core rules not stand alone "if you play this game type you get these rules".

I really expected ca to have more than this is how we roll for initiative and this is the new character rule. Which were already being used by most players. But wasnt official. I also expected updates to how cover works.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.

At least a single detachment bonus in-line with the codex releases, warlord traits that were not phoned in (seriously, look at the SoB one), at least 2-3 relics and a half dozen stratagems, and no missing factions (looking at you inquisition).

It should have done what the old 3e chapter approved releases did. Collect together all current errata, address all outstanding issues at time of release, and include stand-in rules to bolster those factions who have a year+ to wait before they catch up with the codex pack.

A.T. wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm curious as to what people actually WANTED from CA. Keep in mind it was released 6 months after 8th launched and even if it was rushed it would need to have been finished a month or so before release to get them printed and shipped out.

At least a single detachment bonus in-line with the codex releases, warlord traits that were not phoned in (seriously, look at the SoB one), at least 2-3 relics and a half dozen stratagems, and no missing factions (looking at you inquisition).

It should have done what the old 3e chapter approved releases did. Collect together all current errata, address all outstanding issues at time of release, and include stand-in rules to bolster those factions who have a year+ to wait before they catch up with the codex pack.

No one has a year+ to wait. GW is on track for having all codexes updated by the 1 year anniversary.

Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?

Despite posting my defence of Chapter Approved and my acceptence and approval of it as a step forward...

It was a disappointment.

Why, when they already create General's Handbook, did they not copy the GH2017 method of listing all points for all units, and marking the ones that changed?

Also, having purchased the Planetstrike rulebook about a month before 8th dropped, I did feel a bit like... "I've already got all this"

There were some strange choices made for it.

However if you look at it through the lens of a small team working their ass off to get it out in time, you can see why some choices were made.

I hope CA2018 offers a bit more thats new and exciting.

I dont want new and exciting, i want consistency. And a small team should have no issues providing that but here i am struggling between raw rai and three different sets of rules. I want my one rule book trumps all back.

I got mostly what I wanted out of the CA. Loads of new missions, battlezones, updated points, some new rules.

Things I didn't want were "make your own objective markers" and make your own Land Raiders, but here are five we made but we aren't going to give you some points to play them in matched play.

In future I want some more missions (I'm a mission junkie), battlezones and little fun things like warband building/campaign like the AoS got.

Ice_can wrote:
Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?

Battle yes, Silence no. Sisters of Silence are an auxiliary force, not an army (though that doesn't prevent GW from expanding them into one in the future like they did with Custodes, they're just not one of the "guaranteed" codexes).

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Even sisters both battle and silence? By the end of the year?

Battle yes, Silence no. Sisters of Silence are an auxiliary force, not an army (though that doesn't prevent GW from expanding them into one in the future like they did with Custodes, they're just not one of the "guaranteed" codexes).

Damn I so like the idea of a sisters of silence army, well atleast more than the roid monkey spacemarines that are custodes.

Expanding Sisters of Silence into a full army seems like a bad idea for the same reason expanding Grey Knights into a full army was a bad idea. They're too narrowly focused, what do the SoS even do if you're fighting a force like Necrons that doesn't use psykers?

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Expanding Sisters of Silence into a full army seems like a bad idea for the same reason expanding Grey Knights into a full army was a bad idea. They're too narrowly focused, what do the SoS even do if you're fighting a force like Necrons that doesn't use psykers?

1) Beat them flat with greatswords
2) who knows what could be in the new Codex, necron psykers could be a thing.
3) Dark age tech bolters with -3ap

I just really like them fluff and aesthetically, not expecting tornaments winning just something viable as a sisters of silence detatchment

 Xenomancers wrote:

craggy wrote:
It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.

I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.

I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.

The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.

The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically...GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.

Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games?

It's apples to oranges in every practical way.

The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.

overrides the core book is not the way i would put it.
it is corrections of existing rules or adding rules that should have been there on day 1 that FAQ dont covers.

the only beef i have about it is the way they make it.

first off, all point adjustments and experimental rules should be in a free pdf. if the experimental rule is a success move it to the CA.
secondly, drop it to only 1 CA book per year so that it actualy is a book and not a booklet.
there are plenty of FAQs around to adjust the major issues that may occur.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
overrides the core book is not the way i would put it.
it is corrections of existing rules or adding rules that should have been there on day 1 that FAQ dont covers.

the only beef i have about it is the way they make it.

first off, all point adjustments and experimental rules should be in a free pdf. if the experimental rule is a success move it to the CA.
secondly, drop it to only 1 CA book per year so that it actualy is a book and not a booklet.
there are plenty of FAQs around to adjust the major issues that may occur.

Isn't CA a once a year thing already?

And beta rules seem to be free, are you referring to the land raider thing? That's not for MP anyway ...

 Earth127 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

craggy wrote:
It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.

I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.

I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.

The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.

The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically...GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.

Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games?

It's apples to oranges in every practical way.

The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.

I just love that it's not really even a good comparison. SC2's last campaign release at that price/size was in 2015, and the three parts were announced years in advance with nothing on the horizon for the foreseeable future - plus it *also* went F2P largely, opening up a number of those areas that you used to have bought the campaign to access. Xeno painted it like campaign releases are a regular thing they're doing.

The only actual new game content in SC2 consists of paid co-op commanders and a Nova mini-campaign, giving you access to new armies/content for a much smaller price point (and some paid aesthetics/announcers).