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.

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not going to lie, the new FW Knights are making my cry. All it takes is one of those 18" 2d6 S8 D4 flamers each hit, and there goes my entire squad of Custodes Terminators. Along with everything else.

What is the motivation behind FW creating these new meta breaking models? Seriously? It's not enough to fight Castellans, now I have to put up with something that basically gets two volcano lances and a heavy mortar battery, with 30 wounds?

I'm sorry, but this is getting obscene. It's beyond the pale that entire armies are made irrelevant by these new Knights.

Well first off FW didn't write these rules welcome to GW rules for more models. More rules more chances for them to achieve maximum points to playability inconsistencies.

Also your the only one thinking they got better, everyone else thinks they have been nerfed into never to be seen in competitive.

Did you see the ones, just released? You're saying these are nerfed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Imperial_Knights_FW_Army_List.pdf

The new knight has TITAN grade flamers. The Porphyrion is a suped up Shadowsword with legs and an Invuln save. What was it like before? Because that seems ridiculous.

I played a very enjoyable game this evening with 4 books - BRB, CA2018, Codex: Chaos Knights and Codex: Space Wolves...

 Brother Castor wrote:
I played a very enjoyable game this evening with 4 books - BRB, CA2018, Codex: Chaos Knights and Codex: Space Wolves...

And you're not using the errata for those books?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The Porphyrion is a suped up Shadowsword with legs and an Invuln save. What was it like before? Because that seems ridiculous.

It was T9 and BS 2+ (and could regen wounds)

BCB is making it sound worse but he's right. 103 FAQs/errata/etc should be fething unacceptable for any professional company, especially one that charges a premium for the rulebooks. Whether or not you "need" all 103 is irrelevant. Simply having that many and continuing to have every goddamn book need an FAQ or clarification is behind ridiculous.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not going to lie, the new FW Knights are making my cry. All it takes is one of those 18" 2d6 S8 D4 flamers each hit, and there goes my entire squad of Custodes Terminators. Along with everything else.

What is the motivation behind FW creating these new meta breaking models? Seriously? It's not enough to fight Castellans, now I have to put up with something that basically gets two volcano lances and a heavy mortar battery, with 30 wounds?

I'm sorry, but this is getting obscene. It's beyond the pale that entire armies are made irrelevant by these new Knights.

Well first off FW didn't write these rules welcome to GW rules for more models. More rules more chances for them to achieve maximum points to playability inconsistencies.

Also your the only one thinking they got better, everyone else thinks they have been nerfed into never to be seen in competitive.

Did you see the ones, just released? You're saying these are nerfed?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Imperial_Knights_FW_Army_List.pdf

The new knight has TITAN grade flamers. The Porphyrion is a suped up Shadowsword with legs and an Invuln save. What was it like before? Because that seems ridiculous.

What new knight are you talking about?
No knight has the stats your quoting in the imperial list.

Also you do realise that they have taken units that were not considered good enough to be cherry picked into soup removed rules from them and kept the points the same or increased them.

Wayniac wrote:
BCB is making it sound worse but he's right. 103 FAQs/errata/etc should be fething unacceptable for any professional company, especially one that charges a premium for the rulebooks. Whether or not you "need" all 103 is irrelevant. Simply having that many and continuing to have every goddamn book need an FAQ or clarification is behind ridiculous.

This exactly.

And for a nice exemple, GW stated that codex 2.0 is not necessary for csm.

However you Stil need the daemonkin Booklet for obliterators alone, Vigilus ablaze and atleast the most up to date ca.

And ofcourse the corresponding faq should also be there, because gw can't be bothered to actually write clear and understandable.
Of course they might also just forget relevant keywords.
Like the odd "charachter" here and there.

Also god forbid you want to field an fw unit.
The am index faq is now I belive at Iteration 5?

I have my arguments with BCB but the documents and required materials for a game of 40k are getting very rediculous at this point and WAY beyond the idea GW had with less rules this edition. To play a game or 40k with my knight guard army I now need to bring
1 brb
1 knight codex
2 knight erretas
1 imperial guard errata
1 white dwarf for assassin's
1 errata for assassin's
1 errata for guard
1 set of objective cards and knight strats
1 set of guard strats.

And it's worse for my chaos list. It's getting freaking stupid at this point and GW needs to cut the crap and either a) actually play test and review the rules, or b) launch the next Ed with corrected rules.

And it's worse for my chaos list. It's getting freaking stupid at this point and GW needs to cut the crap and either a) actually play test and review the rules, or b) launch the next Ed with corrected rules.

The later cause more money.

Auticus had a good reasoning in the "competitive gets off the rail" thread.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And it's worse for my chaos list. It's getting freaking stupid at this point and GW needs to cut the crap and either a) actually play test and review the rules, or b) launch the next Ed with corrected rules.

The later cause more money.

Auticus had a good reasoning in the "competitive gets off the rail" thread.

Yeah it's not really doable because it's so much to print and and make ECT ECT. But 8th has been very unprofessional in it's rules. Especially with keywords which 2 years later gw still can not manage

50% of these FAQs are nothing but clarifications. Stop complaining about fixing the game's flaws.

 vaklor4 wrote:
50% of these FAQs are nothing but clarifications. Stop complaining about fixing the game's flaws.

Except if your playing against someone you need to have a way to provide proof of that rule clarification if someone does not believe what you are saying.

 vaklor4 wrote:
50% of these FAQs are nothing but clarifications. Stop complaining about fixing the game's flaws.

"Gw can do no wrong "!

Mind to take a gander at how the gw Team handled fw indexes? Alone in the r&h list there were 2 missing charachter keywords and r&h couldn't use any transport or vehicle. Literally intern level work done right there.


Or shipped codexes printed in China that required literally on start faq? For what 40+ CHF?

For a multi million Dollar company that is quite the callsign.

Is there a reason that the in-box Easy-to-Build datasheets aren't included (eg. Tainted Cohort), or Warhammer: Conquest datasheets (eg. Lieutenant Calcius)?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I played a very enjoyable game this evening with 4 books - BRB, CA2018, Codex: Chaos Knights and Codex: Space Wolves...

And you're not using the errata for those books?

I am, but I don't print them out. I can access them on my phone if I need them but for my army the relevant ones are easy enough to remember.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I played a very enjoyable game this evening with 4 books - BRB, CA2018, Codex: Chaos Knights and Codex: Space Wolves...

And you're not using the errata for those books?

I am, but I don't print them out. I can access them on my phone if I need them but for my army the relevant ones are easy enough to remember.

That's nice but a lot of tournaments require print outs of these rules.

I'm not saying that GW is never wrong, i'm saying that you miss every shot you don't take. The fact they're actively trying to fix most of the game is good enough, it's unrealistic to ask for a perfect game system out the gate, you NEED FAQs, otherwise we'd already be in 9th ed by now.

And don't even bother using FW indexs to argue against it. FW's a dying product, and GW is burying them as fast as humanly possible. The 40k and AoS models for FW are barely supported, and most of the time have been jacked up in price to the point of unplayability when it comes to the larger stuff.

 vaklor4 wrote:
I'm not saying that GW is never wrong, i'm saying that you miss every shot you don't take. The fact they're actively trying to fix most of the game is good enough, it's unrealistic to ask for a perfect game system out the gate, you NEED FAQs, otherwise we'd already be in 9th ed by now.

And don't even bother using FW indexs to argue against it. FW's a dying product, and GW is burying them as fast as humanly possible. The 40k and AoS models for FW are barely supported, and most of the time have been jacked up in price to the point of unplayability when it comes to the larger stuff.

At this point I'm getting sick of watching my cool models that were playable becoming unplayable and joining the models already permanently in storage.

 vaklor4 wrote:
I'm not saying that GW is never wrong, i'm saying that you miss every shot you don't take. The fact they're actively trying to fix most of the game is good enough, it's unrealistic to ask for a perfect game system out the gate, you NEED FAQs, otherwise we'd already be in 9th ed by now.

And don't even bother using FW indexs to argue against it. FW's a dying product, and GW is burying them as fast as humanly possible. The 40k and AoS models for FW are barely supported, and most of the time have been jacked up in price to the point of unplayability when it comes to the larger stuff.

FW dying and going away, that's rich.

When one of the big selling points of 8th at launch was there would be less rules, it does not look good when you go horribly back on that. Like the first couple of releases sure I could see GW needing an FAq but now that they are basically treating players as the beta testers, it's getting to be a joke.

This thread again?

Reset the clock...

Not Online!!! wrote:


And for a nice exemple, GW stated that codex 2.0 is not necessary for csm.

A "codex 2.0" should be unacceptable for any faction within the same edition. It is utter insanity to think that such a measure should be necessary in an even halfway competently made game. FAQs aren't perfect, but this is something else. I can't think of any other game or company that would try something like that, with the exception of edition changes.

It's trash, is what I'm saying.

I'd hope I'm getting this somewhat wrong, and that the actual idea of a "codex 2.0" is simply the original codex with the FAQ and errata content added. If it's an excuse to make players buy a second codex to stay able to play, then that's honestly kind of disgusting.

To steer back towards the topic, I believe the following list is the minimum required documents to play a game:
Core Rules
Chapter approved '18
Rulebook FAQ
CA FAQ 2018
Update 2019 (Not certain we need this, but I'm also not certain that we don't)
Codex (Player 1)
Codex (Player 2)
Codex FAQ (Player 1)
Codex FAQ (Player 2)

So nine documents in total. Make of that what you will.

If one of those players has wargear from the index you also need the index. Index faq, and how to use index options with a codex flow chart.

12-14 dpending on if both players are doing that.

chapter approved is optional. yes for people looking at using the latest points it's required but points are actually not required to play, if you just wanted to do a casual power level based game with a buddy you could get away without CA. I think BTW this is a flaw in a lotta the arguments some people here are making. they take whats needed to be a compeitive tourny player and arguing thats the bare minimum. That's not a minimalist approuch. a minimalist approuch is "Tim and his friend Bob playing in their garage with a 700 point mono-codex army each"

BrianDavion wrote:
chapter approved is optional. yes for people looking at using the latest points it's required but points are actually not required to play, if you just wanted to do a casual power level based game with a buddy you could get away without CA. I think BTW this is a flaw in a lotta the arguments some people here are making. they take whats needed to be a compeitive tourny player and arguing thats the bare minimum. That's not a minimalist approuch. a minimalist approuch is "Tim and his friend Bob playing in their garage with a 700 point mono-codex army each"

I think this is a bit of a mis-argument. At that point (that is to say, the most basic level), the "minimum required to play" is some half-glued models and the willingness to make some pew-pew noises.
If we're going to discuss the state of the game, we need to understand what is actually required as a minimum. I think most people would agree that the most up-to-date version of the rules (whether that is through FAQs or additional books) would be required for any usual pick up game.

What you do in a garage with your friends, of course, is a completely different matter.

This is beyond ridiculous. You don’t need 102 documents to play. You need your army book, chapter approved, a rulebook and FAQs. Which is the same it’s always been, with the add-on of the CA. HOWEVER!! If you are using soup, then yes, you need anther book/FAQ combo for each thing souped in. But that’s your own fault/choice. The only thing that is worth a legit complaint is when a campaign book (Vigilus Ablaze being the most infamous current one) creates new, better ways to use the army you already have, and you need the new hotness to make your army better.

But carrying 102 documents to a tournament? Or a pickup game? Nobody has ever done that. If you played Space Marines and went to a tournament, you didn’t take a Tau, Ork and Eldar codex/FAQ with you from 4th edition through 7th, so why would you now? This is just more crap being spouted off by the guy who doesn’t even PLAY 40k, he just likes to piss on everyone’s corn flakes.

TLDR: BCB is whining about an activity he isn’t involved in again, news at 11.

BrianDavion wrote:
chapter approved is optional. yes for people looking at using the latest points it's required but points are actually not required to play, if you just wanted to do a casual power level based game with a buddy you could get away without CA. I think BTW this is a flaw in a lotta the arguments some people here are making. they take whats needed to be a compeitive tourny player and arguing thats the bare minimum. That's not a minimalist approuch. a minimalist approuch is "Tim and his friend Bob playing in their garage with a 700 point mono-codex army each"

Saying CA is optional is like saying getting an 8th edition codex is optional. I would refuse to play someone unless they are using the most recent version of the rules unless we are specifically playing an old hammer game.

For what it's worth, the next 40k game I'm planning on playing will be me using the datasheets that come in the model instruction books, the stratagem card pack for my faction, and the free rulebook. I won't count the instruction documents as individuals, because I'm fairly sure they're all in the respective Index I own, so for me to play a game, I need three sources, four if I choose to use a unit/detachment from Vigilus.

I don't play with relics, Warlord Traits, or anything like that. I don't need the most recent FAQ if my opponent and I don't agree to use it. We don't even need the entire main rulebook.

So no, the premise that you NEED 102 documents to play 40k is false, if we define playing 40k as "are you using the core rules and datasheets for the game". That's two sources. If you want to use any of the other 100, that's something you'd organise with your opponent, but the baseline is "you use the core rules, and a datasheet".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Saying CA is optional is like saying getting an 8th edition codex is optional.

By Codex, are you saying Indexes aren't valid? Because I play 40k with my faction's Index, and don't use the Codex at all.

Yes, I play with a group of friends, but for us, CA *IS* optional, as is using the Codex.

I would refuse to play someone unless they are using the most recent version of the rules unless we are specifically playing an old hammer game.

And other groups might not.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Saying CA is optional is like saying getting an 8th edition codex is optional.

By Codex, are you saying Indexes aren't valid? Because I play 40k with my faction's Index, and don't use the Codex at all.

Then at that point why bother using any rules? You can't use index datasheets if a codex datasheet exists, as per the BRB FAQ. To say "X is optional" is an exercise in nonsense because you can always define anything as optional.

The current state of affairs is shambolic. It is very frustrating to see the lack of professionalism and common sense in their delivery of the ruleset. It is a big hurdle for new comers which is self defeating...

There are a couple solution:

1. Beta codex/ rules updates to allow the entire community to play test and feedback. Then release the codex as a finished product. It is very apparent (Chaos codex 2.0 as prime example) that the rules and books are not thoroughly playtested/ proof read resulting in an incompetent delivery.

2. Stop the drive for "less rules cos people cant understand rules and don't like to read and don't have time". I know this is very unpopular with some people who want to get a game done in 1 hour but hey ho...

3. Do the SANE thing; Have rolling PDF documents... Its not hard to edit a PDF and reupload it. So anyone who owns a codex should have access to the PDF which gets erratd and updated as people try to break the game and FAQs are sent in.

I hope things will improve. If it wasn't for battle scribe I think id have quit 40k by now. Trying to go at it with pen and paper with the current codex formats is like a big no thank you...

HoundsofDemos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
chapter approved is optional. yes for people looking at using the latest points it's required but points are actually not required to play, if you just wanted to do a casual power level based game with a buddy you could get away without CA. I think BTW this is a flaw in a lotta the arguments some people here are making. they take whats needed to be a compeitive tourny player and arguing thats the bare minimum. That's not a minimalist approuch. a minimalist approuch is "Tim and his friend Bob playing in their garage with a 700 point mono-codex army each"

Saying CA is optional is like saying getting an 8th edition codex is optional. I would refuse to play someone unless they are using the most recent version of the rules unless we are specifically playing an old hammer game.

except CA is optional, because using points is optional you might vastly prefer points (I do too) but we need to reckongize that, strictly speaking, they're optional and one can always choose to use PL instead