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.

tneva82 wrote:
GW playtesting!=usual playtesting.

Coming from software houses without dedicated testing teams, you'd be real surprised how close this is to a lot of testing practices. I've written 200+ automated tests in the last few days to avoid releasing something with serious undetected issues and they're getting restless that I'm wasting my time.

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying it clearly was a loophole and that everyone knew it was one. I wouldn't blame anyone using that in a competitive setting though, which is why I don't play competitively.

It could be even be used accidentally. That's not even a competitive vs casual mindset, it is poor writing period.

In a casual game you'd go "hm. This is called self sacrifice. Now the HQ I accidentally used it on is not sacrificing themself and the other guy can't shoot ANYTHING due to that. Hey, let me retarget the strat or even refund it, this doesn't seem fair or fun at all".

You usually wouldn't do that in a competitive setting.

It still happened though is the point. It's like impossible to miss.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
at least GW corrects their opsies now, so it's progress of a sort :/

Yeah, but the big oopsies (e.g. Point costs) they only fix behind a paywall
So learning process on how to nickle and dime even more.

In AoS point fixes are now free.

Since AoS is a running beta test of 40K, we have hope.

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
at least GW corrects their opsies now, so it's progress of a sort :/

Yeah, but the big oopsies (e.g. Point costs) they only fix behind a paywall
So learning process on how to nickle and dime even more.

In AoS point fixes are now free.

Since AoS is a running beta test of 40K, we have hope.

Yes, and the beta is free. Release version you gotta pay.

If I'm reading it right, the revised Salamander stratagem still has the possibility of both units being invulnerable. You just need to put the first one behind terrain, or something else which blocks LoS. Not nearly as bad as being able to make a bunch of units immune to shooting by just choosing a character, but still sloppy rules writing.

What makes it even worse is that there are already perfectly good rules which do a decent job of representing what they wanted to; the various bodyguard units and grot shields. You could literally just use the wording of grot shields and change the keywords.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
If I'm reading it right, the revised Salamander stratagem still has the possibility of both units being invulnerable. You just need to put the first one behind terrain, or something else which blocks LoS.

Why not save 2 CP and just place both units behind terrain and make them "invulnerable"?

nekooni wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
If I'm reading it right, the revised Salamander stratagem still has the possibility of both units being invulnerable. You just need to put the first one behind terrain, or something else which blocks LoS.

Why not save 2 CP and just place both units behind terrain and make them "invulnerable"?

Because you can't always fit an infinite number of models behind any given object and you probably want at least some of your units able to shoot at the enemy?

Not saying it's an efficient method of protecting your forces (spending any CP to protect one unit is barely ever going to be worth it, since your opponent can just shoot something else), just that it is still possible for the stratagem to produce results which completely fail to match the apparent intention.

Shivan Reaper wrote:
I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Not only is it the 1st thought I had reading it, I assumed that was what they intended it to be used on.

Oh well, I guess the plan succeeded & they sold enough Agressor kits....

ccs wrote:

Shivan Reaper wrote:
I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Not only is it the 1st thought I had reading it, I assumed that was what they intended it to be used on.

Oh well, I guess the plan succeeded & they sold enough Agressor kits....

I think it's more techmarines with combi flamer and harness, dual flamer speeders, and invictus. No one I know was even thinking about aggressors because of delivery.