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.

The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

...but... that would mean that GW knew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.

Is that intended as a defence?!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

...but... that would mean that GW knew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.

Is that intended as a defence?!

Exactly. The pa books were already written and probably printed when ca released. Same goes for the "balancing " they intend to do with fw. So why haven't the discrepancies been addressed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?

I don't.

 EnTyme wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?

He did:

- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF
- I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)

- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...

Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?

He did:

- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF
- I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)

- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...

Considering some of gw's previous decisions anything is conceivable. Seriously who would have thought they would price anything the completely asinine way that they did the mega daemons?

Karol wrote:
Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?

Drops also.
Cue sorcerer and MoP,one makes undeniable sense the other,erm well less so.
Of course Units that are shared Like cultists Turn heads easily aswell.

Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Karol wrote:
Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Must be a typo.

Karol wrote:
Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Easy Way to Find out ,compare to other Tech marines, did they drop aswell,are they about the Same ballpark?

I am dubious about the sorcerer because i know how he performs comparatively even to sm librarians.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Karol wrote:
Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Must be a typo.

Could very well be.

Could be. We don’t really know-and that’s a problem. There’s a gakton of QA issues.

Karol wrote:
Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?

Maybe not 50%, but early in 8th they did have an incident where Purestrain Genestealers were 20% cheaper than Hive Fleet 'stealers and they fixed it in an FAQ a couple days later.

Could we agree that the current price for a Neophyte is probably an anomaly given their battlefield role and stats but for now that is what the rules say they cost? I don't see why this need be a point of contention and I'm a bit unsure as to why the cost being thought of as suspect is considered an issue.

Also as to why the price hike for Neophytes specifically seems suspect, it locks them out of the game. A minimum squad consumes more than half of the points available to a player in a typical game and it is impossible to take a second squad (or a full squad) and still field a legal battle forged army at their current points bracket. Again though, the price is what it is and I don't dispute the idea that that is what one has to pay to use them. I do think though that of the examples listed none have such a disproportionate effect on the item in question though.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?

Irrelevant.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

...but... that would mean that GW knew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.

Is that intended as a defence?!

No, I don't think it means that GW knew and intended for the points in CA to be wrong. Do you know the lead time on the Greater Good book? The points correction may be in an errata/day 1 FAQ (ala Space Wolves WL traits) to the Greater Good book.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?

Irrelevant.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

...but... that would mean that GW knew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.

Is that intended as a defence?!

No, I don't think it means that GW knew and intended for the points in CA to be wrong. Do you know the lead time on the Greater Good book? The points correction may be in an errata/day 1 FAQ (ala Space Wolves WL traits) to the Greater Good book.

No, not irrelevant, it's at the core of this issue discussed in this thread.

GW didn't get the points values in CA intentionally wrong because of an upcoming PA book.

Hanlon's Razor cuts right through that, folks.

 Strat_N8 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?

Maybe not 50%, but early in 8th they did have an incident where Purestrain Genestealers were 20% cheaper than Hive Fleet 'stealers and they fixed it in an FAQ a couple days later.

Could we agree that the current price for a Neophyte is probably an anomaly given their battlefield role and stats but for now that is what the rules say they cost? I don't see why this need be a point of contention and I'm a bit unsure as to why the cost being thought of as suspect is considered an issue.

Also as to why the price hike for Neophytes specifically seems suspect, it locks them out of the game. A minimum squad consumes more than half of the points available to a player in a typical game and it is impossible to take a second squad (or a full squad) and still field a legal battle forged army at their current points bracket. Again though, the price is what it is and I don't dispute the idea that that is what one has to pay to use them. I do think though that of the examples listed none have such a disproportionate effect on the item in question though.

The problem is that the neophyte's cost, at least, could have been addressed in a day one faq. Ignoring all the other questionable stuff they could have done that. But over two months later they haven't uttered a peep. One simple one sentence long faq would cut down all this speculation and complaining tremendously yet they refuse to address the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW didn't get the points values in CA intentionally wrong because of an upcoming PA book.

Hanlon's Razor cuts right through that, folks.

Yes exactly! When the simplest explanation is ignorance assume ignorance.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.

What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?

Yes?

And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?

Irrelevant.

No, not irrelevant, it's at the core of this issue discussed in this thread.

No, it really isn't relevant at all. The OP is asking if there's any news/speculation on when we can expect an errata to CA mistakes. I have provided my guess.

But if you want my opinion on the value of CA generally; if you think I'm going to pay for rules updates that are at least 6 months out of date, you have another thing coming. I will tell GW this every chance I get. CA is worthless, as far as I'm concerned.

So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?

Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Easy Way to Find out ,compare to other Tech marines, did they drop aswell,are they about the Same ballpark?

I am dubious about the sorcerer because i know how he performs comparatively even to sm librarians.

its is hard to compare, because ours has different gear and lack of access to stuff other techmarines have plus his codex cost was like 90pts for a guy 24pts for two servo arms, and then he also got an ax and a flamer, and other gear. Plus he can cast powers and that always costs points.

 vipoid wrote:
So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?

Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?

How about we meet in the middle of previous & current & see how that plays?

Maybe they only meant a 300% increase in price.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe they only meant a 300% increase in price.

That makes sense. That's about what they did to the hellforged/relic super heavys in ca2018. So totally already set a precedent.

Karol wrote:
Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.

Which is entirely inline with other techmarine drops and he's even 10 points more to account for casting ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?

Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?

That's a discussion for whomever you're playing with. In my opinion the fair choice with no risk of balance issues is to use the old cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...

There is a subjective gradient. You may not feel like a 40 point TH is fair, but then your opinion could be based on the fact that you might like using smash captains. I could otherwise disagree, because I might be sick of getting smacked by multiple smash captains. Neither of those ends are particularly relevant if people are still taking them in lists.

You could say that some people don't have a relic TH so it isn't worth it, but that really doesn't matter either, because not all armies need all tools to be hyper-efficient. Could GW price TH differently for each chapter? Sure, but then you're opening a whole other can of balancing worms. Relics should perhaps cost points, but we're not there yet.

Now, at least, power fists are a (slightly more) viable option in comparison.

Smash w/ PF is 102.

5 * .777 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 1.94 ; 102 / 1.94 = 52 points per damage

Smash w/ TH is 133

5 * .777 * .5 * .5 * 3 = 2.91 ; 133 / 2.91 = 45.7 points per damage

See how the TH is STILL more efficient? You might balk at the difference between the TH and PF, but when you take into effect REAL costs the flat 3 damage weights heavily in favor of the TH.

Honestly this is all just making me want to revert to playing PL.

nareik wrote:
Honestly this is all just making me want to revert to playing PL.

To archive what? You get the same effect by just ignoring all the CA and FAQs and using the original points from the codices.

nareik wrote:
Honestly this is all just making me want to revert to playing PL.

If I can, I only use PL now. My FLGS is running an escalation legue using points, it's been a while since I've used them, and the CA drops for my Necrons have really added up!

Does Power Level not often result in dramatic imbalance? I'm very much a narrative player myself, but I don't think I've ever played a game without points that wasn't a tutorial of some sort.