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.

My Leviathans with bombards went up 30 points each. Guess ill have to get the Storm Cannons... GW nerfing my fun 3 Cmortis/3Leviathan list, qq.

My 6 Razors/3 LasPred & Chronus/Guilliman list went up 114... guess ill drop a Razorback, heh.

Though my Primaris lists got a huge buff, jeez. Guess ill have to work on that unknown founding list a bit sooner!

http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/11/chapter-approved-points-leak/#more-13994

Point cost images from inside chapter approved... some FW models got wrecked.

Heres an interesting interaction. Hellstrike missiles were not changed for the astra militarum codex at 20 points but they are now 30 points in the forgeworld section. I guess they come cheaper when you buy them on vallyries? Also why nerf mortars and rapiers? No one was taking them because they are too squishy for what they do. Finally, all the Guard flyers went up (i can see the thunderbolt, it was a bargain for the price) but then not touch the mysteriously cheap Vulture?

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

We're not moaning about the fact that GW's doing something. In fact, up until now, people have generally been excited about GW doing something, because they had a very long history of doing very little of anything and it hurt their game for it. But now that they've done something, it's what they've done that is so bad. Their decisions are nonsensical at best, most of them doing absolutely nothing to address many of the greater problems with the game, and many likely going to worsen the state of it, in addition to invalidating the entire Forgeworld catalogue of models and armies.

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

You don't understand what happened with forgeworld, let me explain. They listened.
When people still fight tooth and nail about how brokenly powerful forgeworld is and tell you you can't use it, games workshop heard them.

Everyone who cried about the Titanic weapons being able to one shot kill super heavy units, you have been heard.

Now, those models are pushed to a point in the game where the only time you'd want to use them is when there are other really big models that they are worth firing those giant guns at.

Congratulations to those who have steadfastly shaken your fist at everything from forgeworld, you've finally made it so they would never ruin your game again.

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

Ah yes all change is good no reason to complain. Nevermind how conscripts now cost same as basic infantry for less ws, bs, ld, orders and command points. Or how malefic lord doubles price and primaris psyker just few points. Meanwhile fw flyer that's not been problem gets 300% price hike.

You know what's reason for these changes? Not balance but changing playerp purchase patterns for more money.

 Peregrine wrote:

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

lol



Comming back to reality: looking forward to CA and the new missions. Hope sb leaks Tau point changes soon ;-)

Anyone know if the apoc section is going to have new titan rules to make them better? Struggling to see how 1 war hound/revenant is now equivalent to 4 baneblades.

Aeri wrote:


Comming back to reality: looking forward to CA and the new missions. Hope sb leaks Tau point changes soon ;-)

Tau point changes seems to be coming on codex so january-february.

Wouldn't hold hope for them to be good though

Aeri wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

lol



Comming back to reality: looking forward to CA and the new missions. Hope sb leaks Tau point changes soon ;-)

There are no Tau point changes in this book. The first page of point changes is x16(probably 116). There are three pages in between. The first page with Forgeworld changes is 120. So it will be a couple months before you get to see the point changes for Tau. January at the absolute earliest.

 Peregrine wrote:

rtb02 wrote:
I have to say I simply find people's reactions amusing.

They're trying to do something. People moan. They do nothing and people moan...

We've seen more codexes released for 8th at a pace

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

Oh Perri, never change...

Punisher23 wrote:
Anyone know if the apoc section is going to have new titan rules to make them better? Struggling to see how 1 war hound/revenant is now equivalent to 4 baneblades.

It's because baneblade is gw product so looks better to have money from them. Especially as net profit is better from plastic than resin. They want wyou to buy baneblades rather than warhounds.

Surely you don't think it's because of balance reasons?

In fairness I applaud the changes. Some errors perhaps but things like the falchion were incredibly powerful and needed ramping up.

Some fw stuff belongs in apoc games, that's now where we'll see it.

I'm fairly capable of understanding that there's swings and roundabouts but the level of grumble here is funny to me. Chaos reigns and ensues

rtb02 wrote:
Some errors perhaps but things like the falchion were incredibly powerful and needed ramping up.

Uh, no, the Falchion was not that powerful. Compare it to the Shadowsword: same stats for the gun, same BS against all relevant targets (the Shadowsword is only BS 4+ against things it's overkill against anyway), the only difference being 2D6 shots vs. 3D3 shots. That's an average of 7 shots vs. 6 shots. The Falchion gets eight lascannons, the Shadowsword gets four lascannons and ten heavy bolters. Oh, and I guess the Falchion gets a mostly-meaningless +1 toughness and +1 save, which do nothing against the weapons that are expected to shoot at these tanks. The Shadowsword costs 540 points, the Falchion costs 800 points. Can you honestly say that a ~15% increase in main-gun firepower and a modest durability increase is worth paying almost 50% more points? Of course not.

Oh wait, that comparison is with the old points. It now costs 1000 points. 1000 ing points. Almost twice as much as a Shadowsword. This is sheer ing lunacy.

I'm fairly capable of understanding that there's swings and roundabouts but the level of grumble here is funny to me. Chaos reigns and ensues

IOW, "just accept that GW sucks at rules and will randomly break stuff because they're too incompetent to understand how their own game works, it's CHAOS". Why are you making excuses for incompetence?

rtb02 wrote:
In fairness I applaud the changes. Some errors perhaps but things like the falchion were incredibly powerful and needed ramping up.

Some fw stuff belongs in apoc games, that's now where we'll see it.

I'm fairly capable of understanding that there's swings and roundabouts but the level of grumble here is funny to me. Chaos reigns and ensues

I agree, the big stuff does belong in apoc and the points represent that now. An issue for me is that some of big units were already pretty dubious value for points and with the massive rises become massively overcosted. Not so much in weapons, but in-terms of durability.

I'm not going to rush out and buy anything until I see the CA: FAQ.

rtb02 wrote:
In fairness I applaud the changes. Some errors perhaps but things like the falchion were incredibly powerful and needed ramping up.

Some fw stuff belongs in apoc games, that's now where we'll see it.

I'm fairly capable of understanding that there's swings and roundabouts but the level of grumble here is funny to me. Chaos reigns and ensues

Apoc, regular, if it's crap for points it's crap for points and won't be bought let alone used

And then there's the sizeable selection of non-superheavy units and factions that FW makes, which are also mostly nerfed beyond belief.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time reading this as anything more than an assassination of FW.

On the whole, the changes will improve the game. GW have taken the nerf bat to seriously broken stuff like the Tzeench un-spellable lord of change guy and basically banished him back to the warp. That’s good because he was getting used at tournaments and breaking games.

Meanwhile they’ve cut the points for a lot of far more commonly-used units, making their new primaris and death guard ranges considerably more viable. This extends to forgeworld units like the Sicaran too. So far so good.

Some of the nerfs seem pretty fair to me. Shadow spectres needed to go up significantly and have. I use a Xiphon but it’s clearly been under-costed, so going up 30 points makes it feel like I can use the thing without feeling like I’m slightly cheating by doing so. Malanthropes and Malefic Lords have probably been hit harder than they deserved.

I do think it’s fair to say that superheavies have had their points costs raised more than was justified - if indeed any increase in cost was justified at all. I don’t see any reason to add 200 points to the cost of fellblade variants, plus the Typhon and Cerberus. I think I put this down to a “better safe than sorry” approach to bringing massive vehicles into 40k matched play, but it wasn’t needed. I happen to own a Typhon and Falchion and had no plans to use them in tournaments even before this change. Weird.

One price cut stands out to me. I lost a game at the GT heat to someone with a superheavy detachment of Guilliman and two Terminus Ultras. These have had their price cut by 150 points, and are now about the cheapest land raiders you can get - though for some reason only ultramarines can have them. 350 points for a tank with 8 lascannons seems a very good deal - though to be fair I suppose you could have a couple of predators for not much more and spread the risk around. Maybe just sour grapes on my part!

Mandragola wrote:
On the whole, the changes will improve the game. GW have taken the nerf bat to seriously broken stuff like the Tzeench un-spellable lord of change guy and basically banished him back to the warp. That’s good because he was getting used at tournaments and breaking games.

Meanwhile they’ve cut the points for a lot of far more commonly-used units, making their new primaris and death guard ranges considerably more viable. This extends to forgeworld units like the Sicaran too. So far so good.

Some of the nerfs seem pretty fair to me. Shadow spectres needed to go up significantly and have. I use a Xiphon but it’s clearly been under-costed, so going up 30 points makes it feel like I can use the thing without feeling like I’m slightly cheating by doing so. Malanthropes and Malefic Lords have probably been hit harder than they deserved.

I do think it’s fair to say that superheavies have had their points costs raised more than was justified - if indeed any increase in cost was justified at all. I don’t see any reason to add 200 points to the cost of fellblade variants, plus the Typhon and Cerberus. I think I put this down to a “better safe than sorry” approach to bringing massive vehicles into 40k matched play, but it wasn’t needed. I happen to own a Typhon and Falchion and had no plans to use them in tournaments even before this change. Weird.

One price cut stands out to me. I lost a game at the GT heat to someone with a superheavy detachment of Guilliman and two Terminus Ultras. These have had their price cut by 150 points, and are now about the cheapest land raiders you can get - though for some reason only ultramarines can have them. 350 points for a tank with 8 lascannons seems a very good deal - though to be fair I suppose you could have a couple of predators for not much more and spread the risk around. Maybe just sour grapes on my part!

Hmmm no, Terminus Ultra actually were increased in cost. Before they were 400 all included, now they are 250 without wargear. Add 8 lasscannons and you get 450 before adding any optionals.

 Peregrine wrote:

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

1. Art is like humour, there isn't one type that everyone likes

2. Admech got some great point reductions

3. if it doesn't affect the current meta then it might affect it down the road when a new meta evolves to deal with the current one

 Fafnir wrote:
And then there's the sizeable selection of non-superheavy units and factions that FW makes, which are also mostly nerfed beyond belief.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time reading this as anything more than an assassination of FW.

I can't say that i'm sad for this. I always thought that FW models should have no place in regular matches and should be used only in narrative games. First of all they are on a different book, which means that i have to bring 2 books to play and that my opponent will probably not know the rules of my model (nor of it's existence probably). Then there is the matter of the cost of FW big models... You can play a FW model because you really like that model, and with this CA many players will no longer have problems with you doing that, but it should never be a competitive choice or even worse the "best" choice. That said, i admit that this CA erred too much on the safe side, probably we will now see this stuff slowly getting back in line with the march/september updates (they still want to sell those models after all).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kastelen wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

GW doesn't get credit for doing something so spectacularly incompetent that we'd arguably be better off if GW hadn't done CA at all. In a better-run company everyone involved in this debacle would have been fired and CA would have been pushed back until the book was ready. What we want is updates that are done well, not updates that are completely out of touch with the current meta. And until we get it there will be criticism. Praise for trying your best as you smear your all over the wall and make "art" ends when you're a small child.

1. Art is like humour, there isn't one type that everyone likes

2. Admech got some great point reductions

3. if it doesn't affect the current meta then it might affect it down the road when a new meta evolves to deal with the current one

This CA WILL affect the meta, it just destroyed the main reason to go chaos soup and badly hit the main Guilliman list, while making other more rounded choices better for the marines. We also have some point adjustements for some of the AM worst offenders (Taurox and Taurox prime in particular). The Malanthrope is a staple of nid armies and was just heavily nerfed.

If you don't look at FW changes, the codex changes were clearly done by someone who knew what he was doing (even if there are some strange changes there too).

I very much doubt that this CA or the recent codexes have much of anything to do with the recent meta.

Think about the production times to get CA sent to the printers, produced in mass numbers in various languages and shipped around the world. Not that they COULDN'T squeeze a bunch of changes into CA for balance right up until the very last minute. But that it would have been dumb for them to do so. They have LOTS of other stuff they are working on right now at a break neck pace.

CA was written about 2 months ago. The changes you see to FW points are based on the indexes, which, if everyone remembers, the FW indexes are poorly written rushed piles of garbage. The new primaris tank vehicle isn't in CA? No gak. It came out too recently for anything about it to be in there.

In another 6 months the codexes will basically be all released and the next batch of rebalances will be based on a accumulated knowledge of the meta right now + the next 4 months. This CA is more about the other updates. In 6 months I expect it will all be much better.

Much better then the maybe once a edition turn around that previous editions had.

I just saw Chapter Approved went on pre-order. Does anyone know if the game/victory point/command point trackers will also be sold separately? They are now only included in the Chapter Approved Warlord Edition...

Personally think it looks pretty good, has had some effect on the meta for the competitive scene. The casual scene will still take models because they are cool even if they are overcosted and will still be able to have a fun game with friends.

According to them the next balance pass is in 4 months (March).

Spoletta wrote:
I can't say that i'm sad for this. I always thought that FW models should have no place in regular matches and should be used only in narrative games. First of all they are on a different book, which means that i have to bring 2 books to play and that my opponent will probably not know the rules of my model (nor of it's existence probably). Then there is the matter of the cost of FW big models... You can play a FW model because you really like that model, and with this CA many players will no longer have problems with you doing that, but it should never be a competitive choice or even worse the "best" choice. That said, i admit that this CA erred too much on the safe side, probably we will now see this stuff slowly getting back in line with the march/september updates (they still want to sell those models after all).

That's just ridiculous. You have to bring two (or more) books frequently, even with just codex-only armies. And making units that are deliberately bad is just plain stupid for GW. It's bad for sales, it's bad for the enjoyment of the people who buy those units, and it's bad for the game as a whole. Poor balance is never a good thing, and deliberately making a whole product line that is never a competitive option would be spectacular incompetence.

If you don't look at FW changes, the codex changes were clearly done by someone who knew what he was doing (even if there are some strange changes there too).

No they weren't. Ratlings getting a cost increase, despite being nonexistent in competitive play? Conscripts now costing the same as regular infantry, despite being much worse in stats/upgrades/etc? It's sheer ing lunacy by someone with a marginal knowledge of the game, at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sadhvikv wrote:
The casual scene will still take models because they are cool even if they are overcosted and will still be able to have a fun game with friends.

IOW, "it's ok that GW published a dumpster fire of a book, you can just ignore the changes". Stop making excuses for GW selling a defective product.

sadhvikv wrote:
Personally think it looks pretty good, has had some effect on the meta for the competitive scene. The casual scene will still take models because they are cool even if they are overcosted and will still be able to have a fun game with friends.

Change is not automatically good. Especially when it's money driven. And casual scene would still benefit from good balance rather than gw greedy driven changes

tneva82 wrote:

sadhvikv wrote:
Personally think it looks pretty good, has had some effect on the meta for the competitive scene. The casual scene will still take models because they are cool even if they are overcosted and will still be able to have a fun game with friends.

Change is not automatically good. Especially when it's money driven. And casual scene would still benefit from good balance rather than gw greedy driven changes

I agree, change isn't automatically good. But the changes here that influence the competitive scene are good.

And as a point, why would they nerf so much FW if they were money driven?