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.

 Primark G wrote:
Thing is the house rule came out right when 8th edition was first started to be played publicly. Why wasn't it caught by GW's playtesters? It's too early to make a change that has such a huge impact.

You do realize gw didn't take all the playtesters advice.
Like I'm fairly sure playtesters would have told gw; hey your missions have sucked the last 20 years how about we just change them to the layered missions everyone uses in tournaments.
And gw was like ya no we like them simple and unbalanced.

 Primark G wrote:
Thing is the house rule came out right when 8th edition was first started to be played publicly. Why wasn't it caught by GW's playtesters? It's too early to make a change that has such a huge impact.

There was plenty of House Ruling during 7th. This is by no mean something new.

And like others said, GW does not always listen to the playtester feedback.
Also keep in mind that given the timing of everything, it is very likely GW looked for playtesting after having already wrote and printed the Rulebook/Indexes.

 jy2 wrote:
All the lists are on BestCoastPairings.com and its free to use/see. You should download it onto your phone.

Wow now i need to pay money to see the lists as well? pfff... dont feel like paying 50 euro every year just to see the player lists... (old events i cant see in normal app an searching requires you to pay...)

 jy2 wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:
Also I have a question. Since this person made top 8 I'm going to make an assumption his list was checked over again and verified. But the top Ynarri player did not pay for the spirit stones on his hemlock, is there a reason for this? I thought it was covered in the space marine company champion FAQ.

Probably because it isn't listed as a wargear. Rather, it is an ability for the Hemlock unless the FAQ says otherwise (and I don't see it changed in the FAQ).

I believe that they do have to pay for them even though it is listed as an ability, just like the Autarch has to pay for his forceshield even though it is listed as an ability. If they have a point cost for it, you have to pay it.

The BCP app shows the lists in sponsored events for a few days but then they become available only to those who pay for the service.

And yes, this is intent. The BCP app was created by skilled professionals who've been working on the software for well over a year. They're building a valuable database of information and it is totally reasonable for them to get compensated for their hard work. And of course, if access to that isn't worth the money to you then you don't have to pay =) The subscription to BCP comes with a lot of other perks, too though, by the way, not just access to lists.

@Blackmoor

Then play faster, bruh =P

I'm teasing of course, but yes, players have to keep an eye on the clock. It is a part of the game. To that end, we're working on a time journal to go along with our format where players notate when they begin and end their turns and their opponent verifies it. This data will then be made public most likely, so those who actually play slow will see it. It is interesting as we have started tracking time, players almost always think it was their opponent that played slow when in fact it is almost always both of them. But, we need to build up more data first to show everyone but in the short term, this is our plan.

@Thread

The +1 to go first rule was a known issue prior to 8th launch. I cannot disclose the details but your assumptions on the topic are inaccurate. I can see how you draw them given the information available to you, but they are still off the mark in regards to us just finding it after release or GW not listening to us or anything like that.

You will just have to wait and see on that, time will make it evident what hapenned and why but no, it is not just something we made up in the last month or whatever.

At any rate, thanks for coming to an awesome BAO! We had a great time and the buzz around 8th is awesome.

In regards to units that cause some concern, as Frnakie and I have been saying, anything that seems too good or too weak will probably get altered sooner than later. So, just hang in there a bit =)

So you are asking us to just take your word for it now?

 Primark G wrote:
So you are asking us to just take your word for it now?

Yes. He's bound by a NDA when it comes to discussing playtesting info. So if you don't think he's a chronic liar, then give hm the benefit of the doubt.

Why doesn't the company FAQ it?

I had a great time, though did not do well overall.

No issues finishing on time as yes - the first two rounds in 8th play a little long, but by the 3rd/4th round you won't have enough left on the table for things to take long.

Excellent event, and I am glad the store is in my backyard.

 Primark G wrote:
Why doesn't the company FAQ it?

Who knows. Reece doesn't run GW, he just can't talk about the things he knows they're doing but isn't allowed to speak on.

Maybe (pure speculation here) they're going to release a set of additional guidelines for matched play rules for organized events?

Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.

And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.

If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.

As to missions
We brought the Nova/ITC missions to our club, alot of people, especially new ones, did not understand it.
Having simple missions in the main book, even if they are unbalanced will help newbies.
Tournaments will continue doing their own missions thats fine.

 Reecius wrote:
Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.

And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.

If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.

What is a rough time frame when this will become self evident to the public?

 Reecius wrote:
Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.

And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.

If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.

The ATC organizer has talked about there may, or may not be, an NDA for him as well. I'll take your word for it.

Once I understood the scoring system, the NOVA missions were the best. 2nd day was much more enjoyable for me.

Reece and Yakface have articulated it well. It should also bear some weight that every TO who is also a play tester has used and/or advocated the +1 to go first rule since Day 1.

Following BAO was a blast this year, and it's been good to hear a lot of feedback on the missions. Looking forward to knockin' back beers and rolling dice with some of these West Coasters at NOVA and LVO.

 Primark G wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Yakface has it as to why I can't answer the question. I am ethically and legally bound to keep my mouth shut on some topics, this being one of them.

And yes, I am asking you all to take my word for it. Considering I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy, but I understand for some it might be a big ask.

If you remain patient I think your questions will be answered in time, though.

What is a rough time frame when this will become self evident to the public?

He can't answer that question. Anything to due with future releases or methods is forbidden. The best you're going to get is generalities too vague for your satisfaction.

I understand. Just curious to the decision making process.

I really love NOVA missions as they are very tactical and reward good decision making.

 Reecius wrote:
I have never lied to the community before I would hope I am trustworthy

What about when you said I was special and could be anything I wanted to be when I grew up... and that Mom was taking her special medicine when the house smelled funny and the Pink Floyd kept skipping on the record player.... remember that?

Yeah, I can't say when things are coming out, sorry =(

@Hotsauce

yeah, simple missions are great for beginners. The tournament missions are a bit much for someone new.

@Thread

Very glad you all liked NOVA missions! They're excellent for helping you shape the mission to your army's strengths.

I understand how #1 overall player Grant's Astra Militarum list worked, with Scions, conscript mobs, firebase.

I understand how #2 overall player Pelham's list that was similar but fewer conscripts, Elysians, and a Stormlord worked.

However, I am completely baffled by #3 overall player Johnson's Astartes/Soup list worked. Lord Commissar with 2x20 Conscripts, ok. Apothecary and Culexus I get. But the rest of the list is just like, Guilliman, a Jump pack Librarian, 15 Scouts with sniper rifles, 3 Centurions, a Basilisk Platform, a Stormraven, and a Vulture.

I don't understand how this list won. Or how its firebase actually worked. 40 conscripts, 15 scout snipers, 3 centurions, and 3 vehicles. And that's it? That's the whole firebase? Maybe I'm underestimating the dakka here but this list seems very strange to me. This list and its success intrigues me and shows me I have much more to learn.

Are there any battle reports of Johnson's list? Did anyone play against this list? How did it operate and what made it strong?

I did not play against any of the top lists. I did play a pretty mean genestealer alpha strike list and basically was on the defensive all game long.

Good experience though.

@DJones520

Thanks for the vote of confidence, friend =)

@Blazinghand

Doug is a very good player and frequently on the top tables of any tournament he goes to. His list shoots your pants off and has resiliency, mobility and Bobby G. Pretty straightforward to me, actually.

@Uriel

Glad you had fun!

Just gonna leave this right here....=)

All is revealed!!

Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?

Still, sounds great

 RiTides wrote:
All is revealed!!

Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?

Still, sounds great

Better to make us all pay for it it would seem. I've already been told to quote "stfu" for lamenting that fact on frontline's facebook page. Yay.



Obsec is fine and all, just not sure why it wouldn't be there initially.

We told you to STFU? What? lol. No, that did not happen.

Again, while I understand why it seems strange given your perspective, in order to understand this you'd have to know when the BRB was finished and printed. The timing as it appears may not align with the actual timelines.

But, glad we have it =)

 Crablezworth wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
All is revealed!!

Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?

Still, sounds great

Better to make us all pay for it it would seem. I've already been told to quote "stfu" for lamenting that fact on frontline's facebook page. Yay.



Obsec is fine and all, just not sure why it wouldn't be there initially.

You act as if it's a hard rule to remember. The only reason I think the rule was added was to diversify lists away from spam.

 Reecius wrote:
We told you to STFU? What? lol. No, that did not happen.

No, a poster on frontline's facebook. Frontline was polite.

 RiTides wrote:
All is revealed!!

Now wouldn't it have been easier if GW had just made that the core rule from the start, rather than amending it so soon . I mean, didn't they have to know this was coming from the very beginning (as the TOs seemed to)?

Still, sounds great

As Reece mentioned, you have to keep in mind the extremely long lead time for making something like the 40k rulebook.

If you read between the lines a bit we can probably surmise that most of the playtesting feedback GW could have gotten for 8th edition wouldn't have been useful except to make changes to the game AFTER the rulebook was already finished and off to the printers. That's just the reality of having a product that both takes a very long time to make but also has a pretty strict time frame for when it needs to be released. Since they were making such massive changes to the ENTIRE game, by the time they had the rules fleshed out to the point where they were comfortable sharing them with a wider breadth of outside playtesters, the feedback they got back likely couldn't have changed the core rules in any meaningful way, if at all.