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.

On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

Wayniac wrote:
On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

And because of attitudes like that, some companies simply hold back things a month or two that they could have fixed day 1, because it looks better to people that don't know better.
"We playtested it" doesn't mean "it's perfect in every way." It doesn't for any company, so why would it for GW that have really had fairly limited playtesting. Acknowledging that isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. Get over the gripe before we lose all the good things they're actually trying to do, just because of the ill will of their user base.

There are zero-day updates for the same reason that Windows has bugs that the testers didn't catch: all non-trivial programs have bugs. GW may have playtested, but they only have just so many playtesters, with just so much time, and they all have their preferred styles. Some interactions and edge cases just plain didn't get caught. Some glaringly obvious things (glaringly obvious to us, that is) aren't so obvious to them for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.

Debugging is a non-trivial process, whether your program is written in C, or in English.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

jade_angel wrote:
There are zero-day updates for the same reason that Windows has bugs that the testers didn't catch: all non-trivial programs have bugs. GW may have playtested, but they only have just so many playtesters, with just so much time, and they all have their preferred styles. Some interactions and edge cases just plain didn't get caught. Some glaringly obvious things (glaringly obvious to us, that is) aren't so obvious to them for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.

Debugging is a non-trivial process, whether your program is written in C, or in English.

As someone who worked in QA for a long time, I second this. Even the most detailed test plans aren't going to pick up on everything, and part of the job is being prepared to catch and quickly fix any defects that get identified once you've gone to production.

Let's give GW credit for being prepared to fix their mistakes rather than drag them for having mistakes in the first place.

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

The other thing is GW has now embraced the Internet as a medium. I'm sure on the release of 3rd edition they had just as many "bugs" to iron out, but back then FAQs could only be reliably distributed through magazines, and you can only imagine how long that took (they have to first hear about it).

Day 1 FAQs isn't a bad thing. At the very least it shows they're attempting to fix things, especially since the community has shown itself to be unable to interpret the written word as anything but literally (coughthewholechapterkeywordthingandrerollingopponentsdicecough).

So early?
This is indeed interesting!

Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

Don't worry. If GW does release an errata, it'll be in the next WD. That way, they can monetize the Rules, the Indexes, AND the erratas.

Wayniac wrote:
On one hand, I like the active approach to things instead of waiting, it feels very reminiscent of how other companies do things. On the other, it kind of kicks their "we playtested this" in the teeth if there is day one patches, even if they are free and in a good way.

One thing we learn very quickly in game design is that true balance will never be achieved in asymmetrical gameplay no matter how much you try and it is nearly impossible for a large game to track every single interaction between each other. Furthermore, any change made to a specific component in an effort to balance it with the rest will probably simply create another imbalance somewhere else in the long run that you will also need to fix. So the best you can hope is to plug any hole one by one to shape the player experience in the way you want them to act and feel while playing your game.

I am glad they're actively looking to make changes where they need to happen. Color me impressed.

Maybe they will change it so that some vehicles with plasma doesn't auto-die on a 1 either (Razorback comes to mind).

 MagicJuggler wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

That Stalin fella sounds like a scrub. He won, but still whines about his opponent's OP units.

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

 Thud wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

xmbk wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
the Commies blam and pass should be replaced with a blam and re-roll. I think people are most irritated with this unbeatable blob for some armies without sniper weapons.

Imagine how the Germans felt.

Or the Soviets in Finland.

"How many of our soldiers has this sniper killed?"
"At least 500 confirmed."
"Have we tried countering him with Snipers?"
"We have. They're all dead."
"Have we tried killing him in assault?"
"We have. We lost another 200 guys to him firing an SMG."
"Screw it, get the anti-tank rifles. I want this sniper dead!"
*Simo Heyha passes his FNP roll*

"Dear Games Workshop,
Winter War rules are imbalanced, please fix.
Signed, Stalin"

That Stalin fella sounds like a scrub. He won, but still whines about his opponent's OP units.

He only plays Open mode and pays to win. Complete WAAC player, puts like 40 times the amount of units up to anyone else.

SilverAlien wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

Termagaunts can easily and cheaply become fearless and aren't restricted to 10 models per squad.
Apples and Oranges.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

Has not one person here played a PC game in the past 5+ years??? Now even more on a console side too.

In the age of the high speed interwebz "patching" and fixing or improving past a release is VERY common and practically a given. A day 1 patch has also become common place.

Its good and bad. Its bad in that it seems developers can get "lazy" and QA is more lax due to the "we can fix it later". Its good because its dynamic and not a static type of process.

I see the TT games the same way. Granted they need to stop with the stupid books (or make it optional) in order to get to the point of being able to add/change/amend things as they add units and rules and distribute to everyone.

One of the things that peeved me about playing 40k is the fact a few "books" was never enough. You had multiple sources that had information you needed....and I hoped was up to date.

I still believe, as someone mentioned, a subscription system in ONE place for all information you purchased...with an army builder like BattleScribe or similar included. Books and hard copies could be purchased as well, but not as a necessity.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

PUFNSTUF wrote:
Better nerf other stuff too then. Would be odd to only target one army

The entire reason they'd need guard is guard is insanely good for its points. Even normal infantry squads are basically flat out upgrades to termagaunts for the same price.

Termagaunts can easily and cheaply become fearless and aren't restricted to 10 models per squad.
Apples and Oranges.

Commissars are what, 30 points, 50 for a lord? Or an morale 10 inquisitor for 70? It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent. Also, having better firepower, armor and options don't really balance out against being able to take a squad of 30, and option that in itself is a tradeoff compared to multiple smaller squads. Conscripts get better guns and armor than termagaunts for less, have access to cheap fearless, and the only downside is lower chance to hit which is going to be fairly balanced out with rapid fire lasguns.

Sorry but no, guard are underpriced right now compared to every other army. Four for a conscript, five for a normal guardsman. That's far more balanced compared to every other army out there.

Conscripts ARE undeniably one of the most efficient units for their points cost I've ever seen. For only 150 points 50 conscripts can throw out 100-200 shots, which is enough to kill just about anything in one or two turns.

 Peregrine wrote:
God I hope this rumor is a lie. Not because I have any opinion on the specific changes, but because a day-zero update would be a concession that GW didn't bother to do even superficial playtesting on 8th and confirmation that it's a defective product.

Not at all. But a handful of people playtesting is not the same as thousands of people all over the world playtesting. There's no way they can be as thorough as the combined playtest of every 40k player on the planet.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

You do realise it's been months since the books were finalised for print, yes?

Everyone knows there's only one Day 1 FAQ necessary for Guard.

Sergeants now have Lasguns as well as or instead of Laspistols and Chainswords.
Tempestors and Tempestor Primes now have Hotshot Lasguns as well as or instead of Hotshot Laspistols and Chainswords.

SilverAlien wrote:
It is far more expensive for tyranids to do the equivalent

Implying that most nidlists wouldn't have any synapse in them to begin with?
Yeah who want's Tervigons when fielding Termagants? Spawning new units that can charge and/or healing 10 Termagants a turn seems overrated.

Again, apples and oranges.

 Purifier wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Day 1 FAQ already?

Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun.

They have had a FAQ page up and running for weeks.... I would love it if they also published it as a monthly update in WD.

I know that but those FAQ's don't modify points.... because of course they wouldn't modify points for armies that aren't out yet.

Allow me to rephrase it if you want:

Day 1 FAQ already modifying points for matched play? Ohhh boy. This is gonna be fun

You do realise it's been months since the books were finalised for print, yes?

Although I genuinely would like a source to back that up, Purifier, the fact is that that still doesn't excuse sloppy testing.

But hey, I clearly am one of those who ask too much from GW.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


Although I genuinely would like a source to back that up, Purifier, the fact is that that still doesn't excuse sloppy testing.

But hey, I clearly am one of those who ask too much from GW.

Source: common sense.

You need time for: editing, copywriting, spell checking etc. Then you go on to pre-printing, then there's okaying the print, and then the printers have to have enough time to actually print something. Then stocks need to be filled for what is a world-wide release, which means long shipping times to get to all warehouses.

You're acting like the prints just spring from the ground with whatever they put in them in the past week.

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Also, Typhus is 20 points less than a Lord of Contagion dispite having exactly the same stats, bonus rules, being a Psyker, better weapons, and a shooting attack

C.Straken wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll be ready with some correction tape and a pen.

My best guesses:
- Eldar: Avenger Catapults go from 7 to 0. This will line up with the Power Level.
- Ministorum: Celestine is made unique. (Sorry to those of you who just bought 5.)
- Custodes: Venerable Land Raider is given Transport keyword, so it can actually transport things.

Also, Typhus is 20 points less than a Lord of Contagion dispite having exactly the same stats, bonus rules, being a Psyker, better weapons, and a shooting attack

That might be intentional. The downside Typhus has is that he's Unique whereas the LoC isn't. Psykers are also a lot riskier and more prone to blowing up in the new edition as well.