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.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

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.

That seems unlikely. Him being Unique doesn't in any way mean he should cost less. He doesn't stop you from taking LoCs. It's not like he stops you from having 2HQs. Psykers being riskier is also not a good reason. He has the option of mind-bulleting you. He doesn't just spontaneously combust, so only if you choose to use this additional option is that a risk.

I think this is very rushed. You shouldn't patch anything. At least let a month for people to play it.

But in the other hand, is very common, for many companies, videogames, etc... to release day 1 patchs. Because in the point a game has ended his "playtesting" and is launched to the market can normally pass 2-4 months or even more, and if in that time they have encounter errors, they should try to fix them as fast as they could. If they are doing this FAQ for that reason, I find it a good move.

If they are doing it for the internet histerya and to answer what whinners are saying before real and extensive playstesting from the playerbase can be done, that is gonna be bad.

I find funny how people just love excuses to bash GW. Playtesting=/= Perfect product.

If they fix it because they fix it, it they don't because they don't.

If they have noticed some balance issues (players certainly have) it is better to patch things ASAP, rather than wait till people build armies based on currently OP stuff and then nerf it.

It is funny that squads of guardsmen are preferable to Space Marine TAC squads. Or, really, any troop choice is preferable to TAC squads at this point.

I really hope they're not doing this to patch out perceived "balance issues". Most of it is just people butthurt that they either no longer have an "I win" button or they didn't get enough power to steamroll people. To salt the wound further, a lot of these people haven't even played with 8th yet, so all of it's just conjecture and fearmongering.

Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

We need lower prices on everything TBH. Also hammers cost too much to the point of being absurd.

hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

 Galas wrote:
I think this is very rushed. You shouldn't patch anything. At least let a month for people to play it.

But in the other hand, is very common, for many companies, videogames, etc... to release day 1 patchs. Because in the point a game has ended his "playtesting" and is launched to the market can normally pass 2-4 months or even more, and if in that time they have encounter errors, they should try to fix them as fast as they could. If they are doing this FAQ for that reason, I find it a good move.

If they are doing it for the internet histerya and to answer what whinners are saying before real and extensive playstesting from the playerbase can be done, that is gonna be bad.

I find funny how people just love excuses to bash GW. Playtesting=/= Perfect product.

If they fix it because they fix it, it they don't because they don't.

I disagree here. We don't know why they are deciding to patch things. Like anything metas take time to develop. There are a ton of units and even more unit combos. Maybe the playtesters didn't catch how good some units were early enough to submit feedback prior to going to printing, then discovered some abusive combos later. We just don't know.

I'd rather see a day 1 patch than waiting a month because people will make monetary decisions based on the rules during that month. Lets just use the conscript example. Say they stay where they are and a bunch of people go out and buy 90 conscript models, then GW comes out in a month and says, "conscripts are way too good, they are now 5 points each" Now these models suck, and the people that paid for them will be pissed. I would rather see day 1 changes then waiting a good long while prior to making any other changes (at least a year) people may still be unhappy when the change comes but at least it would not be super quick.

They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

I agree, I thought initially that the points were going to be in the BRB and then data sheets in the index books, then they could just release new points lists.

I don't know why they don't completely digitize all of the rules content.

What if they want to add -1AP to boltguns. It's a massive reprint.

That would have been better, Breng77.

I've always said that they should just have the bare rules available freely online, while codexes and rulebooks would contain hobby material and lore in addition to being premium "reference" books.

The codex and rules as a barrier of entry was part of the reason people didn't really like to start in 6th and 7th. If GW is still claiming to be a miniature company then it'd make even less sense for them to actually sell rules; free rules makes selling minis a hell of a lot easier.

 Mayk0l wrote:
They go the Day 1 DLC route and some will feel cheated and some will rejoice.

I, frankly, never understood why they would put the points in the index books to begin with.
Make index books with all the Datasheets and put the points in a living document that is readily available and easily updated. AoS does this with the GH, doesn't it?
They can update datasheets every once in a while by bringing out a new index, but they can easily alter points values if they're not in physical books, or if they are in a very cheap, thin, physical book with just points values.

You could then print the updated points values and add them to your index book as needed.

That's the reason matched play points are in the back of the index rather than on the data sheer, because they are going to change, perhaps frequently. They included the points so that you can do matched play without an internet connection on launch day, I'm not sure codexes will even have points for matched play.

As for points changes on launch day, I think it's probably the wrong analogy to call it day one DLC, it's more a like day one patch, which is basically an industry tradition at this point. As for people being mad at the points changes, I don't know what they were expecting, the point of 8th ed is to be a living rules system that adapts to the meta, rather than a system that attempts post hoc fixes like formations. I was thinking it would happen in december in chapter approved, but if it happens sooner that will be interesting.

I only buy digital so I dont care MUAHAHAHAHAHA. I think there are a lot of things where the units themselves were priced fine, it is the special weapons and upgrades that are a bit cheap. I think at least for things like plasma and heavy weapons teams they need to be consistent when in squads and when not as well as a few points more.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Here's hoping they lower the price on dread knight psycannons and flamers. Right now they're so over priced. 40 points for something that's got no AP and rolls 3 hits or less half the time is rough when the best option for damage output is the cheapest. Also the psycannon is kinda anemic for 30 points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is a heavy incinerator 40 points when a psylencer is vastly superior on a dread knight? TBH all the weapons should be 20 points on it.

Grey Knights need buffs across the codex. They're utter trash.

The Psilencer is trash, it's just better than the other trash. The Psycannon is trash, it does very little. And the flamer is extra trash, say what you want about spacing, etc, but you could reliably get more than 4 hits out of this weapon and it punished people for filling up ruins.

We need lower prices on everything TBH. Also hammers cost too much to the point of being absurd.

Funny how we all have this conversation every codex. We're like the least changed codex ironically.

 Quickjager wrote:

Funny how we all have this conversation every codex. We're like the least changed codex ironically.

I dunno. The 5th edition codex was pretty reasonable.

Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Yeah. The stuff that didn't use to spit pie-plates is pretty decent. The tanks and artillery [Read: the things we like] are crap.

Otherwise, big blobs of unbreakable guys is pretty threatening.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

Yes, and it is.

Hopefully we get a lot of FAQs early on, rebalancing everything.

Then after a year we will get a chapter approved with all relevant updates included.

I would prefer GW to patch points and rules as we go, so things arent broken for potentially years like we have had in the past.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Yeah. The stuff that didn't use to spit pie-plates is pretty decent. The tanks and artillery [Read: the things we like] are crap.

Otherwise, big blobs of unbreakable guys is pretty threatening.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
hopefully they lower the points on leman russ tanks.
guard need price reduction across the board theyre trash.

Hmm, that's interesting. In all of the playtesting i've seen guard have been curb stomping everyone.

Ditto, but I haven't seen anyone do a super tank heavy build, might be those are lackluster?

Yes, and it is.

Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

 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.

Or the fact that the limited playpool of testers wernt able to/never did think of exploits and loopholes the general populace has found after the full rules leaked

Its no different than the Alpha/Beta phase of video game testing with a small controlled Alpha finding some things, but the masses in Open Betas finding a majority of the bulk, sometimes these things require day 1 changes, which is a good thing as it means GW is being proactive rather than Reactive as they've been in the past

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

He didn't say superheavy tank heavy build, he said, "tank heavy build".

I expect Steel Fury Co. to be rather overpowered.

I can say that bringing 4 assorted Leman Russ Tanks, a Basilisk, a Manticore, and a Wyvern is less functional,

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Actually I've run a superheavy tank build every game of 8th edition I've played so far with 3 Baneblades and it's been OP as gak to the point where my opponents this evening don't want me to run it.

So YMMV I suppose.

He didn't say superheavy tank heavy build, he said, "tank heavy build".

I expect Steel Fury Co. to be rather overpowered.

I can say that bringing 4 assorted Leman Russ Tanks, a Basilisk, a Manticore, and a Wyvern is less functional,

I... have the dumb.

I saw super tank heavy build and my brain thought it said super heavy tank build.

My mistake.

I'll submit myself to the local commissar, no need to escort me.

Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

 vipoid wrote:
Given that IG infantry is one of the things that's actually made me want to play 40k again, it would be rather depressing if GW nerfed them on day 1.

Given that people are saying they simply curb stomp, it's rather depressing if that's what you're after.

Are people really complaining that GW is making an effort to balance their game?

Really?