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.

I really don't understand why GW is printing this first batch of rules at all. They would have been much smarter releasing all of these as digital rules. Then, once the millions of playtesters (us) start finding all of the ways to break them that the early playtesters missed, they could immediately ammend the rules as warranted and let's us see if we can break them some more. Six months later or so, they could have integrated the needed amendments into printed codexes if they wanted to.

A year from know, imagine how good of a well tested, smooth running machine GW could be offering its customers.

For my part while I'm very much in favour of adjusting stuff based on community feedback, I think a day 1 patch is much to soon.

Give the game - and the community - some time to settle in and play the game and try out different variations. Work out what the issues are and then deal, don't knee jerk.

There should be at least three to six months after publishing and between cycles, and ideally twelve. Give people a chance to actually play and let the meta shape up, then react.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Traditio, Conscripts have been this way for ages. I don't think they need to change. They've interacted almost the exact same way with their support, only now their support can't be in their squad and can be picked off by snipers.

They've always been functionally immune to morale: in 7e, it takes a lot of casualties to even force the morale check, and the commissar attached to them ensures that they still won't run, and boosts their leadership so that they can receive orders.

They aren't the problem.

The problem is that all the bullets in everyone's guns has been replaced with foam nerf darts. Templates are the check on swarms: if you bunch up, they will devastate you, and if you spread out there's no way to bring all your weapons to bear. Now, it's not actually all that hard to get most, if not all of your 50-man unit unto rapid-fire range and not be seriously threatened.


Conscripts are also worse than Cultists, distinctly. Cultists are BS and WS 3, not BS and WS 2. Cultist also have functionally identical weapons to guardsmen. They're identical to guardsmen, not conscripts, and should be priced accordingly.

I agree with everything here. In 7th we could only take 1 group of 20-50 for every platoon. The 2 platoon squads and the command squad were a tax to take them. I don't know why they got rid of the platoon system if anything they should have made charectors like creed, kell or ron hand work into it to give sense to the chain of command among officers (order ristrictions) and fit priests/psykers better instead of the no force organization slots

Guard are the natural ballance to nids and orks Wether they are top tier or not

The person I heard this from is a very well known person in the community with a lot of links to the playtesting group and gw- I'm obviously not going to name them Incase it gets anyone in trouble.

He stated that there's a chance scion command will be limited and conscripts amongst other things will be repointed .

We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Did he happen to mention what the playtesters said about the things being changed? This rumor just sets people up for disappointment. Unless we know how the playtesters actually feel about the rules and armies we have no idea how things will change. Conscripts changing doesn't mean nerfed if the playtesters all told GW they weren't good enough or needed to be cheaper.

I also find it interesting that supposedly all of the changes happen to be stuff people on dakka have been complaining about without even playing the game. What good is playtesting if just reading unit profiles helps you understand the game as well as someone who has spent time playing it?

Jpr wrote:
We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Where do we know this from ?

Jpr wrote:
The person I heard this from is a very well known person in the community with a lot of links to the playtesting group and gw- I'm obviously not going to name them Incase it gets anyone in trouble.

He stated that there's a chance scion command will be limited and conscripts amongst other things will be repointed .

We already know there's a 30 page FAQ coming on day 1 from other sources so doesn't surprise me.

Well you are either go to go down as a prophet or the biggest troll of 2017. Not sure I have seen a thread reach such length from hearsay. Can you be a little more specific about what is coming? Its pretty vague. You specifically cite IG on the receiving end of many nerfs. How about buffs? If they are going to increase the cost of conscripts, sure in their testing they realize the chimera will be shelved all 8th edition. More expensive than last edition, lost its rear firing port, suffers -BS when moving, doesn't fill any brigade detachment requirement etc. Did they talk about how your leman russ battle tank now averages less than 2 wounds per turn? Did they talk about guard sergeants still not being able to take a lasgun? Did they talk about the removal of the twin linking on the exterminator for no apparent reason? Did they talk about how the Devil Dog will never, ever be used in 8th edition because if it moves its hitting on 5+?

I don't disagree with you, my source isn't a playtested he just heard it from someone in that group. GW themselves said they will be dropping an FAQ day 1

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a points hike for Conscripts is very unlikely, for a simple mathematical reason: infantry are already 4 points per model, Conscripts are 3, they have no room to go up. Conscripts always have to be at least one point cheaper than infantry, because it's the only selling point they have.

So they're not likely to see a point hike simply because they have nowhere to go.

Increase infantry to 6 ppm and conscripts to 5 ppm.

Problem fixed, and not only problem fixed, but CSM players can stop complaining.

Veterans are 6ppm, so Infantry can't move into that slot. It's already occupied by a unit that's better than them. It also wouldn't make sense from an external balance perspective, since Boyz pay 6 points for T4, S4, WS3+ and Mob Rule, so Infantry always have to be cheaper than Boyz. Infantry will also be difficult to budge because they'd have to consider their relation to Gaunts, which are 4pts/model. GW just doesn't have a lot of wiggle room in that bracket.

Increase gaunts to 5 ppm. Problem fixed.

Gants already cost 4 and 5 points and are terribly equipped when you compare them to guardsmen

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

Given printing leads times and the sheer number of eyes on the product the last two weeks what's the major difference between getting FAQs in a month or six months rather than day one?

Depending on the content I may well agree that there were failures, but I'd have to see it to see if they're clarifications or major changes.

Which is exactly why I said if...

I don't mind small misprints - that's fine. But if we're going to rearrange the points on several units across the board... that's a gap that should've been covered already, long before the books went to print.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see on Saturday. I just hope Dark Angels don't get hit too hard with the changes, if there are any.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Like I said on page 3

 Purifier wrote:
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 any better.

It's a dumb attitude and it's why companies do things that seems crazy when you look at it logically, but they have to because people can't think logically and will shout at things they don't understand.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
In retrospect. If GW is going to do anything to conscripts, I don't honestly see any points increase happening. Rather, a restriction on how many squads can be taken. If I had to take a guess I'd say that the problem with conscripts is that in lower point games, you simply get a disproportionate amount of bodies compared what most other armies can bring, so bringing 2 or even 3 times 50man blobs in 1k games is simply toxic in terms of balance.

Does any other unit in the game have a number restriction (besides dedicated transports)? I thought that GW was trying to leave restrictions behind somewhat. It would be odd for them to introducethis concept for just a single unit and would really screw with their new, simplified design philosophy.

Just don't play games you don't want to. Don't like playing against 150 conscripts at 1k? Then don't. Tournaments are another matter, but that is really down to finding a tournament that you like. If that includes certain restrictions, then someone should try offering that format. For example, the popularity of highlander tournaments.

Well, the unique things and characters have the restriction but otherwise no. My point is merely that IF ANYTHING should happen to conscripts, I would personally find the restriction scenario more likely than a point increase, because as I've stated in my arguments, there's literally nothing that can justify a point increase in them and whatever advantage people claim they have, is actually something we pay for in form of several characters. Let's not go around and pretend that the conscripts themselves pose any plausible threat with the point you pay for them alone.

I have no issue playing 150 conscripts, I merely used that example because I was just guessing that perhaps it was at that point bracket there were a "problem", I don't have anything or any data to back that statement up of course. My overall problem from the beginning of this thread is still the fact that this is a knee jerk reaction. I've played 4 8th games with 2 of my friends now and the only glaringly overpowered thing Guard have is actually the scions. Like, they stick out like a sore thumb. They have disgusting firepower for no real price tag and if my game experience with my friends is anything to go by, future Guard players in tournaments will fill 5/6 of their troop slots (if not more) with scions and take the last slot for 50man conscripts, which they will use to screen against turn 1 charges. So this is why this topic honestly frustrates me, because the conscripts did feth all in all my games and no one ever commented on them, in fact whenever it game to offense they were rather tame, and bear in mind that I buffed the crap out of my conscripts too. Commissar and a priest for +1 attack and 'Fix Bayonets!' Order to give them an extra round of melee in their shooting face and they still managed to kill less than 10 genestealers. Meanwhile the scions performance was nearly vomit inducing and it instantly became a joke among us that they were troops because there's absolutely no legitimate reason what so ever, to take normal veteran squads. If you're taking them, you're deliberately handicapping your list because you could just buy scions instead, I'm not even exaggerating here.

So yes, if the conscripts do get nerfed before their release because of a bunch of whiny minority group who've been intimidated by a netlist draft, featuring 150 conscripts, then I'm going to get extremely disappointed in how GW handles feedback based on hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aesthete wrote:
For my part while I'm very much in favour of adjusting stuff based on community feedback, I think a day 1 patch is much to soon.

Give the game - and the community - some time to settle in and play the game and try out different variations. Work out what the issues are and then deal, don't knee jerk.

There should be at least three to six months after publishing and between cycles, and ideally twelve. Give people a chance to actually play and let the meta shape up, then react.

Amen to this!

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

This doesn't make any sense. The 8th edition rules that GW is releasing are what they are. If there are egregious imbalances, there are egregious imbalances. Not releasing a day 1 correction doesn't mean that those issues aren't there. It just means that they're not admitting to them or are refusing to fix them promptly. That's a bad thing. Surely we should prefer that companies fix problems promptly rather than refuse to acknowledge them in order to maintain the illusion that there are no problems, even if perhaps it is true that refusing to acknowledge or fix problems would be more consistent with previous marketing hype.

I mean, surely no one thinks that, for once, GW's rules won't contain obvious issues that are apparent to many players after minimal playtesting. First, just look at their track record: is it really the case that people are rarely able to put together a convincing argument that some unit in a new codex would be very overpowered before playing it, and then turn out to be completely correct? Second, well, just look at the rules - we have access to them already. It's not like their refusing to release updated points costs will make it likely that Dire Avengers are actually appropriately costed. The obvious issues are there. The question is not whether they exist but whether GW will do something about them.

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

If you believe this, then you are honestly are just against the fact a Day 1 FAQ exists. Things will slip through, something doesn't get tested right, a wording or two doesn't match up after having things change..

To be blunt the fact that they are doing a Day 1 FAQ should be celebrated, not treated as a.. symptom. If you work with programming or anything at all you'll understand why that attitude is just very strange.

I do think that it's pretty hard to work out just what's so wrong with Conscripts that doesn't apply to basically any mass-infantry strategy. The only thing that they really uniquely bring is the ability to get five times the normal effect from Orders. Sure, maybe Conscripts should be 4 points or whatever, but if there's a big issue there then there's probably going to be nearly as big of an issue with 4 point regular Guardsmen.

The main problem here is just that there aren't any efficient tools for dealing with T3 5+ bodies. A lasgun expects to kill more points of Marines than points of Guardsmen. Without special rules, the new system basically requires that an anti-horde gun be S2. And even an S2 gun kills more points of Marines than points of Conscripts. And of course there really just aren't any S2 guns. This -- that there is as far as I know literally no gun in the game that is actually good at killing Conscripts relative to other things and almost no gun that is as good at killing Guardsmen relative to other things -- is the sort of thing that GW should really have had someone keeping an eye out for. Light infantry are systematically undercosted and I don't think it's plausible to fix this by adjusting point values upwards across the board. The only thing really keeping the game safe is that nobody wants to play with or against 400 model armies.

Honestly, all I can think of with this is 'why weren't the rules just put online like the AoS ones?'

If you're planning to change point costs, it seems far better to do that digitally than to make your physical books wrong from the moment they're released.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Okay but, like, it happened. There are egregious issues. So adjust your opinion of GW appropriately for that but certainly don't act like their releasing a day 1 patch should do anything other than make us think better of them.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

If you believe this, then you are honestly are just against the fact a Day 1 FAQ exists. Things will slip through, something doesn't get tested right, a wording or two doesn't match up after having things change..

To be blunt the fact that they are doing a Day 1 FAQ should be celebrated, not treated as a.. symptom. If you work with programming or anything at all you'll understand why that attitude is just very strange.

Plus that attitude doesn't account for GW's known process - they start work on things a year or two in advance. Things go to print 6-8 months before release. That doesn't mean for 6-8 months they stop testing the rules or playing games with them. Hell, even White Dwarf has a 3-6 month advance between being written and published. So a day 1 FAQ is literally them catching things that slipped through playtesting or have emerged as they have played since sending the product off to print and making it available to us - if anything it's a good thing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
If they're just gonna FAQ away a bunch of stuff on day one, why the hell would I want to buy the books?

Do you straight up to refuse to buy a game because on release they patch it to fix some bugs that made it out?

I won't refuse to buy a game but it straight up won't make me think better of the product that was previously marketed to me and the company that marketed it.

e.g. - I am still buying 8th edition but I am not blind to its failings. And if this happens, this *is* a failing.

It was marketed as a living document....the only failing is people comprehension of what that meant when they said it was set up in a way with a seperate points page so they can continually change points. A day 1 FAQ was expected especially given at least a 2-3 month time frame for a massive print run, continual tester feedback during that time, and at least 3 weeks of community feedback due to leaks. And I'm quite certain everything the community found won't be included in the day 1 FAQ and I expect a majority of the day 1 faq to clear up nonsense like how the datasheet gives a unit size of 1-3 and the point sheet gives a unit size of 1-5. Stuff like how if a ruin has a squad blocking the entire 2nd level you can never get a model within 1in to engage in combat. So instead of everyone crying how a rumoured overpowered unit choice will get nerfed except the fact the new edition will and should have continual changes from day 1 and hopefully every week thereafter. Feel free to look at the FAQ page on dakka to see all the poorly written rules that need to be addressed on day 1. That alone is already 20+ pages of gw style FAQs.

The reason for print is some people just don't like or want to use digital including me however I'm certain 99% of the rules will be the same.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

I don't know what you expected.

Lets say GW got a team of people - say 10, to play two games a day for three months.
They would have got through around 600 games between them.
That is a reasonable number - but how many discrete factions are there now?
I think you can get to 20 fairly easily, potentially 25 isn't too difficult.
So in other words that group would have had a chance to play one faction against every other other faction just once. Which isn't going to give you much of a clue.

Now this gets further complicated by the fact certain armies have massively different builds which further effects balance. Also its a dice game and random stuff will happen.

GW would probably need to run several thousand games to get a good handle on how the meta forms and they don't have the resources.

The only way to extensively test the game is to do an open beta with lots of players who can be relied upon to test almost every conceivable combination and talk about said combinations - which is why most computer games go down this route.
It is however rather difficult for GW to release all the rules to anyone who happens to be on the internet and then do a big release 6 months down the line.

Let's see if we get this straight. I'm not against the fact that the Day 1 FAQ exists. I never was.

What I'm saying it shouldn't have happened to bloody begin with. And ESPECIALLY not after GW touted since the very beginning that this edition had been extensively playtested.

I'm saying that this is a symptom and that we shouldn't ignore it.

Lol this is deja vu for me as a warmachine player, extensive playtesting will never EVER compare to a public release.

As to the people wishing for 6 months of open playtesting, here is a question for you.

How many models have you purchased since 8th edition was announced? Maybe a few of you have kept up with buying stuff consistantly or started a new faction but I can tell you I've bought almost nothing since the announcement(and I am someone who owns 9 warmachine factions in at max field allowance). Once the rules are solidified and I know what I'm buying I'll start buying my nids again but simply put a company cannot go through 6-7 months of drastically reduced sales while people wait and see what they are going to want to play with the new rules.

For the most part just be happy that GW is willing to make the changes right away, its something miniatures games have been lacking a long time and it looks like finally companies like GW and PP are on board with it. Its a huge change in a good direction and despite my expensive limited edition rule book being not up to date the day I pick it up, I'd rather have a good balanced game that isn't afraid to make changes for the good of the game compared to one that leaves a broken game in place so I dont have to occasionally consult an FAQ

As it is I won't waste time playing against astra militarum again, and visiting tournies is a question of getting hammered by AM.

Day 1 patch or tank

My leafblower guard is ready.

Wanting to more intensifies.

Please OP, tell me this is a joke? The Imperial Guard where already underperforming in the initial release, outside of about three of four units that noone has, and now they intend to hammer us still further? What is the point of playing Guard any more - the only role we seem to fill is that of the kicking ball to be mauled and destroyed to show just how powerful all the other factions are.

When was the last time anyone bought a physical copy of a "blockbuster" PC game that didn't have a install patch?

30 page FAQ seems, shall we say excessive, unless it is horrible formatted, heck the BRB is what 160 pages, and the actual rules are only 12 of those.

Most the questions floating about are not army specific, though the wording may be. The ones that are army specific tend to be related to number of models in an unit being different on points list and datasheet.

It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary. Clarification, and an official "ruling" is always better sooner, even if it "nerfs" your list. At least you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Pedroig wrote:
It's not a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it is necessary.

No, no it's not necessary. It's only necessary if the playtesting done beforehand was sloppy and completely pointless. You're basically defending hastily-designed, barely tested products.

But hey, that's ok, right? Because this is GW and GW can do no wrong.

Okay we've hit "You all are fanboys" argument that ignores all previous arguments against it, shows over.