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.
2018/01/24 15:00:06
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
We have
Warlord trait
Psychic power
ATSKNF Inner circle
Deathwing
Grim resolve
Special character (with said warlord trait)
A decent design team would have caught the redundancy there, death guard suffer from having a trait that does not really affect their army that much (heavy weapons on the move).
Then we have the removal of options or no options at all for no other reasons than marketing, several of you know how much I hate "no model, no rules"
Then we have the psychic phase which is just a boring shell (in all fairness they haven't got this right since it came back), dull characters, lack of universal rules, assault phase that is still a complicated mess, removed charts and then added more in....
This ed is as much a train wreck as 7th, but better than 6th, it has some really good things too though.
Modifiers.
Toughness for vehicles
Wounds for vehicles
Vehicles can move and fire all guns for the first time since 4th.
Degrading monstrous creatures
Playable nids! (Not a nid player but happy about this)
But for me the bad slightly outweighs the good at the moment, maybe in a year or two the bugs will have been ironed out though
2018/01/24 15:06:37
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
2018/01/24 15:12:19
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
Yup, a standard that no product, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever managed to uphold.
Rather silly, isn't it?
Its like these people never played video games. bug, exploits, shenanigans and OPness can be found YEARS after release.
Expecting a perfectly-tested bug-free supurbly-banalced game is absurd, especially one producing an expansion about once a month.
You know why no amount of testing will ever make a flawless game?
Because even if you got a hundred testers who does nothing else but test for a full year-the playerbase will log more data in an day after release.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
2018/01/24 15:15:52
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 15:16:06
2018/01/24 15:17:05
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
They /are/ limited to 3++, unless you also pay for a psyker, and then it's only one unit of bullgryns that gets a 2++.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
How is it 2++?
3++ is the 5++ plus the Slab Shield? Unless you're also buying a psyker?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 15:18:03
2018/01/24 15:24:41
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
Yup, a standard that no product, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever managed to uphold.
Rather silly, isn't it?
Its like these people never played video games. bug, exploits, shenanigans and OPness can be found YEARS after release.
Expecting a perfectly-tested bug-free supurbly-banalced game is absurd, especially one producing an expansion about once a month.
You know why no amount of testing will ever make a flawless game?
Because even if you got a hundred testers who does nothing else but test for a full year-the playerbase will log more data in an day after release.
It's a difference of degrees. As a lazy example, compare Breath of the Wild to any Bethesda product and any bugs in the former are considerably eclipsed by the latter.
Arguably, the relative lack of bugs in Breath of the Wild is due to having a more unified set of moving parts, rather than a lot of discrete one-off bits.
2018/01/24 15:25:37
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
They /are/ limited to 3++, unless you also pay for a psyker, and then it's only one unit of bullgryns that gets a 2++.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
How is it 2++?
3++ is the 5++ plus the Slab Shield? Unless you're also buying a psyker?
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is not people wanting the rules to be solid, this is people trying to find loopholes to exploit because they can argue that it doesn't quite say they can't do that. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 15:33:19
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2018/01/24 15:33:05
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is people trying to find loopholes, not caring for the betterment of the game. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
"BUT BECAUSE IT'S RAW!"
2018/01/24 15:43:04
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is people trying to find loopholes, not caring for the betterment of the game. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
"BUT BECAUSE IT'S RAW!"
Gordon Ramsay: IT'S RAAAAAAAW
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2018/01/24 15:43:07
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Never change BCB. Never change. I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.
Playerbase during 6th and 7th
WE WANT REGULAR FAQS!
WE WANT POINT UPDATES!
WE WANT META-CHEESE ADDRESSED ASIT RISES!
WE WANT REGULAR RULE UPDATES AND TWEAKS!
WE WANT UNIT CONSISTENCY!
GW in 8th
Okay then.
Regular FAQs.
Point updates in Chapter Approved.
Meta Cheese addressed in point updates and FAQs.
Rules updates to address concerns as they arise.
Unit consistency - did a daemon change in its Codex? We produce a FAQ giving the new profile to change it across the board in other books that it may have been published in!
while in some ways this is true, a lot of it is more infuriation over the execution.
There's still stuff that comes out that is very clearly over or underpowered at a casual glance that has no excuse to get past any development and design team, and the effort put forth in CA was...extremely lacking (as an example, Leman Russ Vanquishers being both objectively and meaningfully worse at literally everything, including its supposed specialty of tank hunting, relative to not just the basic LRBT but to equivalents like Predators and Fire Prisms as well...and what do they get in CA? A 5ppm price cut from 147pts to 142pts....fixing nothing in the process). Rules for targeting characters are on, IIRC, their 3rd iteration, and allow for increasingly unintuitive results each time.
Essentially, people arent mad that GW is doing playtesting and FAQ and Errata, people are mad that their efforts are seemingly poorly planned, insufficiently researched, and hapazardly executed.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2018/01/24 18:25:16
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Being upset over the execution is understandable, but I'm not sure what there is to say about it.
"Could it be done better?"
"Yes."
"Why isn't it?"
"Dunno, I'm not in charge."
"Well, it's not worth our money."
"That's an opinion which I do not share."
"WHY WON'T YOU HATE THEM WITH ME?!?!?!?"
2018/01/24 18:31:48
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Well no one is ever perfect.. or even good the first time they try something.
if by the time the second or third CA comes out and its obvious that the "Majority" of the entries are just boned then you can say they just DGAF or some flavor of upper management pulling strings for the sake of sales.
There is also a chance that some armies still wont have their champion writers that can go through and fix things that are needed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 18:32:10
8th is transparently an order of magnitude more balanced (and hence presumably playtested) than its predecesso. Not noticeing this is just willfully perverse.r
2018/01/24 18:43:21
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
I actually agree with this. With how 40k's fluff is written, morale doesn't make any kind of sense. 90% of the factions have a fluff in-built reason to ignore morale. This is not Fantasy where even Elfs and Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors could run with enough stress.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2018/01/24 18:45:17
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
I actually agree with this. With how 40k's fluff is written, morale doesn't make any kind of sense. 90% of the factions have a fluff in-built reason to ignore morale. This is not Fantasy where even Elfs and Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors could run with enough stress.
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
To many unpainted models to count.
2018/01/24 19:07:04
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/24 19:07:35
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2018/01/24 19:10:07
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
Well, if you're running 20 rubrics then keep 2CP for auto-pass is a good idea. And now that you can deepstrike them all over the place - fun times.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
Yea, but you're still looking at 400 to 500 points for 5 models and then you're precluded from using any IG relics. I guess you could do an AUX for -1 CP, but you'll be hurting for CP overall with that unless you can cram some cheap rubbish alongside the bullgryns, but those are 400 or so plus support characters themselves.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/01/24 19:23:50
2018/01/24 19:51:05
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
Well, if you're running 20 rubrics then keep 2CP for auto-pass is a good idea. And now that you can deepstrike them all over the place - fun times.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
Yea, but you're still looking at 400 to 500 points for 5 models and then you're precluded from using any IG relics. I guess you could do an AUX for -1 CP, but you'll be hurting for CP overall with that unless you can cram some cheap rubbish alongside the bullgryns, but those are 400 or so plus support characters themselves.
Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
2018/01/24 19:58:57
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
BaconCatBug wrote: I just noticed they screwed up the Horror errata and gave them the Daemon faction keyword.
The other 3 gods units in CSM codex don't have them.
GW are so useless they can't even do their errata correctly.
I may be missing something here, but I just checked my copy of the Death Guard book - the Daemon units (Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Beasts of Nurgle, Possessed (which are an odd one) & Plague Drones) all have Daemon listed under Faction Keyword. Chaos Spawn not having the keyword is also odd.
Is it possible that the error here is that they haven't given the Daemon Faction Keyword to the other three Daemon units in the main CSM book?
Sim-Life wrote: Half of the documents people list as being required (CA, Designer Commentary, FAQs) are so small nearly everyone has them commited to memory. If you asked me what was in the Designer Commentary, CA or FAQs I probably couldn't tell you exactly because I follow the rules of them by habit.
I think the better question here is if changes from DC are making it into the FAQ/errata documents. They should be, to centralise changes, but are they?
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
Any particular reason, John? Morale issues are a thing in combat, after all.
Admittedly, they're a tricky thing to balance, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2018/01/24 20:11:28
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
deviantduck wrote: Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
You'll lose doctrines, no? Not that it matters, I guess.
2018/01/24 20:47:07
Subject: Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet
deviantduck wrote: Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
You'll lose doctrines, no? Not that it matters, I guess.
Nope. So long as you have an entirely Guard detachment you've still got regimental doctrines, stratagems, and (as long as your Warlord is Guard) relics.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
Unless 8th lost the "rolls of 1 always fail" for saves wording.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
