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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

Every codex gets a FAQ within 2 weeks of release. It is very likely the book was written prior to other issues they noticed and tossed it into the FAQ since it was appropriate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

I assume its in no small part because 40k's simply got too many factions to support and too many of them lack meaningful gameplay and aesthetic variety anyway. I've always seen the line between marines and guard as a huge setting failure. 8th just seems to be the point where they finally bit the bullet and stopped trying to make 5 armies out of the same kit.

I don't think it has anything to do with "too many factions" when AoS has factions that are literally two different units(Shadowblades consist of just Dark Riders and Assassins).

That depends on how you want to define factions. 40k also shares ridiculously unsupported factions as well (like Assassins) but is clearly collapsing them into larger groups. Age of Sigmar has similar leftovers from fantasy but consolidates things down into the Grand Alliances and similarly seems to be redrawing its borders around a clearer core of supported factions and those that only serve as support. In either case, the design seems to be smaller modules that are part of a bigger collection.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

Every codex gets a FAQ within 2 weeks of release. It is very likely the book was written prior to other issues they noticed and tossed it into the FAQ since it was appropriate.

Most likely, yes, the stuff in the FAQ were things that found between book being sent to printing and release. I'm going to say it wasn't in 15 days though, and more 4-6 months minimum. But let's not ruin the claims being made by guard players to justify their crumbling stance about how they're mistreated when everything that has come out lines up in a logical sense and wasn't just some attempt to ruin their army.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Bobby g got stomped out at lvo.

Yes, however, that may not be a factor him of him being bad, but the rest of the field being too good. Hard to say either way at this point.

I'm not saying he's bad. I'm saying there are much better things out there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

New FAQs and Errata for the Astra Militarum and Beyond: October 22nd GW Homepage

The "Next Week" preview that confirmed the preorder date of the Codex: Astra Militarum dated September 24th(the preceding Sunday).

15 days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

I assume its in no small part because 40k's simply got too many factions to support and too many of them lack meaningful gameplay and aesthetic variety anyway. I've always seen the line between marines and guard as a huge setting failure. 8th just seems to be the point where they finally bit the bullet and stopped trying to make 5 armies out of the same kit.

I don't think it has anything to do with "too many factions" when AoS has factions that are literally two different units(Shadowblades consist of just Dark Riders and Assassins).

That depends on how you want to define factions. 40k also shares ridiculously unsupported factions as well (like Assassins) but is clearly collapsing them into larger groups. Age of Sigmar has similar leftovers from fantasy but consolidates things down into the Grand Alliances and similarly seems to be redrawing its borders around a clearer core of supported factions and those that only serve as support. In either case, the design seems to be smaller modules that are part of a bigger collection.

The big difference is that some of those things in 40k were strictly intended to be support/auxiliary stuff if that makes sense. Assassins, for example, were meant to be things you'd add into an Imperium army not a standalone(I hate to say this!).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

New FAQs and Errata for the Astra Militarum and Beyond: October 22nd GW Homepage

The "Next Week" preview that confirmed the preorder date of the Codex: Astra Militarum dated September 24th(the preceding Sunday).

15 days.

Can you prove that the stuff in the FAQ was completely written after the codex released and that none of it was from the test playing or other things going on in the gaming scene since the Commissar was a copy and paste job prior to having it's rule rewritten?

Seriously, we have NO evidence that it was done in 15 days instead during the 4-6 months between the book being finished (assuming it wasn't done even sooner and was just lined up for later release due to the number of books coming out), and nothing about the claim even makes any sense.

Emperor's tap-dancing thyroid, it's like people need to invent reasons to claim that GW is unfairly beating down the Guard instead of any sort of logical progression of events that would lead to multiple tweaks dropping in a row.

 Marmatag wrote:
Math hammer also helps you make sure you've got an efficient tool for the scenarios you're likely to see.

And stop talking about tactics when you play an army that ignores the movement phase. Target priority isn't tactics, it's you playing whack-a-mole with the most dangerous thing on the table at that given moment.

I don't mean to be rude, but are you new to 40k? Target priority is a huge thing, especially in tournament formats. It's not just shooting what is dangerous, but taking units off of objectives or out of potential charge range, eliminating buffs or summoning potential, removing HQ's/full units for points, minimizing your opponent's ability to deal with specific threats (e.g., removing their anti-horde so you can more safely deploy those 20 guardians or gaunts). Determining what units to attack is kind of a key skill in Warhammer...

Target priority is a skill. So is list building. Mathhammer informs these skills.

Martel732 wrote:
Target priority is a skill. So is list building. Mathhammer informs these skills.

Mathhammer's contribution is effectiveness of certain options against certain targets, not what priority should be given to eliminating targets. Experience teaches that more than knowing how to calculate averages to decide what works best to kill something. Frankly knowing which things to kill, and sometimes even when to kill them, is more important than knowing what will kill things in the most effective manner.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Target priority is a skill. So is list building. Mathhammer informs these skills.

Mathhammer's contribution is effectiveness of certain options against certain targets, not what priority should be given to eliminating targets. Experience teaches that more than knowing how to calculate averages to decide what works best to kill something. Frankly knowing which things to kill, and sometimes even when to kill them, is more important than knowing what will kill things in the most effective manner.

Depends on how much math you hammer. Max damage leads to a glass hammer focus. If you also pay attention to personal durability and what kind of damage your opponent's army is expected to do and where it comes from; mathhammer can go a long way towards informing proper target priority.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Math hammer also helps you make sure you've got an efficient tool for the scenarios you're likely to see.

And stop talking about tactics when you play an army that ignores the movement phase. Target priority isn't tactics, it's you playing whack-a-mole with the most dangerous thing on the table at that given moment.

I don't mean to be rude, but are you new to 40k? Target priority is a huge thing, especially in tournament formats. It's not just shooting what is dangerous, but taking units off of objectives or out of potential charge range, eliminating buffs or summoning potential, removing HQ's/full units for points, minimizing your opponent's ability to deal with specific threats (e.g., removing their anti-horde so you can more safely deploy those 20 guardians or gaunts). Determining what units to attack is kind of a key skill in Warhammer...

I'm fully aware of the tactics involved in this game and also the tournament scene. It's incredibly easy to determine what units to attack. Dangerous = what will cause you to lose the game. A unit holding an objective might be dangerous for that reason. Maybe 'dangerous' wasn't the right word.

In tournaments it is very, very easy to determine what you need to attack. You know how the lists function. You know the ways to score. You know what the units can do to your army. How you make those attacks happen is where the challenge lies. Or are you prepared to argue that an army which doesn't need to move, requires just as much skill as an army that absolutely does and plays in all phases of the game (movement, psychic, shooting, charge, fight)?

And seriously let's not drag ego into this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

New FAQs and Errata for the Astra Militarum and Beyond: October 22nd GW Homepage

The "Next Week" preview that confirmed the preorder date of the Codex: Astra Militarum dated September 24th(the preceding Sunday).

15 days.

Can you prove that the stuff in the FAQ was completely written after the codex released and that none of it was from the test playing or other things going on in the gaming scene since the Commissar was a copy and paste job prior to having it's rule rewritten?

Seriously, we have NO evidence that it was done in 15 days instead during the 4-6 months between the book being finished (assuming it wasn't done even sooner and was just lined up for later release due to the number of books coming out), and nothing about the claim even makes any sense.

Emperor's tap-dancing thyroid, it's like people need to invent reasons to claim that GW is unfairly beating down the Guard instead of any sort of logical progression of events that would lead to multiple tweaks dropping in a row.

Now who's "tap-dancing"? The FAQ was released 15 days after the book.

F A C T. You asked for "proof". It's there.

Chapter Approved came later, but all CA did was increase the points of Conscripts to 4 points. The Commissar nerf was done on October 22nd.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Target priority is a skill. So is list building. Mathhammer informs these skills.

Mathhammer's contribution is effectiveness of certain options against certain targets, not what priority should be given to eliminating targets. Experience teaches that more than knowing how to calculate averages to decide what works best to kill something. Frankly knowing which things to kill, and sometimes even when to kill them, is more important than knowing what will kill things in the most effective manner.

Depends on how much math you hammer. Max damage leads to a glass hammer focus. If you also pay attention to personal durability and what kind of damage your opponent's army is expected to do and where it comes from; mathhammer can go a long way towards informing proper target priority.

At that point you're moving from just using mathhammer to make decisions and are moving more towards building a simulation using math. And while that can work (people who win the most money playing fantasy sports do so through insane amounts of math), the simple fact is that in most games you don't have the time to sit down and try and build a mathmatical simulation of every turn. Basically simulations are good for hypothetical work but bad for practical usage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.

New FAQs and Errata for the Astra Militarum and Beyond: October 22nd GW Homepage

The "Next Week" preview that confirmed the preorder date of the Codex: Astra Militarum dated September 24th(the preceding Sunday).

15 days.

Can you prove that the stuff in the FAQ was completely written after the codex released and that none of it was from the test playing or other things going on in the gaming scene since the Commissar was a copy and paste job prior to having it's rule rewritten?

Seriously, we have NO evidence that it was done in 15 days instead during the 4-6 months between the book being finished (assuming it wasn't done even sooner and was just lined up for later release due to the number of books coming out), and nothing about the claim even makes any sense.

Emperor's tap-dancing thyroid, it's like people need to invent reasons to claim that GW is unfairly beating down the Guard instead of any sort of logical progression of events that would lead to multiple tweaks dropping in a row.

Now who's "tap-dancing"? The FAQ was released 15 days after the book.

F A C T. You asked for "proof". It's there.

Chapter Approved came later, but all CA did was increase the points of Conscripts to 4 points. The Commissar nerf was done on October 22nd.

FAQ release date doesn't mean ANYTHING on when the data used to make that decision was pulled from. I doubt it was ~10 days of data that resulted in the change (assuming time to research, write the thing, proof it and not counting the day it was published). Nurgle's Fiery Hemmroid, if you keep reaching like that you're going to hurt something.

So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

In the middle of a battle the "averages" of Mathhammer don't help you to do anything. I don't care for the averages.

If I want to kill that unit, I don't care about the average, I care about the percentage that my units in range have of doing enough damage to kill it.

That percentage is informed by mathhammer and averages. Averages are the quick and dirty form of a formal standard deviation analysis.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That percentage is informed by mathhammer and averages. Averages are the quick and dirty form of a formal standard deviation analysis.

I'll be honest, I've never won games by doing math during the game. If I need something dead I just keep hitting it until not even the Emperor knows what it used to be.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That percentage is informed by mathhammer and averages. Averages are the quick and dirty form of a formal standard deviation analysis.

I'll be honest, I've never won games by doing math during the game. If I need something dead I just keep hitting it until not even the Emperor knows what it used to be.

I do it all the time. Much of the time it is to determine what order to start shooting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

Do you realize how long it takes to print a book? It needs to be done months in advance.

It is EXTREMELY unlikely that they decided in two weeks to just slap in a nerf without consideration.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

No. Books are done a minimum of 4-6 months prior to their release. With 8th having so many books coming out at the same time it's even possible that Guard were done even longer ago than that. Books need time to be proofed for spelling and grammar even after the writing is completed, the layout to be done, art to be finished and added, and generally all the post writing work to be completed before printing. This isn't something that just happens overnight. Anyone who tells you that the books are done just before release is someone who doesn't understand how much work goes into publishing books.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

Yeah... no. Print media is usually finalized months before it gets in consumers hands. If nothing else its usually 3ish weeks getting from the manufacturer to the distributors and another week or 2 to retailers. Nobody finalizes a book within a week of selling it without announcing delays a week later.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

Do you realize how long it takes to print a book? It needs to be done months in advance.

It is EXTREMELY unlikely that they decided in two weeks to just slap in a nerf without consideration.

Does it need to be done months in advance? I hear this asserted all the time but my girlfriend works for a publisher and they print stuff by the truckload in like, a day, if their customer pays enough and sends the file over. But I think that's Kanluwen's point is that it was an "unconsidered" nerf because of community outcry, so saying "they wouldn't do it because it's unconsidered" is a circular response to "it was bad because it's unconsidered."

EDIT: Okay, a month or two, so 45-60 days between printing and FAQ. Is that enough time to gather the data required to make such a sweeping change? I think it's certainly more reasonable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Does it need to be done months in advance? I hear this asserted all the time but my girlfriend works for a publisher and they print stuff by the truckload in like, a day, if their customer pays enough and sends the file over. But I think that's Kanluwen's point is that it was an "unconsidered" nerf because of community outcry, so saying "they wouldn't do it because it's unconsidered" is a circular response to "it was bad because it's unconsidered."

Large volume printing seeks to avoid this exact scenario.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I saw "claim" then "proof" then "claim that proof was wrong".

so... yeah. Is there any hard evidence beyond idle speculation and "maybes" and "probablies" that the Oct 22 FAQ was written before the IG codex even went up for preorder?

Common sense? I mean I'd rather assume the information and questions that made it into the FAQ were gathered between completing the codex and release than in less than two weeks after the book drops in terms of turn around and feasibility.

Presumably the Codex would be complete fairly close to the pre-order date? Or are you one of those people that believes all the codecies were done when 8th dropped and it's all a conspiracy to stagger shipping them out?

How long before the pre-order do you think the codex was done? They can email it to the printer literally the same day they finish it, and the Printer can start printing it the day pre-orders go up... so maybe the friday Sept 23rd lol

You're forgetting actual printing/production time and shipping from China.

I think there is an assumption that GW is paying for someone else to do their publishing, but last I recalled they do in house publishing, which means runs for new books are being worked in with runs they need to do for every other product they carry in print that the need to do runs of. They don't just pump something out right before release, but prepare in advance of release (likely by doing small waves in among the other runs they need to be doing to keep stock levels up), but rather well in advance.

Seriously, the assumptions made to justify the amount of salt guard players truck into this thread are devoid of logic or understanding of how GW works.

Yes, you're right, point conceeded. So presumably there was 45-60 days from Codex being finished to release, and then the FAQ soon after. Was there something that happened in those 60-75 days (including 15 days for FAQ) that was different from what happened in the ~30-50 days beforehand when they still had time to edit the codex?

Additional playtesting.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Additional playtesting.

Quite probable actually. I mean we've heard that the stuff some play testers see doesn't make the final cut untouched so it's possible there are groups who only play test the final version and that's where they get the FAQ stuff from.

The bottom line to me is that GW has miscalculated the effect of BS 4+ against regular armies and then miscalculated the effect of the -1 to hit army trait in turn. We'll have to see how Altioc do vs IG post-Dark Reaper nerf. I think that without dark reapers, IG can dice-spam Altioc down, but maybe not. But as for my list and my buddy's UM list, IG lays waste to us easily.