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.

Zero interest to you perhaps. A lot of people I know actually enjoy the new matched play missions in CA.

Exactly... the worth is up to person and subjective. That's exactly what I said. Or are you just being difficult for the sake of it?

To expect all the content from CA to be free is laughable. If you don't feel there is any value in it, then don't buy it.

It's not so much the cost that bothers me but the different versions and sources of rules that can be hard to keep up with.

The idea that a company needs to patch stuff with more than just a FAQ is ridiculous and GW has tricked us into another codex essentially. When FFG releases a new wave of ships the FAQ is hot on their heels and it's always free. Think of it like a computer game, you wouldn't pay EA games for a patch to make your game play better. So why are we paying GW for game patches?

GW FAQs are free and always come hot on the heels of the release of a new wave. Hell, people have been complaining that they release a PDF FAQ a week after the release of a book.

You are basically arguing that they should release yearly codex for each faction instead of a one cheap book. Codex: Space Marines 2018, Codex: Craftworld 2018.

Personally I'd rather stick to Chapter approved than buy a yearly codex. A cheap book that updates all my armies AND provides me with new alternative game modes and approaches which are in effect the same as a Season Pass/Expansion which most game companies charge for(except for EVE Online).

I thought the matched play missions were really good. The first two of the new Eternal War missions need to be changed to progressive scoring rather than end of game, and the one where you split your forces into three parts can feth off, but the rest are solid and I think are even better than the ITC missions. The new maelstrom missions seemed okay (again, other than the one that makes you split your force), with all the typical pros/cons of Maelstrom.

Ultimately though when matched play is 90% of games, then anything not for matched play might as well not exist. General's Handbook, for all the praise it got, might as well have started from the matched play section (I have seen people actually say that). Chapter Approved has a lot of cool things; the land raider design rules I thought could have been done better, but it doesn't matter because they have that big "OPEN PLAY" stamp on them, they will never see use. The Planetstrike/Stronghold Assault missions seem really cool, and will probably see some use for narrative. And matched is matched, which is what most people "really" want because matched play is the "one true way" to play 40k, apparently.

The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost. This would not be such a huge deal if they actually had a 40k list building app, but that is either still in development or has been quietly abandoned (not sure which yet).

The critique isn't really that the worth of the other content is subjective. It's that the point value errata should be provided for free as part of the codex errata. It's ridiculous that someone who's not interested in the other content of the CA has to buy it just to get the new Space Marine point values. I'm forced to do that, officially. Latest published points for eg. AssCan razorback are only found in there.

Yeah-points values should've been a free errata document.

The OTHER CONTENT I'm fine paying for (or, honestly, NOT paying for). But points updates should be free.

Don't want to pay for points updates?

Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't want to pay for points updates?

Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.

So instead of using the more granular, precise, and updated points, I use the less precise and accurate points they haven't cared enough to update?

No thanks.

Wayniac wrote:
The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost.

I agree with this. I feel like they should have made the CA like a updated Rulebook/Point costs for everything so you'd effectively be buying Warhammer 40k 2017 and then the next year Warhammer 40k 2018 if we keep to the Fifa analogy used earlier in the thread. It could basically have been the new version of the "Small Rulebook".

Basically I feel like they should do better work towards consolidating their rules/points compared to the current job they're doing so you are aimed at only buying a single core book a year that has most of the important stuff in it instead of having the info spread over different books. They've already ruined this with the General's Handbook as the 2016 and 2017 versions have different stuff featured in both which means that I have to keep the old book for posterity.

If you buy the CA only for the point values then you probably don't know how to handle the internet...

Personally the best part about the book are the missions. Not so much eternal war, as that is a rather boring mission type, but planet strike, maelstrom and so on really make for enjoyable 40K games. I hope we'll see more of that and also more real narrative scenarios. So far there's only the one in the rulebook, I expect more when all the Codizes are out and GW continues with campaign books. You can never have enough missions

I buy the CA for everything. I'm ok with this.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you buy the CA only for the point values then you probably don't know how to handle the internet...

Personally the best part about the book are the missions. Not so much eternal war, as that is a rather boring mission type, but planet strike, maelstrom and so on really make for enjoyable 40K games. I hope we'll see more of that and also more real narrative scenarios. So far there's only the one in the rulebook, I expect more when all the Codizes are out and GW continues with campaign books. You can never have enough missions

Slight issue with this argument, If you did only care for points values, you would still need to buy the book.

Eldarsif wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost.

I agree with this. I feel like they should have made the CA like a updated Rulebook/Point costs for everything so you'd effectively be buying Warhammer 40k 2017 and then the next year Warhammer 40k 2018 if we keep to the Fifa analogy used earlier in the thread. It could basically have been the new version of the "Small Rulebook".

Basically I feel like they should do better work towards consolidating their rules/points compared to the current job they're doing so you are aimed at only buying a single core book a year that has most of the important stuff in it instead of having the info spread over different books. They've already ruined this with the General's Handbook as the 2016 and 2017 versions have different stuff featured in both which means that I have to keep the old book for posterity.

Wayniac wrote:
The one thing I will say though, is CA should have absolutely had ALL points in it like the General's Handbook did. Having just updates makes it obnoxious because you need to look in multiple books to find the right points cost. This would not be such a huge deal if they actually had a 40k list building app, but that is either still in development or has been quietly abandoned (not sure which yet).

The difference is that 40k is aiming towards codices for every army soon. The General's Handbook is, as I've mentioned before, necessary for point values since the Grand Alliance books don't have points in them.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't want to pay for points updates?

Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.

So instead of using the more granular, precise, and updated points, I use the less precise and accurate points they haven't cared enough to update?

No thanks.

Oh no, you don't pay for upgrades. Heavens above, however can the game be balanced!

I must admit I thing the 2017 one was just too close to the release of 8th to be a good book. I'm hoping the 2018 CA will be more comprehensive so that I only need a CA latest year + codex's to be able to actually play the game as 90% of the Codex and rule book is unnecessary, fluff waffle. They have Black library for fluff. Or make them two seperate sub books, fluffnand rules as you don't need extra crap to flick through when your trying to clarify or check a rule mid game.

P.S. Stop putting fluff in the middle of rules, its bad. It makes finding rules in a hurry harder than it needs to be and also makes books way bigger and heavier than they need to be.

Look, I won't say Points are perfectly balanced. They aren't.

But they're a DAMN SIGHT BETTER than Power. I play in a reasonably competitive environment, and am myself a pretty game-minded player. Power level just plain sucks for that. It's fine as a measuring stick (VP awarded for units killed, for instance) but for an actual balancing mechanism, it stinks.

 Earth127 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

craggy wrote:
It is like paying a subscription to an online game, which supports patches for balance. Which, outside of PC you do. Any console gamer has to have a sub to their platform's online service to play with others.

I do suspect that there's an element of keeping the "best" units in the game fluid, so as to keep selling different models, that's no different than some online games where paid DLC characters can be very impressive to start with, and end up nerfed due to backlash. I'm more of the mindset of buying what I like the look of for an army and then trying to make it work as well as I can, rather than just going with the rules first though, so it doesn't hugely affect me.

I would love them to go down the route of making all the unit rules, points values and core game rules free with just missions and campaigns as paid expansions but we'll see if that ever happens. I doubt it at the moment.

The going theme in gaming is getting the game for free and just paying for aesthetics. Take a look at LOL, DOTA2, fortnite - totally free and these companies make billions. SC2 - the most popular game in the world releases a new campaign ever 2-3 years for 49$ and you can play free forever with that. GW is so behind the times it is not funny. The worst part is it is costing them money.

The rules are also extremely low effort. Expectations are so low for them and they still can't even meet them. The ongoing chapter approved is a joke. They don't even attempt to fix all the problems - which is something free to play games do automatically...GW charges you for rules every 3 months and they don't even address all the issue? It's really quite pathetic.

Could you do everyone a favor and not compare video games?

It's apples to oranges in every practical way.

The biggest difference in balance is that game companies know the metadata of every game ever played. Gw doesn't even know the result let alone every dice rollled.

Well - they are both rules for a competitive game that are constantly trying to achieve balance through updates/erratas/FAQ's. In essence - the only actual difference is how the game is played which I'd say is much more difficult for a fast paced RTS than for turn based strategy game. It might be more difficult to collect the data from a board game because they don't have access to every game played but they have access to every tournaments data for free - not to mention the amount of data they SHOULD have collected in the "playtesting" phase of the development.

Also - I'm not really sure why you would not look to successful companies that have manages to create balanced competitive games? It seems like the easiest way to achieve success. Granted GW's essential failure of game balance in what is now the 8th iteration of their game - they REALLY REALLY need to start taking advice from companies which don't fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't want to pay for points updates?

Play Power levels instead. They haven't touched those at all as far as I know.

Power level is an actual joke. It can't be balanced and it destroys unit diversity...if you get every upgrade and weapon for free...why would you take anything but the most powerful options? If you do some basic point cost comparisons to power level on units that can take a lot of upgrades...youll see how much of a joke it is right away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vaurapung wrote:
How are others keeping their games consistant or am i in a small minority with way to diverse of a play group. We have
just starting
Tourny
For fun
Kill or be killed
Im a raw player
Rai is a headache
The only 2k matched players
Players ive never met
Players with armies i know nothing about

And then everyone wants different rules. Its stressing me out and i dont know how to handle it because gw has 8th edition in a state of chaos by not just making a simple rule book where the whole rulebook is the rules used for everygame.

The answer is simple here. You balance the game for WAAC players and everything else just sorts it's self out. I really dont understand the notion that people wanting to play the game in their own way has any sway over making your game actually balanced. If people prefer playing with unbalanced rules...uhh...Who cares what they think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I dont understand... why would your units be horrible in Matched Play, but not in 7th, Open or Narrative?

Look at ynnari they are horrible in matched as a single army did to the nerfs, but in narrative they have their original strength from death.

You are talking literally about the best matched play army in the game (when combined with craftworlds codex).

Yeah and I was very clearly talking about them as a mono force.

The work as detatchments I never said they didn't.

hobojebus wrote:
Yeah and I was very clearly talking about them as a mono force.

The work as detatchments I never said they didn't.

Yeah, I understood your answer, not sure what Xenomancers's having trouble with.

I hadn't thought about the "only once in MP" type limitations, you're absolutely right. I guess any psyker heavy army has similar differences between Matched and Narrative/Open, and GK wouldn't be fixed as an army just by being part of the Imperial ecosystem. That'd be like saying Diesel engines are super-clean as long as you buy a hybrid and run it on electric mode mostly.

Think some tyranids things like endless swarm are stronger in narrative too.

I think the updated point costs and strategems added in CA should have been a free release online. It'd also be nice if GW packed Codexes with a code to get an electronic copy of their rules, which would be updated as they change too. I'd be fine with paying extra for that option.

Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?

 fox-light713 wrote:
Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?

General's Handbook had the point costs of every unit updated at the time, not just changed units, making it a one-stop resource for all of your list building. It provides the full up-to-date rules for matched play at the time. It also contained a wealth of faction traits/relics/command traits for each faction without up-to-date books (and unlike CA's selections, most of these are at least decent), and a solid selection of mission types for all major types of play that GW wants to market to (even though matched play is all that 99% of players will end up caring about).

The key difference between the GHB and CA is that the GHB is essentially a one-stop-shop for everything you need to play, and it's organized in a fashion that makes it conducive to that. You don't need to cross-reference between a bunch of different books to make it work. Everything feels complete. The older books might have some unique missions or background material, but are not at all necessary.

As opposed to the CA, which is a lazily developed scattershot of stuff cobbled together to justify the price tag.

The Generals Handbook introduced Matched Play and the point system IIRC.

Chapter Approved adds missions, rules (e.g. stratagems) and things like the vehicle construction stuff. It also contains a few points adjustments.

The core reasons for the books existing in the first place are different:
* GHB introduces a new game mode with all that's required to play it. v2 simply updates it
* CA is a collection of additional optional rules that for some unfathomable reason ALSO contains a few pages of what should have been errata to other books.

The only thing - in my eyes - that's wrong with it is that the primary distribution method for the point changes should've been a PDF / part of the errata&FAQs online, and the pages in the CA should've been just a BONUS.

To be fair, the CA missions in my mind have almost entirely supplanted the BRB missions for anything other than learning games.

I suggest you take a look at them; they offer such "innovations" (for GW) as progressive scoring. They also alter player decision during pregame and list-building slightly with the "divide your army into three" missions, which helps put the stop to people who just have a "deployment plan" that they follow like an automaton until it's done.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, the CA missions in my mind have almost entirely supplanted the BRB missions for anything other than learning games.

I suggest you take a look at them; they offer such "innovations" (for GW) as progressive scoring. They also alter player decision during pregame and list-building slightly with the "divide your army into three" missions, which helps put the stop to people who just have a "deployment plan" that they follow like an automaton until it's done.

This is actually an interesting point about the "split into 3" mission. I can see why people would dislike it, however. I do like how the CA missions require slightly different approaches to list building; ITC missions tend to focus on listbuilding as the primary skill, and so you basically can plan out how you are going to deploy and what is going for which objectives and what secondaries your opponent is likely to take, and go from there. The CA missions seem like they encourage a more TAC style because they are different enough.

What is interesting, regardless, is that for AOS there are no ITC missions; they use the General's Handbook battleplans out of the book. Yet for some reason for 40k they do not. Okay, I get not using the BRB missions, but ITC has deviated way too much from the norm now, and IMHO should not be considered the "norm".

Tournaments will always be considered standard and normal, even if they deviate wildly from the main source, as ITC has done with 40k.

To many people that I know, ITC-40k is "real 40k" because thats all they play. They are either playing in ITC Grand Tournaments, ITC local tournaments, or preparing for the next ITC tournament.

To the commentary on making points free and the rest of CA optional extras... they tried that in AOS. Those books never sold.

If they are a busiiness tryiing to make money then they realize, and has now been objectively proven, that if the book does not contain matched-play content, it will barely move or not move at all off the shelf.

Putting new missiions iin CA is great, but if no one is going to use them because they are "optional" and not "real 40k", just like AOS realmgate wars books and the original AOS army books, there is no real incentive for GW the company to produce such material in the first place. As such, if they want to make money off of the product, I fully expect that CA will continue to include point updates simply because without those point updates, they might as well not bother with chapter approved at all because it won't really sell.

Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?

 fox-light713 wrote:
Anyone play both 40k and AoS that can compare the Chapter Approved to the Generals Handbook?

The primary problem with Chapter Approved is that players expected it to be the General's Handbook and it is most certainly not. I'm generally in agreement that the point changes should have been an FAQ/Errata and the book would have been far better received.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, GW has learned if a book has no matched play content, or minimal matched play content, it won't get bought. CA is a perfect example: There's a lot to the book, but most of it might as well not exist because it's not matched play, and the part that is matched play (new missions) get ignored in may cases because ITC exists. This leaves what, maybe 20 pages for the faction updates/points? out of a 90+ page book?

Which is why a lot of people are complaining. They know that if the point updates were free, they wouldn't bother buying CA in the first place so they feel that they are being screwed over.

It's not the consumers fault if a product does not sell.

You want people to pay you have to make something they want.