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.

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

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

Perhaps something like points changes?

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

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

They did - by putting the points changes in the book.

Yep. That was exactly my point. The only thing the bulk of people buy the CA for is pretty much exclusively the points. And they want that part to be free so they don't have to buy the CA.

Which is why I doubt you'll see a chapter approved ever come out that doesn't have the point adjustments. Otherwise GW might as well not even bother because no one is going to bother with it without the points changes in it. They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.

To be fair I had expected CA to be much more like TGH. Maybe the second one will be. Fingers crossed.

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

CA helped my Sisters a good deal more than I expected. Love the missions. GHB16 saved AoS, GHB17 destroyed my poor Bretonnia....

 auticus wrote:
They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.

Wasn't that the whole point of Chapter Approved to begin with? Regular rules updates and new content, printed in WD, and then added together in a single book at the end of the year for those who didn't buy every single issue of WD.

 Fafnir wrote:

 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.

GHBII only had changes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 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.

GHBII only had changes.

Incorrect. General's handbook 2017 had all points and noted where there were changes with a red asterisk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Panzergraf wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They could just break up the content of Chapter Approved and put it in whiite dwarf at that point.

Wasn't that the whole point of Chapter Approved to begin with? Regular rules updates and new content, printed in WD, and then added together in a single book at the end of the year for those who didn't buy every single issue of WD.

Yes that is exactly how it worked. In fact in 3rd Edition they had a chapter approved that updated the assault rules to I think what it was in 4th edition as sort of a beta test. A 3.5 assault rules as it were. In a white dwarf article.

Right in the long ago chapter approved was white dwarf, and then they'd publish the book which compiled it all together.

The only reason it sold where I am from back then was because it had stuff that affected tournaments.

Like the trial assault rules etc.

But I mean from a company trying to make money off of its game, them releasing point updates for free and then wasting time and effort on a chapter approved would be energy better spent somewhere else.

Wayniac wrote:



Incorrect. General's handbook 2017 had all points and noted where there were changes with a red asterisk.

I stand corrected. It instead dropped legacy stuff didn't it?

Not that it matters since the scrollbuilder was out anyway.

I really liked the content of CA, but the total disregard of the ork faction was reason for me not to buy it.

In general, I would prefer a book that can be a full replacement of the BRB, with a collection of all missions, basic rules rules and point updates in them.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

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

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

They did - by putting the points changes in the book.

Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.

hobojebus wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

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

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

They did - by putting the points changes in the book.

Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.

Nice sources and facts you've brought to back up your claim of 'most'.

I still really liked the missions. That was a solid reason to buy the book. I also liked the narrative things, but have yet to find anyone to play through it with.

I think it would have veen less offensive if they had actually produced a list will all the points and highlighted the changes instead of requiring players to play mix and match for points costs its a PITA. One book with all the points in it GW seriously is it that hard?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

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

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

They did - by putting the points changes in the book.

Except most people either got points off the net or just waited on a battlescribe update that I know, I certainly gave no fekkes about it.

Nice sources and facts you've brought to back up your claim of 'most'.

Didn't understand I'm talking about the people in my play group?

 BlackLobster wrote:
To be fair I had expected CA to be much more like TGH. Maybe the second one will be. Fingers crossed.

I have a feeling that this might be the case. For 40k some of the factions don't have their codex yet so perhaps when most of the factions have their codex we might see something similar to the GBH for CA at the end of this year.

A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.

GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.

GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.

Yes. The fact that there was a safe way to fire it should have reduced its strength. This is the reason why star cannons and Tau plasma rifles are lower strength; it represents being a safer way to fire plasma but it is a lower power to compensate.

From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...

Primeris are nice models but the fluff for them is bad and really they offer too little to make it worth replacing existing armies.

Neophyte2012 wrote:
From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...

So they were overcosted, but bringing down their points was bad, because it's a sales tactic.
And then good units (read: not overcosted) go up in points, but that's bad, because it's a sales tactic.

I think sometimes it's a good idea to reflect on what you're saying before you say it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:
From a vanilla marine point of view, the GW's aim of publishing CA looks more like trying to hard sell the Primaris units like Inceptors and Aggressors. They are not bad by their own means, previously they were overcosted, but so do a lot of marine units, from Librarians, Devastator Centurions to Assault Marines, or even Gravis Captsin, whose points are not cut down, while other good units goes up in points in exchange. It looks like GW is not caring about making the faction better, it is all about push up the sails result making more money...

So they were overcosted, but bringing down their points was bad, because it's a sales tactic.
And then good units (read: not overcosted) go up in points, but that's bad, because it's a sales tactic.

I think sometimes it's a good idea to reflect on what you're saying before you say it.

I think I did not say that bringing down the points of some units is bad. Maybe that is just your interpretation of the sentence. I just made the comparison of the treatment of some "it is good but priced too high" units, and point out there are obvious differences. Which shows that while some new published units such as Inceptors and Aggressors get a significant reduction in points, many others suffering similar situation in 8th SM codex, especially many of those the players have own quite a lot over two or more editions, did not receive such treatment. Thus, one possibilty of such discrepency may be the GW wants the players to put those models they've collected a lot over several years back on their home shelf or lockard and push the players to use more of their new published models, so they can make sales result better.

As for wether it is good or bad, Just make your own judgement, and everyone's judgement about this would be different by some degree. I just publish my analysis of the posdible reason for a fact I saw.

See - Terminators.

Blantantly overcosted.
Been aroud for ages.
Everyone owns them.

Still overcosted.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.

GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.

I might actually be okay with that. That said, not wounding anything T4 on a a 2+ after that feels...off though, ya know?

Still, balance wise, I think it would be for the best and gives Plasma Cannons a better niche and helps balance the fact they're random shots.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
A passing thought that I didn't want to make a thread for...would plasma be better if it was S6 and then S7 overcharged? And then cannons would be S8. That still give it differentiation without making it the best option for everything.

GW is too deep in it with Hellblasters so it would be unlikely.

I might actually be okay with that. That said, not wounding anything T4 on a a 2+ after that feels...off though, ya know?

Still, balance wise, I think it would be for the best and gives Plasma Cannons a better niche and helps balance the fact they're random shots.

You still have wounding T4 on a 2+ it's called melta you know that thing that no one takes as its out classed by plasma being the same strength, longer range and cheaper, AKA broken. Also the pay off for overcharging is d2 not wounding land raiders etc on a 4+ when plasma couldn't even glance a land raider at s7.
Plasma as a generalist weapon needs to be worse than melta or flamer for their purposes. Or you don't change the spam generalist weapons we have now. Would also add in a bit more tactical choice and movement instead of spam plasma within a reroll aura.

So the missions are a reason to buy CA?

That would be nice if i didnt get tabled before i could play the mission. What do missions matter if you cant even stay alive due to the massive power differentials in a game that has a "matched" points system.

I know we all agree that the point system is faulty when misused but shouldnt the point system be what levels the playing feild for two different armies. I kinda just expected CA to be a book that supplemented the shortfalls of 8th edition and correcting some of the issues that make playing 8th edition so difficult for people like me.

vaurapung wrote:
So the missions are a reason to buy CA?

That would be nice if i didnt get tabled before i could play the mission. What do missions matter if you cant even stay alive due to the massive power differentials in a game that has a "matched" points system.

I know we all agree that the point system is faulty when misused but shouldnt the point system be what levels the playing feild for two different armies. I kinda just expected CA to be a book that supplemented the shortfalls of 8th edition and correcting some of the issues that make playing 8th edition so difficult for people like me.

Try to mitigate tabling with your opponent? Use much more terrain than now, so even long range guns have to move from time to time? If artillery is a problem, ask if there could be a bit less of it until you come up with a decent counter? If quick charges are a problem, learn to screen more efectively and try to steer them so that you have some breathing room?

Really, just discuss these with your buddies. Decent people should understand and it's fun to dabble with your setup parameters from time to time. Granted my meta isn't the most competitive anyway, but we go turn 6 or 7 almost all the time without problems.

Regarding CA, it isn't a one off silver bullet to fix everything, no. It was a sign that GW nowadays at least tries and cares to do so and we'll see more of that when the March FAQ hits. The first CA was propably a bit too early for many major changes to be possible, given that it had to be in printers months before.

But yes, the missions are the thing. Try things like Roving Patrol: as both sides are split to 3 divisions that gradually come on the field, you aren't immediately faced by all their guns and focus down, it's easier to actually land in a good spot with deep strikes and so forth. And again, use lots of terrain so those forces can come in hiding or at least ought to manouver before blasting away.

 auticus wrote:

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.

And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.

Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "

Techpriestsupport wrote:

 auticus wrote:

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.

And quite rightly so. Some of us want to be DONE, at least for a while, pouring money into a company so utterly amoral it gives people who sell drugs to school kids on playgrounds someone to look down on. I would like to collect and finish an army and be able to play it for at least a year or so without GW trying to dunk its hand into my wallet again.. A couple hundred fat least or an army, 50 for a rules book.. 30-50 for a codex, some armies need more than one codex.

Then along comes CA and it's like "Gimme 'nuther 35! " NO, GOD DAMN YOU, NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! "

Then don't buy it. It's not like all the point updates can't be found online for free before the books even come out. You can right click and save the images and adjust the point costs in your own books with a pen or make your own updated point file or use things like battlescribe which updates quickly.

Why the hell anyone pays for something they don't want is beyond me.