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.

Asmodios wrote:

So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.

Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OP GK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.

Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?

Karol wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.

Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OP GK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.

Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?

One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.

Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win

Asmodios wrote:

Karol wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.

Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OP GK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.

Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?

One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.

Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win

This is all well and good for you, but it's not how everyone chooses armies Bor how tournament play should be structure's (i.e. it should be balanced).

If any of you participate on the mindless "where are the FAQs" posts on Facebook - you're obnoxious and it changes nothing. Stop it.

Asmodios wrote:

Karol wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So let me get this straight.... It's somehow cheaper to buy new more competitive as the meta shifts rather than simply playing with what you own and adjusting objectives or point ratio to even things out? I mean if your talking about attending tournaments and you can't afford new models then no matter what the meta is gonna change in a few months.... I mean i guess we could go back to the days where we wouldn't get updates for years and you would see the same 3-4 list over and over again at every tournament, but id rather not.

Maybe am just too stupid, but if you can tell me how to update a GK army to non tournament and tournament games after any of the FAQs in 8th, and make the list better I would be glad. My beef with the FAQs is that GW makes them to "react" to some US or UK tournament meta, yet it somehow always gets back and bites GK players in the arse for no reason. GK razorbacks weren't winning any events? GW kills them. GK had deep strike the way other armies have infiltration or jetbikes? GW removes that. Durning testing GW testers fear the OP GK smite lists, so nerf them. At the same time they have no problem with letting bucket ton of other armies spaming smite through.

Did I really say it was cheaper to buy a new army? But the way I am looking at it the last time GK had a good list was in 4th ed, or something crazy like that, now I play them for over a year. But if I started them in 5th ed, I would now be waiting 3 editions for an update. How many editions did eldar have to wait to get good lists, or marines ?

One of my buddies plays grey knights. Last weak we did a 2v2 and stuck him with the most competitive army on the board and it was very close. Other weeks we either spot him points or make the objectives tipped in his favor. IMO for tournaments simply sign up for the narrative events. If they are so small they don't offer narrative events just don't play tournaments or lower your expectations for the event.

Let me put it this way I started collecting IG when I was about 12 and almost 30 now. I've played them on and off the whole time and never bought to be competitive. You buy a faction for the lore and the look that way you won't be disappointed with your purchase no matter what you are playing. Back in fantasy, I played an all goblin army that was never optimized but i loved the theme and loved attending tournaments even though i knew i wasn't gonna win

Don't bother getting into this. A while back I got into a discussion with Karol regarding the specifics of their list, and long story short they made an exceedingly poor purchasing decision and bought a completely non functional army for several times more than they were worth.

For some reason he is fixated on army balance rather than this decision point as the cause of his problems, and does not get that if he had went and bought an old eldar army with Eldrad, Yriel, 4 howling banshees, 30 guardians, a fire prism, an avatar, and a double-ML wave serpent instead of his GKs his experience would be any different.

No FAQ will make blowing a huge amount of money on an editions out of date army into a thing you can play games successfully with.

If you're going to be chasing the meta, then you have to accept you'll be spending hundreds, if not thousands, each year. That's the price of entry into the "competitive" scene.

Collect an army that you actually like the look of, the lore and will enjoy painting and hobbying and you might surprise yourself of actually having more fun playing than winning.

Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.

So true. Sadly some people only have fun if they win.

Davor wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.

So true. Sadly some people only have fun if they win.

That's my philosophy. As an avid WE player. I don't win a lot these days. But I still have fun playing with the big boys at tournaments.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Kdash wrote:
This wait for the faq and changes has genuinely sucked the life out of my motivation 40k wise.

As always, i have so many ideas, so many things i want to test or play, but, i'm also far to practical and not about to buy models until i know what the changes are going to be. It'd be like me one day deciding, yes, i will give that friendly Nigerian fellow who sent me a nice email, my bank account details and expect to receive £5000 in the next 24 hours....

I just hope it drops really soon, so everyone can just get back to enjoying the game - or at least pump some "change excitement" back into groups.

I don't know I never treated my models like im purchasing produce. It's not like they go bad if they aren't 100% optimized at any moment

But then you might lose a game, and females would consider you an inferior mate.

It’s not so much about the models not being “useable”, more, that I don’t have as much spare money as I’d like to expand my current collection in the ways I want to. Making a purchase now on 2 or 3 kits might not make a difference in the long run, but, short term it does potentially have an impact on my hobby and motivation, if my brand new models get used once or twice, then put on the shelf for another 3 months while we wait for CA to hopefully fix them again. To me, that is just a waste of time and money, especially in an environment where I don’t get many casual games in, but end up playing a lot more fairly competitive games.

FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.

That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.

That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.

GW wrote on their own FB page, that it's finished and they're just doing layout, editing and translations. Takes time to proofread the Japanese version , especially if (as this spring) it's updating FAQs for all Codexes, the BRB, etc.. as well as a file for new and old beta rules, etc...

 NecronLord3 wrote:

FLG just had their weekly twitch stream and Reece was adamant that "September means September". Whether that means we just have to polish i pickforks in preparation or not, is another thing entirely.

That’s not what they said. They said there are still 4 days left in September and if it’s October and it’s still not out then you have a reason to complain. They again reiterated that they’ve seen it, so really not seeing any legitimate reason for GW to delay.

I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.

Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.

But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.

 Stux wrote:

I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.

Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.

But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.

Thing is THEY set up schedule and at least here when at work you set up deadline you make sure you follow it. Sign of professionality.

Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific on the schedule. "Spring/Fall FAQ" would have been much more flexible for public deadline. Then have internally deadline as march/september. This way you don't have to break your own deadlines in case it is delayed.

But if I can't keep up with deadlines at my work it's not good. Too much of that and...well certainly would be reason for boss to start giving me warnings and if I still ignore them eventually get fired.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

I have no sympathy for anyone who gets annoyed if it isn't out by the end of September.

Do I hope it is? Sure.
Would it be good if GW was more open with their scheduling? Sure.

But we know how they work, and really no one should be at all surprised if it spills over to October.

Thing is THEY set up schedule and at least here when at work you set up deadline you make sure you follow it. Sign of professionality.

Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific on the schedule. "Spring/Fall FAQ" would have been much more flexible for public deadline. Then have internally deadline as march/september. This way you don't have to break your own deadlines in case it is delayed.

But if I can't keep up with deadlines at my work it's not good. Too much of that and...well certainly would be reason for boss to start giving me warnings and if I still ignore them eventually get fired.

Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.

It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.

Maybe. But stuff gets delayed all the time.

Apple said they'd release HomePod in June 2017 .. it went on sale February 2018.

Duke Nuke Em Forever video game was famously sheduled for a release in 1997, again in 98, again in the early 2000s, etc.. before being released in 2011 or 2012 or so?

Kickstarters that aren't a year late are almost the exception.

Etc.., etc..

 Stux wrote:
Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.

It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.

Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific with deadlines..."Spring/Fall FAQ". Done. How hard that was? As it is plenty of their customers already thought them as spring/fall faq rather than specific month...

GW made mistake of painting themselves to the corner for no real benefit. Had they originally set up them as spring/fall FAQ the lashback at spring would have been avoided and there would be people asking where's the september faq. As it is if it comes tomorrow now it's going to be "phew barely in september" rather than "yey we got it early"(how anybody can be happy about getting new models forcefed to be bought while still leaving game just as unbalanced though....). Win-win!

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Hey, they at least let us know their intention. In the past we'd have got nothing. I'd much rather them tell us their target than get nothing.

It totally depends on the type deadline when comparing it to work. This is a bug fix, that sort of thing routinely pushes deadlines in other industries, as new factors arise. So the comparison to other work deadlines isn't such a great fit.

Which is why they shouldn't have been so specific with deadlines..."Spring/Fall FAQ". Done. How hard that was? As it is plenty of their customers already thought them as spring/fall faq rather than specific month...

GW made mistake of painting themselves to the corner for no real benefit. Had they originally set up them as spring/fall FAQ the lashback at spring would have been avoided and there would be people asking where's the september faq. As it is if it comes tomorrow now it's going to be "phew barely in september" rather than "yey we got it early"(how anybody can be happy about getting new models forcefed to be bought while still leaving game just as unbalanced though....). Win-win!

Just sounds like you're looking for problems at this point to be honest.

They told us the plan was September. Everyone who knows anything about it knows that could get pushed back, but I appreciate knowing that September is the target.

I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.

If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?

After the March > April delay, I was fully expecting the September FAQ to only hit the net in October...

 gwarsh41 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?

Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?

Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.

Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.

I never even suggested 40k was bigger than any e-sport, I didn't even hint at it. Where did you get that from?

you said it was larger but I felt it was very VERY clear that you meant "more working parts" which is certainly true, Star craft 2 has 59 units spread across 3 factions. 40k has over a dozen distinct factions and codex space marines ALONE has as many units.

 Dysartes wrote:
I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.

If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?

Because it doesn't matter that much?

 Stux wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.

If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?

Because it doesn't matter that much?

It's also dirt easy to do. GW seems to love to do things more convoluted way. Good example being how they officially clarified Da Jump etc working on T1 putting it on FB with very condensing picture made to boot. And that post in their FB which is long buried is STILL only place for the official source...When for far quicker and less effort they could have done it like professionals and have it in centralized official location...Let's call that section say....FAQ's and Errata's...What a novel concept!

Try and find that post from FB. It was not easy month after it and it is not easy now. And since it's there I need to make sure every time I play with new face they ARE aware of that to ensure I don't end up again in arqument mid turn 1 can I do it or not...

Why not do things properly first time out rather especially when it's easy and time consuming rather than have it backfire?

Sure hope september FAQ doesn't introduce yet another debacle of that kind. Having to go through once due to GW designers not even attempting to do things like professionals is annoying enough. No more TYVM.

 Vector Strike wrote:
After the March > April delay, I was fully expecting the September FAQ to only hit the net in October...

This is very much what I thought aswell. I do hope that the reason for the delay is because it contains larger changes and it would take a longer time to ensure it's precisely the changes that they want to put out.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I've got to agree with tneva on the scheduling side of things - when the March FAQ got rebranded to the Spring FAQ, they really should've taken the preventative step of rebranding the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ.

If things can go wrong once, they can definitely go wrong twice, so why not future-proof?

Because it doesn't matter that much?

It's also dirt easy to do. GW seems to love to do things more convoluted way. Good example being how they officially clarified Da Jump etc working on T1 putting it on FB with very condensing picture made to boot. And that post in their FB which is long buried is STILL only place for the official source...When for far quicker and less effort they could have done it like professionals and have it in centralized official location...Let's call that section say....FAQ's and Errata's...What a novel concept!

Try and find that post from FB. It was not easy month after it and it is not easy now. And since it's there I need to make sure every time I play with new face they ARE aware of that to ensure I don't end up again in arqument mid turn 1 can I do it or not...

Why not do things properly first time out rather especially when it's easy and time consuming rather than have it backfire?

Sure hope september FAQ doesn't introduce yet another debacle of that kind. Having to go through once due to GW designers not even attempting to do things like professionals is annoying enough. No more TYVM.

But that just sounds like more of an argument for delaying until they're certain it's ready, rather than rushing it out to meet a somewhat arbitrary deadline.

 chimeara wrote:

Davor wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Remember; the objective is to win, the aim is to have fun.

So true. Sadly some people only have fun if they win.

That's my philosophy. As an avid WE player. I don't win a lot these days. But I still have fun playing with the big boys at tournaments.

Well, I guess most people complain because it is not easy to find fun in being shot of the table without even having a chance of doing meaningful things. Playing my Slaanesh Daemons is an example of this. I set up, lose 30-50% of my army turn 1. Then get to kill a few models cause Slaanesh models hit like wet towels despite being glass cannons. This goes on for a few turns. Then game is over.

 Stux wrote:
But that just sounds like more of an argument for delaying until they're certain it's ready, rather than rushing it out to meet a somewhat arbitrary deadline.

Which is why having wider deadline(at least for public deadline) would give them more room. Unless you go idea of "we give FAQ when we feel like it" then idea of spring/autumn FAQ with internal goal of releasing it march/september gives them 2 more months to fine tune as needed while still sticking to their deadlines.

So they would have time to publish it when it's ready. Imagine they now find something they need to add. Odds are it would delay it past september after all. If they had just said "autumn FAQ" originally they would still have ~2 months to tweak it! 2 month leeway is so huge it's hard to imagine FAQ missing even that deadline(and if THAT is worry then forget about having any regular FAQ's known to customers to begin with. Which is even worse idea).

Basically all they needed to do is write "spring/fall" rather than "march/september" and hey presto job done they would have all the time they need to finetune it until it's really ready for release. It's the current way that pressures them to release non-ready document. And there's no real downside to GW for that...

(another bonus. takes less typing to write spring faq and autumn faq than march faq and september faq!)

But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.

As I say, it just comes across that you're looking for something to complain about.

 Stux wrote:
But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.

As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.

Thing is september IS the goal. That's what they said. It's not players who decided it's september. IT IS THEMSELVES! Goal is september because GW decided goal is september. Players then just have to see if GW are professionals(it comes on september) or bunch of amateurs(it does not)

If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different? Lol at white knights.

 Stux wrote:
But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.

As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.

I do kind of agree that they should be sticking to their goals. It would be a clear way to showcase that they're committed to retaining their goals. However, if they have a reason for delaying it, such as to include some other larger changes within it, then I'm fine with it. I say let's wait to see, and decide if the delay was worth it when it does release.

Darsath wrote:

 Stux wrote:
But they have more time. Just don't get hung up on the fact that September is the goal.

As I say, it just across that you're looking for something to complain about.

I do kind of agree that they should be sticking to their goals. It would be a clear way to showcase that they're committed to retaining their goals. However, if they have a reason for delaying it, such as to include some other larger changes within it, then I'm fine with it. I say let's wait to see, and decide if the delay was worth it when it does release.

Agreed. There's still a few days of September left too!