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.

 Melissia wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion

Generally, broken. Either superpowerful or weak and niche. They've gone back and forth. GK are a hard army to balance due to their super low model count.

I like how this (wrong) myth is still alive a decade later. They were merely good in 5th edition (crying about OMG CHEEP POWAH WEPUNZ WHAT OP!!1!one! notwithstanding), in fact they costed more in 5th edition per model than they do in 8th which should tell you all about how "broken" they were. I know I had multiple even fights with GK armies despite playing two of the first books released in 5th, showing the whole 'power creep' myth was nonsense. Then they were made stronger for the first two months of 6th as they were one of two armies with a flyer, this only lasted until real broken codex shown up, namely Tau with their automatic flyer deletion which made that period of dominance end up real quick, along with other armies receiving stronger flyers and AA guns of their own. Then, alas, dumb writer listened to GK criticism and made their book utter crap by employing most of inane "fix" suggestion pretty much demonstrating how gak the whole 5th edition critique was (again), and showing why you shouldn't listen to complainers when trying to balance something.

I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th when someone who actually knew what he was doing (and had idea what a 'hole in army composition' means or could cost situational abilities properly) was in charge. I especially like how early 8th edition plasma spam completely vindicated GK writer not being idiot and adding anti-plasma upgrade to army so as to not auto-lose in 5th edition, if we still had that thing the meta would be much more diverse (plasma no longer being complete no-brainer auto-take) and GK would be far more competitive. Alas...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.

The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.

GW is doing this 100% correctly, in my opinion.

Wait, but wouldn't that mean, that the changes in 8th ed in all the errata and CA done to GK were right, by that logic?

I'm unsure what you're getting at. Do you mean the smite nerf that was repealed on GK? Then, yes, absolutely that's how the system should work. They put a test rule out there, people notified them of the issue, and it was corrected.

but nothing was corrected. the baby smite no where near covers for stuff like lack of stormshields, higher points cost, lack of plasma or working hvy weapons, low CP and no stratagems to speak of. At the same time the normal smite GK characters have does scale like everyone else. It only doesn't hurt GK, because they don't run stuff like librarians etc. GK are like 1ksons, but with fewer and worse DPs, no ahriman, weaker psychic powers and what is more important no tzangors, no cultists and no nurgle DPs to ally in. And GW actually buffed 1ksons with changes instead of nerfing them to the GK level.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Tactical Reserves rule got heavily modified and put into a second round of beta testing, and the Smite Scaling got changed between the beta rule and final rule.

But, the rules still made it in. They may have been slightly changed, but they are still there. It's still a "We may modify the rule slightly, but it's going in regardless of whether the players want i there or not" rather than "this rule just doesn't make sense and people don't like it, so let's leave it out."

SG

 Irbis wrote:
I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th

The 5e codex is what wrecked them (and the inquisition) in the long term, turning them into over-equipped tactical marines geared up to fight other marines. There is just no easy way to balance 'cheap generic MEQ with high end gear and psychic powers'.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That doesn't work, because then the people that need to test it block it, because they don't like it.

The fact that is becomes a defacto rule is *good*, because it provides more feedback.

GW is doing this 100% correctly, in my opinion.

Wait, but wouldn't that mean, that the changes in 8th ed in all the errata and CA done to GK were right, by that logic?

I'm unsure what you're getting at. Do you mean the smite nerf that was repealed on GK? Then, yes, absolutely that's how the system should work. They put a test rule out there, people notified them of the issue, and it was corrected.

but nothing was corrected. the baby smite no where near covers for stuff like lack of stormshields, higher points cost, lack of plasma or working hvy weapons, low CP and no stratagems to speak of. At the same time the normal smite GK characters have does scale like everyone else. It only doesn't hurt GK, because they don't run stuff like librarians etc. GK are like 1ksons, but with fewer and worse DPs, no ahriman, weaker psychic powers and what is more important no tzangors, no cultists and no nurgle DPs to ally in. And GW actually buffed 1ksons with changes instead of nerfing them to the GK level.

I thought this topic was about beta rules, not GK rules... Please stop.

Beta rules aren't a problem in themselves I don't think. The problem is that everyone seems to unanimously accept them as is, on the first draft, as official rules. Regardless of how powerful/useless it makes certain builds. Regardless how unstable and confusing it makes the game, when they get modified and changed every couple months

 Irbis wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't know how GK looked in prior edtion

Generally, broken. Either superpowerful or weak and niche. They've gone back and forth. GK are a hard army to balance due to their super low model count.

I like how this (wrong) myth is still alive a decade later. They were merely good in 5th edition (crying about OMG CHEEP POWAH WEPUNZ WHAT OP!!1!one! notwithstanding), in fact they costed more in 5th edition per model than they do in 8th which should tell you all about how "broken" they were. I know I had multiple even fights with GK armies despite playing two of the first books released in 5th, showing the whole 'power creep' myth was nonsense. Then they were made stronger for the first two months of 6th as they were one of two armies with a flyer, this only lasted until real broken codex shown up, namely Tau with their automatic flyer deletion which made that period of dominance end up real quick, along with other armies receiving stronger flyers and AA guns of their own. Then, alas, dumb writer listened to GK criticism and made their book utter crap by employing most of inane "fix" suggestion pretty much demonstrating how gak the whole 5th edition critique was (again), and showing why you shouldn't listen to complainers when trying to balance something.

I feel 8th edition is step up, but alas, it's nowhere near close to the glory days of 5th when someone who actually knew what he was doing (and had idea what a 'hole in army composition' means or could cost situational abilities properly) was in charge. I especially like how early 8th edition plasma spam completely vindicated GK writer not being idiot and adding anti-plasma upgrade to army so as to not auto-lose in 5th edition, if we still had that thing the meta would be much more diverse (plasma no longer being complete no-brainer auto-take) and GK would be far more competitive. Alas...

Nice try. They were total bs in 5th. I was there. Stop the spin. It's not a myth.

 ServiceGames wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Tactical Reserves rule got heavily modified and put into a second round of beta testing, and the Smite Scaling got changed between the beta rule and final rule.

But, the rules still made it in. They may have been slightly changed, but they are still there. It's still a "We may modify the rule slightly, but it's going in regardless of whether the players want i there or not" rather than "this rule just doesn't make sense and people don't like it, so let's leave it out."

SG

So far, every single Beta Rules has been for Matched Play. So the problem seems to be that you don't like how GW is choosing to balance Matched Play. There's always the option to not play Matched Play.

I just found Citadel Journal 44 in the bottom of my box. It had the update to the 'trial' (read beta) Harlequin list that was in the previous mag.
It had the Harlequin Wraithlord (where did that go???)
It had the Death Jesters
It had Harlequin Mimes (why have these guys not made it in recent editions????)

The reason some players are so adamant about Beta Rules in some editions is that they came with models/cool conversions. So players bought GW stuff, used GW rules and now they want to play with the Beta.

It isn't too hard to figure some of it out. The Bolter Rules seem to make lackluster Marines a tad better, but it seemed inconsequential in my games thus far.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not sure how a White Dwarf realistically adds to the "book burden" either. The last roughly 500 games I played against people bringing a FW unit (including at large tournaments), I don't think a single person actually had a FW index book for rules reference along for the game. It was all just Battlescribe or maybe a fishy print-out, if you're lucky.

You don't have rules with you, you won't play vs me. No battlescribe is not enough. Too much errors there and top of that it's not like they are closed where only select few can alter them. If you disagree have fun playing with my unit that shoots heavy 20 S10 -4 D6 shots. Honest! Look at this battlescribe print!

I'm glad I never have to play with you.

When did basic, common courtesy go out of style. It's not your time exclusively. Publicly available Beta rules are better tested by 100k people rather than 4 or 5 guys in the studio. Coming to a public game space and expecting me to wait for you to wade through your phone and then scroll through the text is very discourteous. I know it SHOULD be easy but I've never seen anyone at a shop actually prepared to use their smartphone when its needed.

Print it out. If you have a shady printout, I dont care. I'd be much happier than trying to use your phone.

Sumilidon wrote:


It adds to the "bulk" of books to bring

1. Get paper and pencil
2, Write rules on paper

Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

 Tokhuah wrote:
Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

They are...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

They are...

Where are you getting Chapter Approved 2018 (legally) for free?

Need 2 polls.

First, how many people want new rules/like the rules.

second, how many of the people who approve approve the rules play space marines (because lets face it, its made ALL space marine armies better)

IS GW is still up to its old tricks..? BUY MORE MARINES here's some cool new rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

They are...

Where are you getting Chapter Approved 2018 (legally) for free?

CA2018 contains beta rules ?

 Argive wrote:
Need 2 polls.

First, how many people want new rules/like the rules.

second, how many of the people who approve approve the rules play space marines (because lets face it, its made ALL space marine armies better)

IS GW is still up to its old tricks..? BUY MORE MARINES here's some cool new rules.

There are more beta rules than bolter drills (or whatever name it has). It's even the first beta rule directly targeted at armies instead of the 40K ruleset.

dhallnet wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

They are...

Where are you getting Chapter Approved 2018 (legally) for free?

CA2018 contains beta rules ?

The whole Adepta Sororitas Beta Codex.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The whole Adepta Sororitas Beta Codex.

Ahah ok, nice one.

While I agree that this "codex" should have been free too (and CA's point changes should also be free), I think it's kinda out of the scope of discussion as it isn't "rule set changing" rules (it's more like a beta supplement) and thus forgot about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tokhuah wrote:
Beta rules should be downloadable for free but GW has a bunch of suckers lined up to pay whatever they want to charge so why stop?

They are...

Where are you getting Chapter Approved 2018 (legally) for free?

He said beta rules.

EDIT: While I agree it should be free a codex is not the same and you know it.