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.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well according to those who see no evil forever they never made a mistake yet. I guess they equal out ?

They make mistakes, but this edition have also shown a much better job fixing said mistakes than ever before.

This assumption that they do things solely put of malicious intent is just silly.

That really depends on what you consider malicious. Are they doing things to cause you pain for the joy of it ? No. Are they being less than honest brokers ? Yes. I shouldn't need to get into what or how, that is easy enough to see but they are at their best neutral towards us if anything. We as the players want a balanced, proper game, they want to profit off imbalance and just care in so far as selling us the new item on the list. That is the core tenant of any business sure, but that doesn't make them good by any stretch either.

If we get what we want, really that doesn't give us a lot of incentive to expand, so we're forever at odds in that regard. I wouldn't say they are malicious just dishonest.

I.disagree. What GW wants ultimately is to sell product. This means adjusting lagging armies up to roughly the same standard through points and rules changes so more product sitting around gathering dust sells.

8.5 (as we seem to be calling the C:SM and beyond stuff) is an update to rulesets that were dragging pretty badly in the early part of the edition while this campaign seems to be addressing the criticism that not enough new stuff for armies came out with their books.

We have seen claims for years that GW wants solely to push new as the best and screw the rest, but we see that the old stuff got just as much, if not more, of a boost than the Primaris in the update.

At the end of the day chasing off your player base by intentionally breaking your game is a bad business model that only bites you in the backside (just look at the lootbox fiasco that is still causing companies to suffer major backlash) and GW has shown, at least under Roundtree, they want a more sustainable profit margin.

This claim that they're going out of their way to break the game by withholding key parts of an army shows ignorance to how they codexes are written and assumes a malicious contempt for the playerbase not seen since 8th dropped.

Chances are the updated CSM book that I know you're going to try and wave around as proof was finished before Vigilus but was delayed (maybe due to trade issues with China, maybe casting demand is outpacing the studio, I don't know) so it came after Vigilus in release order despite being completed first. We saw Looncurse come out long before the Sylvaneth book due to a similar reason despite the models being done and just waiting for the book.

GW is typically working a year or more ahead of what we see. Which means changes take time.to filter in to the game in terms.of rules. Chapter Approved is about the only thing done on a shorter schedule and even then most of that shortened schedule is points cost related.

I really feel like a lot.of you could stand to listen to the GW podcast so you'd get a better idea how the studio actually works on this stuff instead of making up reasons why GW is secretly planning to kick your dog.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

In my experiance the disconnect is with Peregrine who seems to believe that one must buy all the optional content just to play the game.

It's a faulty premise that they've built their entire arguement on so instead of admitting they're wrong, they'll keep doubling down instead.

Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Hate to break it to you but the new codex has invalidated the old codex. If you want to play at any event, not just a GW one, you have to use the new codex, the old one does not have the same rules, statlines, abilities or points. Not to mention the rules are way better for marines, so you'd be an idiot not to buy it if you want to be competitive and live in an area where people don't mind running old rules for private games. Which I fear will be the same for psychic awakening (not the invalidation but the power of the rules).

I understand what you're saying with regards the new SM codex invalidating the old for competitive play but I think it's so incredibly trivial to get all of the new rules without splashing cash that it's not a real concern.

If I collected SM, I'd buy the book, but it's up to the individual player of course.

It's not just for competitive, if you want to play anywhere except your garage (or your friend's) you need the new book. At which point you can play whatever you want anyway. And it feels a little dirty to me getting everything through battlescribe. Which I recognise is entirely personal preference.

Nope. Not true. I'm sure when all the Codex books came out GW sent someone round my house and burned the Index ones I had. I still hate them for making all my 2nd edition rules spontaneously combust as well.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

Companies exist to make money. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sun rises in the east.

How a company pursues it's goal of money is the important issue, and by ttying to gibe.more frequent update so no army is out in the cold for too long is hardly worth the sort of nonsense I see tossed about here like it's insightful commentary. Hint: it's not.

6th and 7th esitions were clear cash grabs with a lot of clear executive meddling but the direction the game is going now, with frequent smaller updates that allow them to do more for various armies more often than when they releasd the codeces to roll all the changes into the book, is a healthier direction than anything we've seen in years.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I have never once been denied a game or been beholden to some rule I didn't possess, just because I don't own a copy of Vigilus or Chapter Approved, whether it be in Open, Narrative or Matched Play.

That's interesting, in my experience, even among my friends we've all silently agreed everyone needs to keep up with chapter approved, not just if I want to play in a GW store.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I have never once been denied a game or been beholden to some rule I didn't possess, just because I don't own a copy of Vigilus or Chapter Approved, whether it be in Open, Narrative or Matched Play.

That's interesting, in my experience, even among my friends we've all silently agreed everyone needs to keep up with chapter approved, not just if I want to play in a GW store.

Keeping up with points costs isn't exactly hard even without the book (borrow a friends and pencil them into your codex for example). The only other thing most players have to worry about is alternative missions unless you play PL and allow things like thr custom Land Raider or Looted Wagon rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules. So even if you don't want to participate in the psychic awakening ruleset, you will have to play against those who do, and if the rules do turn out to be strong, now you get to enjoy being used to wipe the floor with. Equally, even if there isn't a rule in place, perhaps you and your opponent can't come to an agreement, because he wants to use all his shiny new toys and you say 'sorry old chap, I don't have my copy, and it wold be terribly unfair to play our armies together like this'.
It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase. Of course you can, but realistically 95% of players are not going to agree to that. Or ask not to use a CA points update which nerfed a unit you're using. You could, but will the other player agree? Probably not.

Not buying these "rules updates" as GW calls them, will be like not buying CA. No one is making you, but really if you want to play in the wider community, you sort of have to. Depending of course on what form these rules updates end up taking, but I doubt they'll be designed to allow you to get away with not buying them like vigilus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Keeping up with points costs isn't exactly hard even without the book (borrow a friends and pencil them into your codex for example). The only other thing most players have to worry about is alternative missions unless you play PL and allow things like thr custom Land Raider or Looted Wagon rules.

True, but you still need to keep up with it. The rules and points changes are not optional. And unlike CA, which is one book for every faction, if you want to copy over your friend's rules, you'd better hope they play the same armies. Or just pirate it, but like I said, due to personal preference, I'm not interested in doing that.

Assuming they may function like a codex supplement isn't a bad approach, but recall there is no sign of what these books look like yet. Historically campaign bools for GW have been all over the place in terms of what they add to the game.

Besides, if it doesn't apply to your army directly and they want to play a certain mission or army list the onus on them to jave the rules on hand, not for you to also own a copy of their book unless it also covers your army too.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules.

If you're playing in a tournament, sure, you use whatever rules the tournament is using.

If you're playing a pickup game, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from discussing the rules with your opponent prior to the game and reaching an agreement to use whatever rules you want. It's not even just expansions... why, I've occasionally witnessed people playing a previous edition of the game, despite there being a newer one available... something that I'm told should have led to people being laughed from the premises. Laughed at, I tell you!

It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase..

No, asking to not use an expansion that you don't own the rules for is nothing at all even remotely like asking your opponent to remove an entire core component of the basic rules of the game.


Although, funnily enough, was also done on a not too infrequent basis, back in the day. It became quite common towards the end of 2nd edition's lifespan for players to agree to not use Psykers. Also Landraiders, Wolf Guard and Eldar, but that's a slightly different story.

 insaniak wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I think this is what gets me. Not every game is played between two close friends. Sometimes you play at a store, be it GW or FLGS, and they will require you to use certain rules.

If you're playing in a tournament, sure, you use whatever rules the tournament is using.

If you're playing a pickup game, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from discussing the rules with your opponent prior to the game and reaching an agreement to use whatever rules you want. It's not even just expansions... why, I've occasionally witnessed people playing a previous edition of the game, despite there being a newer one available... something that I'm told should have led to people being laughed from the premises. Laughed at, I tell you!

Depends where you're playing and who you're playing with.

 insaniak wrote:

It's sort of like saying you could ask your opponent to agree that there isn't a shooting phase..

No, asking to not use an expansion that you don't own the rules for is nothing at all even remotely like asking your opponent to remove an entire core component of the basic rules of the game.


Although, funnily enough, was also done on a not too infrequent basis, back in the day. It became quite common towards the end of 2nd edition's lifespan for players to agree to not use Psykers. Also Landraiders, Wolf Guard and Eldar, but that's a slightly different story.

It depends on what it end up being, but I should imagine that like peregrine said, it won't be like the old city fight rules, or planetstrike. This won't be so much an expansion/dlc that you can play with if you want, these will be supplements, entirely part of the core game should you chose to buy them, just like the new SM supplements. And I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a SM player that he either a) should not buy the supplements given all the extra stratagems, characters, relics, doctrines, etc. Or b) that since you don't have a supplement for your army, he should leave his at home.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, we have one 40k book of each type in our gaming room.
Buying it separately is a bit too costly if you ask me.
GW needs money as always.

Companies exist to make money. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sun rises in the east.

How a company pursues it's goal of money is the important issue, and by ttying to gibe.more frequent update so no army is out in the cold for too long is hardly worth the sort of nonsense I see tossed about here like it's insightful commentary. Hint: it's not.

6th and 7th esitions were clear cash grabs with a lot of clear executive meddling but the direction the game is going now, with frequent smaller updates that allow them to do more for various armies more often than when they releasd the codeces to roll all the changes into the book, is a healthier direction than anything we've seen in years.

Example of 6th being a cash grab? 6th had it's favorites (Eldar, Tau) but for every OP release, there where as much if not more model releases that had lackluster or bad rule sets. Beginning of 7th was relatively tame with the new codexes being somewhat underpowered, new models being weak (the Orkanauts being the shining example of early 7th balance decisions) and the vast majority of formations being more flavorful than anything OP. It wasn't until Decurion where it's rather obvious they switched gears to uss these formations to create a power creep arms race which also resulted in an uptick in sales.

Past editions suffered from a GW that just put out a codex with whatever random/intentional balanced choices they made with zero follow up to adjust the impact they did to the game. Now GW circles back to tweek the numbers but in typical GW fashion they charge a tidy sum to access them.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I thought you followed the meta fairly closely?

All Ork lists use the Dread Waaaagh detachment for the relic.
Most Imperial Guard detachments are Emperors Fist or Emperors Blade.
The devastation battery is taken a ton in chaos lists.
Cybernetica cohort is taken regularly.
Brood surge is almost mandatory.
Vixtrix Guard rules were added to SM codex 2.0 I believe.

My point is that they're not up-ending the game. Taking a relic to boost a single model is hardly changing how armies operate. It's effectively 1 CP traded for another 25 point gun that often requires CP to function properly, but no more wounds on the model carrying it. Is that TRULY what is making Orks viable? I doubt it. Considering the lists I see them in are absolutely loaded with Boyz on top of Lootas.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I thought you followed the meta fairly closely?

All Ork lists use the Dread Waaaagh detachment for the relic.
Most Imperial Guard detachments are Emperors Fist or Emperors Blade.
The devastation battery is taken a ton in chaos lists.
Cybernetica cohort is taken regularly.
Brood surge is almost mandatory.
Vixtrix Guard rules were added to SM codex 2.0 I believe.

My point is that they're not up-ending the game. Taking a relic to boost a single model is hardly changing how armies operate. It's effectively 1 CP traded for another 25 point gun that often requires CP to function properly, but no more wounds on the model carrying it. Is that TRULY what is making Orks viable? I doubt it. Considering the lists I see them in are absolutely loaded with Boyz on top of Lootas.

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the data - for the moment, but you'd have to analyze all the lists individually and compile the data from there.

It's an incredibly CP hungry gun - Wreckers only gets you so far if your S roll flops. And then only if your attacks roll doesn't also flop. There's a lot underpinning it to make it work.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument is no better than trying to say that Codex: Space Marines is "optional content" because you aren't obligated to use it and can insist that your opponent use their index rules if you don't want to play a game of C:SM Is Legal.

Going by this comment, I suspect that the disconnect here is coming from you and I having very different opinions on what constitutes 'co-operation'. Nobody should be insisting that their opponents do anything. But it's absolutely ok for someone to ask a potential opponent to play a game using Index lists. Said prospective opponent would be free to agree, or not... just as they would be with any other request involving the rules to be used in game.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and preventing you from asking, but the chances of anyone responding with anything but "lol no, stop asking stupid questions" are close enough to zero that the scenario isn't worth considering. The way the vast majority of people play it each player is responsible for bringing their own rules/models/dice/etc to play their own army. You don't get to try to veto your opponent's choices just because you don't want to buy something for your own army.

Plus from personal expiriance, the more you ask question that other find stupid, the less they want to play with you. Ask to many questions and you may end up with almost no people to play.

Karol wrote:
Plus from personal expiriance, the more you ask question that other find stupid, the less they want to play with you. Ask to many questions and you may end up with almost no people to play.

Anyone who obfuscates how their army works in order to win isn't worth playing.

That said, free resources exist to see how the rules for other armies work exist. Bare minimum would be giving 1d4chan a skim, but you can also watch videos such as GMG's "codex reviews" where he literally holds the page open so you can pause and read it.

We live in an age where it's easier than ever to understand the rules for other people's army's for free so the notion that we must buy every book is a damned lie at best.

Am not sure I understand , how this would suppose to happen. You need a codex to play the game. What does it have to do with someone asking, if they can use index or legend rules, when they are no longer matched play?

Karol wrote:
Am not sure I understand , how this would suppose to happen. You need a codex to play the game. What does it have to do with someone asking, if they can use index or legend rules, when they are no longer matched play?

Warhammer Legends are getting points costs which keep them Match Play Legal but the points costs won't be getting updated and they are recommended to not be legal for tournament play.

Using Index or Legends in casual play should require no more asking than using your codex does.

Well I hope the points are not power points. The AoS legends got points like that too.

Plus I think once stuff goes in to legend and all tournament packs say, no legends, all matched play games are going to be no legends either. Same way rule of 3 is also technicaly only a tournament thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I can't speak for other armies but yea the SSAG is absolutely a key component of competitive Ork play. Without it a players win rate drops to something like 38% and if its not taken as Death skulls the win rate falls below 50% on average. Of taken as Death skulls the win rate is above 55% iirc.

Its also 1 CP for a 75 pt gun really. Because no one takes Big Meks for their statline.

I think you'll struggle to find a winning Ork list without it. There are lists without any boys however that have done very well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the data - for the moment, but you'd have to analyze all the lists individually and compile the data from there.

Yea man they spoke about it on the latest stats centre from FLG. To be honest my percentages are probably still wrong but my rough point still stands. Not taking an SSAG is madness competitively if the data is to be believed.

It's an incredibly CP hungry gun - Wreckers only gets you so far if your S roll flops. And then only if your attacks roll doesn't also flop. There's a lot underpinning it to make it work.

Couldn't agree more, I think the main benefits it provides are; an alternative unit to make use of those grot shields if your lootas are already dead and it's one of our only models that doesn't want to push forward to achieve it's goal. I guess it is our only real functional anti armour too. Lootas can struggle against T8 and Tank Bustas are too squishy, short ranged and also need an investment to perform.

Karol wrote:
Well I hope the points are not power points. The AoS legends got points like that too.

Plus I think once stuff goes in to legend and all tournament packs say, no legends, all matched play games are going to be no legends either. Same way rule of 3 is also technicaly only a tournament thing.

Points are not PL.

I popped on over to 40kstats. I don't like data like this either, but it doesn't jive with the FLG perspective.

The problem is no one is diving into the actual lists and so a loss from an ork player with all gretchin against knights is equivalent to a loss of all tankbusters against knights (to make a really crude analogy).

...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

Who knew that writing your sub-faction with an s at the end instead of a z was worth over 3 percentile points on your win rate...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...whoever is running that site needs a slap - Evil Suns and Evil Sunz as different lines? Really?

Probably different sources of data. Garbage in; garbage out.

Who knew that writing your sub-faction with an s at the end instead of a z was worth over 3 percentile points on your win rate...

The thing that's broken my mind is that they've spelled the word correctly, which is un-orky, but in doing so got the name wrong, which is Orky, but they've played better, which is un-orky...

Listen to the latest stats centre. They cover stats that aren’t shared on 40k stats and that’s where you’ll find the percentages. The information you’re after isn't on the webpage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the falcon is diving into the stats as you request.