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.

Well they changed dark reapers and shining spears like 5-6 times, and they were always OP. And when they finaly did change the root of the problem aka Inari soul burst thingy, they just killed the army and the models.

Also saying they react faster then in the past, doesn't mean much, if it is still not fast enough. My grandma had hip surgery planed for 2024, then they moved it to december 2021, technicaly that is 2 years plus of wait time less. Does not change that fact that it was still 6 years of waiting. I get that they don't tweek everything, every month. Not with their policy of printed rules etc I get that.

But they do have WD and they do have a website. They knew that the castellan was running amok thanks to the cheap IG fueling it, they could have reacted faster. But they didn't, and I even understand that, Castellans were selling great and boosting sells of IG models too.

If they knee jerk reacted at the speed that this forum wanted there would be a few threads bemoaning how what they bought is now invalid and will never see the tabletop*. Other game companies do not knee jerk react at the speed you expect, look at how often MtG has its ban lists updated as an example.

*or at least wont be seen in the hyper competitive game that people deem the only way to play

Ok, I'll revise.

Balance in a way that prevents others from claiming any subsequent changes are because of the desire for profit.

Remember-

If you buff something, it's for the money.
If you nerf something, it's also for the money ( to sell something else )
If you dont change something, it's for the money.

Good luck.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

What about the new missions and the complete set of matched play rules? I play Chaos Knights, so before the codex, CA 2018 contained my army's rules in Index: Renegade Knights too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Balance in a way that prevents others from claiming any subsequent changes are because of the desire for profit.

Remember-

If you buff something, it's for the money.
If you nerf something, it's also for the money ( to sell something else )
If you dont change something, it's for the money.

I up the point cost of every bad unit.
I up the point cost of every good init even more.
You can now play a 2000 game with 30 infantry marines.
There, people will be pissed but nobody can say I did it to sell more miniatures .

 BroodSpawn wrote:
If they knee jerk reacted at the speed that this forum wanted there would be a few threads bemoaning how what they bought is now invalid and will never see the tabletop*. Other game companies do not knee jerk react at the speed you expect, look at how often MtG has its ban lists updated as an example.

*or at least wont be seen in the hyper competitive game that people deem the only way to play

Of course other companies are interested in balance. Gw isn't as they make more money with imbalance and changing imbalance to another form of imbalance. Knee jerk reactions is name of game for gw.

No company makes money from 'balance ', every game on the market has some form of imbalance that drives sales. GW are interested in balancing to a degree as not doing so does not drive sales, look at 7th compared to current as an example of the difference in balance and sales as an example

Okey, but there is a difference between making codex sm and supplements, and suddenly sm being a really nice army. And puting out a unit, which with combination of a 4pts troop model, turns the meta in to you play a carbon copy army, you play a hard skew army or you lose. And then leave it like that for a year.

I mean GW knows that half the problems in 8th came from the fact that they costed IG wrong, yet they don't seem to be ready to change that. Maybe because of balance not being their goal, or maybe because of how good an old kit like IG sells for them.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
No company makes money from 'balance ', every game on the market has some form of imbalance that drives sales. GW are interested in balancing to a degree as not doing so does not drive sales, look at 7th compared to current as an example of the difference in balance and sales as an example

Exactly. Contemporary game design principle #1 is frustrate your players so that they will throw money at you in the hopes of not losing so much, without frustrating them so much they quit outright.

I hope the Monolith and Night Scythe are getting new datasheets in a couple of months, I'll be a sad bot if not. With updated Vindicator the Leman Russ is even easier to compare to a Monolith. Range is sort of an odd thing, how do you qualify going from 24" range to 72" range? But now that the 24" LR gun is more balanced compared to the 72" LR gun it's more clear than ever just how bad the Monolith is.

*Monoliths gets 4 S8 AP-2 D3 damage hits.
*Leman Russ Tank Commander gets 6 AP-3 D6 damage hits.

I need GW to pull through and give the Monolith another buff for me to not lose all hope, I try to keep my faith up but it's really hard. I agree that Vindicator Leman Russes aren't going to make waves, it's nice to see another option open up for the Leman Russ, maybe I'll see a little more diversity and as a Necron player I always welcome D6 damage weapons in the meta. I hope those that already have the demolisher cannon LR model feel empowered to use it more, it certainly packs a punch against heavily armoured tanks and that's pretty much how it should be.

The Monolith could also get an ability that lets it shoot three times if it moves less than 7" and another couple of times for 1 CP. Maybe it'll make a dent or two in Iron Hands if it gets to shoot 5 times each turn, 30 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds, 5 unsaved wounds. Yeah, so a little more than 3 rounds for my 320 pt unit to take out a 300 pt model if we both use 1 CP each turn, him to make his take half damage, me to shoot another couple of times. That's reasonable right?

tneva82 wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
If they knee jerk reacted at the speed that this forum wanted there would be a few threads bemoaning how what they bought is now invalid and will never see the tabletop*. Other game companies do not knee jerk react at the speed you expect, look at how often MtG has its ban lists updated as an example.

*or at least wont be seen in the hyper competitive game that people deem the only way to play

Of course other companies are interested in balance. Gw isn't as they make more money with imbalance and changing imbalance to another form of imbalance. Knee jerk reactions is name of game for gw.

Most armies sit in the 40-50% win rate which is a reason amount of factional balance. Internal balance needs more work and if the other books can reach C:SM levels (something that requires more than point changes or unplaytested errata).

Basically I see a lot of whinging that ignores the actual statenof the game and instead decides that it's broken with no real factual backing. This is most commonly done by plauers who don't fully understand the game or their army and tend to lose because of it, but I'm going to be charitable and assume that's not the issue here and instead just suggest to ease off your salt intake for a while.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but there is a difference between making codex sm and supplements, and suddenly sm being a really nice army. And puting out a unit, which with combination of a 4pts troop model, turns the meta in to you play a carbon copy army, you play a hard skew army or you lose. And then leave it like that for a year.

I mean GW knows that half the problems in 8th came from the fact that they costed IG wrong, yet they don't seem to be ready to change that. Maybe because of balance not being their goal, or maybe because of how good an old kit like IG sells for them.

Or maybe because they don't feel they made a costing error on the Guard.

Let me ask you something. How high do you increase the cost of a Guardsman to in order to discourage the CP farm the ally rules allow? Is it 5pts? This won't phase the CP farming. 7pts? 10pts? (well now we're almost at the cost of a SM....) More??
And what do you think happens when you reach that point?
Well, I'll tell you what happens.
A) People will reach for whatever unit from whatever faction is cheaper. And the CP farm farms on. Well, now you have to jack those things pts up....
B) If you do solve the Guards pt cost/soup problem, you'll have insanely expensive Guard squads within their own codex. Wich will screw up actual Guard armies. And yeah, there IS a sales consideration there. If you screw up the core of an army to the point where people stop using the core unit, sales will suffer. Is the dip in sales worth solving the CP farm "problem" in this way?

The problem isn't pts. It's lies in the allies/CP/or stratagems systems. Maybe a combination of. (I'd say it's the mere existence of the CP & strats)

 Ordana wrote:

Karol wrote:
But they do have a slow reaction time to some things. when the castellan came out. It really did warp the meta game, making a lot of options, like most non flyer vehicles, bad. And the IG+catellan+smash cpt/custodes bikers, was a stapple for like a year, or so. that is long time considering some people play the game for a year, and then quit.

But maybe it is for the better, GW fixs are always bad for the armies. They fix nothing, they just destroy the validity of a unit or even entire army, like in case of Inari, and from what I understand after 5th ed GK were also fixed. And GW fixed so well that they are bad 3 editions later.

The first Faq increased CP costs, it turned out not to be enough. Next faq increased the point cost.
GW reacted as fast as they told us they would react, twice a year. Which is infinity faster then GW's reaction time before 8th edition which was 'see you next edition'.

This is a really important point:

We know exactly when to expect changes, and for how long to at least plan on using an existing synergy/broken strat/unit. It gives players the ability to purchase units with a degree of consistency in expectation.

That’s huge, and far better than how 6th or 7th panned out.

So, am i only one who remembers they said during the last CA that rules balance wasn't for the CA that is why it was basically just points cost changes.

They were very clear rules changes would be for the big FAQ, and CA was the purview of points changes. So why are we assuming now they changed that so that rule changes would be in CA ?

Did they make some kind of public comment I'm unaware of or are we under some kind of grand illusion that their double speak makes any sense at all ? As honestly it feels like we just can't wrap our heads around the fact they lie a lot to us. Right to our face in fact.

It could just mean what they said - they don't think any rules need changing for balance purposes, so there are no changes in the FAQ.

This doesn't preclude them from then tweaking points costs in CA19 - even though I'd argue points are part of a unit's rules...

Well that is my point, but people keep saying " Oh they will change things in CA " when last I remember CA was just for points, mostly. Just seems like people are dreaming or wishing but some books are most assuredly not doing well currently so could have done with some tweaking.

As is I doubt we'll see the other marine books touched on soon, nor do I imagine we'll see GK worked on who are abysmal. While some factions are doing fine aside from I'm sure wanting a touch up, to say the game is right where they want it is a bit daft. That said, I think people are getting their hopes up that CA will be more than maybe a couple rule tweaks, point updates and some new missions and the odd thing here and there.

So why do people keep saying there will be rule updates in CA when thats been for the points ? Feels like making love out of nothing at all.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well that is my point, but people keep saying " Oh they will change things in CA " when last I remember CA was just for points, mostly. Just seems like people are dreaming or wishing but some books are most assuredly not doing well currently so could have done with some tweaking.

As is I doubt we'll see the other marine books touched on soon, nor do I imagine we'll see GK worked on who are abysmal. While some factions are doing fine aside from I'm sure wanting a touch up, to say the game is right where they want it is a bit daft. That said, I think people are getting their hopes up that CA will be more than maybe a couple rule tweaks, point updates and some new missions and the odd thing here and there.

So why do people keep saying there will be rule updates in CA when thats been for the points ? Feels like making love out of nothing at all.

Because it was CA17 that gave everyone a free relic, a unique WL trait and a couple of Stratagems to factions that had none. It was CA18 that changed datasheets for Daemons and introduced the 8 for Tau and beta Sisters. It has never just been for pts, conversely, FAQs were never meant to change pts, but they also went back on that because of the Castellan. If GW really wanted to they could pump out mono-faction benefits for each codex and mono-sub-faction benefits for CA19, I doubt they will, but it would be an option as a precursor to the second edition of every codex and possible sub-faction books. That's one avenue of development they could take if they want to double down on this "every sub-faction is a faction to itself". Just making the main book twice as large and doubling the price probably makes more sense for most factions that don't have as rich a lore as SM, as many units (Unique or otherwise) and then they could also cut down on the amount of armies to paint for all the sub-factions.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well that is my point, but people keep saying " Oh they will change things in CA " when last I remember CA was just for points, mostly. Just seems like people are dreaming or wishing but some books are most assuredly not doing well currently so could have done with some tweaking.

As is I doubt we'll see the other marine books touched on soon, nor do I imagine we'll see GK worked on who are abysmal. While some factions are doing fine aside from I'm sure wanting a touch up, to say the game is right where they want it is a bit daft. That said, I think people are getting their hopes up that CA will be more than maybe a couple rule tweaks, point updates and some new missions and the odd thing here and there.

So why do people keep saying there will be rule updates in CA when thats been for the points ? Feels like making love out of nothing at all.

The very first CA included rules updates for every Codex that didn’t have strats or ObSec, and last year had a Beta Codex and an Index in it. I know their WHC write up in 2017 said CA was for points and FAQs for balance updates, but there was a balance update in the first CA so it seems fair for people to wishlist tbh. There is precedent.

CA also introduced new Missions and updated the terrain rules. And that's just for Matched, for narrative they also introduced refined Cities of Death rules, character development and veteran units, and that's just from the top of my head. If you only use the last Page that you can simply get via Battlescribe that's your problem...

For people who don't by CA, what missions do you play? I'd have gotten really bored of the BRB missions by now if I didn't have CA.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you buy CA only for the points costs you're not getting your money's worth out of the book.

Which is exactly why I don't purchase the book, since there is absolutely nothing else of interest in there as far as I'm concerned.

What about the new missions and the complete set of matched play rules? I play Chaos Knights, so before the codex, CA 2018 contained my army's rules in Index: Renegade Knights too.

 Brother Castor wrote:
For people who don't by CA, what missions do you play? I'd have gotten really bored of the BRB missions by now if I didn't have CA.

ITC, maelstrom, tournament missions.

I don't know what matched play rules you're on about.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well that is my point, but people keep saying " Oh they will change things in CA " when last I remember CA was just for points, mostly. Just seems like people are dreaming or wishing but some books are most assuredly not doing well currently so could have done with some tweaking.

As is I doubt we'll see the other marine books touched on soon, nor do I imagine we'll see GK worked on who are abysmal. While some factions are doing fine aside from I'm sure wanting a touch up, to say the game is right where they want it is a bit daft. That said, I think people are getting their hopes up that CA will be more than maybe a couple rule tweaks, point updates and some new missions and the odd thing here and there.

So why do people keep saying there will be rule updates in CA when thats been for the points ? Feels like making love out of nothing at all.

The very first CA included rules updates for every Codex that didn’t have strats or ObSec, and last year had a Beta Codex and an Index in it. I know their WHC write up in 2017 said CA was for points and FAQs for balance updates, but there was a balance update in the first CA so it seems fair for people to wishlist tbh. There is precedent.

I mean sure it gives precedent, but still illustrates you can't trust a damn thing GW says. As they say one thing and do another, and now if CA drops and no units really get any rules at all and they say " Well, we said CA was for points, dummy. " People will be saying those who wanted unit rules changed or bettered shouldn't have ever expected it despite the precedent. It's really a messed up thing that their only consistent policy is being expertly dodgy and unsure of what they say or intend from moment to moment.

As is, I wouldn't consider the intercessor stuff, demons stuff and sisters beta book really rule changes of merit to most people. At least nothing much larger this last big faq did which was little at all. Despite some armies needing some looking to.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well that is my point, but people keep saying " Oh they will change things in CA " when last I remember CA was just for points, mostly. Just seems like people are dreaming or wishing but some books are most assuredly not doing well currently so could have done with some tweaking.

As is I doubt we'll see the other marine books touched on soon, nor do I imagine we'll see GK worked on who are abysmal. While some factions are doing fine aside from I'm sure wanting a touch up, to say the game is right where they want it is a bit daft. That said, I think people are getting their hopes up that CA will be more than maybe a couple rule tweaks, point updates and some new missions and the odd thing here and there.

So why do people keep saying there will be rule updates in CA when thats been for the points ? Feels like making love out of nothing at all.

The very first CA included rules updates for every Codex that didn’t have strats or ObSec, and last year had a Beta Codex and an Index in it. I know their WHC write up in 2017 said CA was for points and FAQs for balance updates, but there was a balance update in the first CA so it seems fair for people to wishlist tbh. There is precedent.

I mean sure it gives precedent, but still illustrates you can't trust a damn thing GW says. As they say one thing and do another, and now if CA drops and no units really get any rules at all and they say " Well, we said CA was for points, dummy. " People will be saying those who wanted unit rules changed or bettered shouldn't have ever expected it despite the precedent. It's really a messed up thing that their only consistent policy is being expertly dodgy and unsure of what they say or intend from moment to moment.

As is, I wouldn't consider the intercessor stuff, demons stuff and sisters beta book really rule changes of merit to most people. At least nothing much larger this last big faq did which was little at all. Despite some armies needing some looking to.

Just assume anything that GW says is the same as their rules by design, open to interpretation and if anything’s wrong it’s the customers fault for not knowing what they actually meant even if they is no relation with what they wrote.

SeanDrake wrote:


Just assume anything that GW says is the same as their rules by design, open to interpretation and if anything’s wrong it’s the customers fault for not knowing what they actually meant even if they is no relation with what they wrote.

It is the customers fault when they apply absurd black and white positions not contained in GW statements.

Wait. Do Chaos Marines get Bolter Discipline? I thought they did, but I don't see it anywhere.

I guess my concern is the point of the FAQ was to clear up improper or poorly worded rules that were causing concern among the community, not always balance per say.

That being said, does anyone in here think there are GLARING issues that need clearing up, non-balance related? I'm not talking RAW/RAI, but honestly garbage rules that need to be re-written to make them less ridiculous.

Infinite shooting? What counts as movement in regards to embarking/reinforcements? Do you get Grinding Advance with the Ravenguard reinforcement?

There are multiple issues that could have been addressed in this faq, as they just released the codexes with poor writing. Instead, they let us know that point changes are reserved for CA, and guard get D6 shots on Democannons. Nothing corrected, nothing re-worded.

Then I ask again, what is the point of a FAQ?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I guess my concern is the point of the FAQ was to clear up improper or poorly worded rules that were causing concern among the community, not always balance per say.

That being said, does anyone in here think there are GLARING issues that need clearing up, non-balance related? I'm not talking RAW/RAI, but honestly garbage rules that need to be re-written to make them less ridiculous.

Infinite shooting? What counts as movement in regards to embarking/reinforcements? Do you get Grinding Advance with the Ravenguard reinforcement?

There are multiple issues that could have been addressed in this faq, as they just released the codexes with poor writing. Instead, they let us know that point changes are reserved for CA, and guard get D6 shots on Democannons. Nothing corrected, nothing re-worded.

Then I ask again, what is the point of a FAQ?

Terrain rules.
And morale.

Alcibiades wrote:
Wait. Do Chaos Marines get Bolter Discipline? I thought they did, but I don't see it anywhere.

It's in the box for bolter discipline. Actually it's in the very first line of text, lol.

Alcibiades wrote:
Wait. Do Chaos Marines get Bolter Discipline? I thought they did, but I don't see it anywhere.

Umm. Umm. Great Job GW. They removed the Spring BIG FAQ from the FAQ page, meaning not only did they remove the rules for Bolter Discipline for all Astartes not in C:SM other than those in the Space Marine Update file, they also removed the CP update for Assassins since there is no Errata Document for Index: Assassins.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I don't know what matched play rules you're on about.

Chapter Approved has the updated character targeting rules, the update to smites and other psychic powers, etc.. E.g. all the "older" stuff that went through various Beta stages, got finalized and ultimately moved to CA.

I am sure the CA 2019 will have Tactical Restraint, the final rules for Tactical Reserves, Bolter Discipline, etc.. and stuff like that, which is atm still in the pdfs (and like character targeting, psychic discipline update, etc.. will disappear from the FAQs, once it's "properly published" in CA).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Wait. Do Chaos Marines get Bolter Discipline? I thought they did, but I don't see it anywhere.

Umm. Umm. Great Job GW. They removed the Spring BIG FAQ from the FAQ page, meaning not only did they remove the rules for Bolter Discipline for all Astartes not in C:SM other than those in the Space Marine Update file, they also removed the CP update for Assassins since there is no Errata Document for Index: Assassins.