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.

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are people still complaining about this? GW announced near the start of 8th that every book release will get an FAQ within a few week of it doing so. Don't assume that changes will be substantial or inconsequential.

GW shipped a book and adjusted it post release - something they have done with every single codex.

Because people, rightfully, want to know how something to obviously broken slipped past the writers.

That would be interesting, but we won’t find out, the rules have been patched to curb the worst, and it seems now it’s more a salt mine than a legitimate exploration of an issue.

Oh yeah, why would anybody complain about GW selling a product which they knew was unbalanced?

And why would anybody care that literally every single GW rules publication requires an errata/FAQ so soon after release?

Geese, I can't possibly imagine.

Oh, discuss? Fine. The polarising into camps, attacking each other, belittling each other... not so fine.

 Ordana wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are people still complaining about this? GW announced near the start of 8th that every book release will get an FAQ within a few week of it doing so. Don't assume that changes will be substantial or inconsequential.

GW shipped a book and adjusted it post release - something they have done with every single codex.

Because people, rightfully, want to know how something to obviously broken slipped past the writers.

Because GW have a super fast release schedule and "broken" rules will slip through.

You know about the ones that do, and don't hear about the ones that get caught before publishing.

GW's FAQs are free, you are not affected negatively. Get over it. No one deserves to know anything about the process lol

When GW was working with a monthly rather than a weekly release schedule, loads of broken stuff still got through testing.

After 20 years of publishing rules as a major part of their core business model, any rational person would expect GW to be far far better at writing them. Instead we get the same problems every edition, and almost every publication.

 Ishagu wrote:


Because GW have a super fast release schedule and "broken" rules will slip through.

You know about the ones that do, and don't hear about the ones that get caught before publishing.

GW's FAQs are free, you are not affected negatively. Get over it. No one deserves to know anything about the process lol

Would be interesting to know what they fixed, before the GK codex came out. Also the idea that FAQ don't affect armies negatively is not true. Every FAQ and errata Grey Knight got, save for the last one had nerfs in them. And the last GK FAQ wasn't much of an FAQ in the first place as all they did reprint stuff that was already changed, and fixing the fact that GK land raiders guns were not called the same as the guns on marine land raiders, so the change prior to that didn't work GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh, discuss? Fine. The polarising into camps, attacking each other, belittling each other... not so fine.

Okey, but what can be discussed, when one group decides that everything GW does is good and if it is not good it is a L2P issue , and the other side claims that everything GW does is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are people still complaining about this? GW announced near the start of 8th that every book release will get an FAQ within a few week of it doing so. Don't assume that changes will be substantial or inconsequential.

GW shipped a book and adjusted it post release - something they have done with every single codex.

GK didn't get a FAQ for a long time, and when they did, it was part of nerfs and had no "fixs" in it, unless a fix is removing stuff, they claimed GK should do as part how they play, and changing no point costs or rules. But you are right the changes were not inconsequential. When an army was described in game play as deep striking turn one with majority of its units, and then the rules get change so it can't do that and has to have 50% of its units on the table, the changes are huge.

GK are a very unfortunate case. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.

They do need a codex rework.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The evidence is in the quality of the rules being produced. Actual play testing can not be taking place if such power disparity exists. It is actually quite obvious without actually playing how most of these new rules in the supplements are not well internally balanced even. It would be super obvious at the point of actually playing. Like I think it's possible they actually print the rules before any actual play testing goes on. Then they ship the product to play testers to use and point out any issues they have so they can make a quick 2 week FAQ or errata. It's literally the only way such egregious errors in balance could make it to a printer. This way they aren't actually lying when they say play testing occurs. It's just happening at the wrong time.

That's not evidence, it's a belief. There is a difference that you clearly don't understand and it's resulted in you pretending to know more than you actually do.

You'd have to believe REALLY hard in the power of benefit of the doubt for something like Super Doctrines to be released in the first place.

Nah. I believe it's just the first ripple of what they plan for 8.5 though and Marines are going to pull away for a bit before the game catches up again just like when they were the first codex while everything else was in the indices.

It's a pretty hard to swallow pill when there is little to no guarantee this treatment will be distributed to all other armies. I'd bet there would be a completely different tune if this was a non-marine army that got several months of rules dominance without any indication that others will get buffed. Do you honestly think marine players would accept the same excuses if this was Tau for example? Still, I hope I'm wrong because "this is just the first wave" sounds infinitely preferable to any of the alternatives.
Edited for grammar

GW have outright stated that all of the Astartes books were written at the same time and released piecemeal over the course of 12+ months. Blood Angels, SW, GK, SM, all written before 8th even came out.

The new Astartes codex is the 1st actual new Marine book written into 8th edition, with all the things they learned in terms of making exciting and varied books.

This is why all Astartes were rubbish initially, and why this new book is such a big jump. This isn't an 8.5 codex or anything like that. I would actually like an 8.5 edition that consolidates all the matched play rule amendments into one book.

The new Astartes codex is the 1st actual new Marine book written into 8th edition, with all the things they learned in terms of making exciting and varied books.

You mean fandexes of gamebreaking quality.

You can't prove that statement.

Iron Hands had some overpowered combinations that have been amended. I see nothing wrong with Ultras, IF, RG, etc

Eldar have been the most powerful faction for two years in 8th and many more prior to that in 7th and 6th. Even if Astartes are the best there is nothing wrong with that.

Slipspace wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
All the evidence I've been shown points to there are "infrequent" at best play-testers, but nothing consistent. And the releases show it. The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

The releases indicate multiple groups of testers not in harmony. Why release a codex only to have it be completely invalidated by a different codex a month later?

They've outlined that they use both narrative and competetive playtesters on every book. Just because you have this conspiracy theory that they don't playtest the way you've decided is "correct" doesn't mean they're actually doing it wrong.

People who don't think games are playtested don't understand they're only seeing the little stuff that got through, not the real problems that would destroy the game if they were published.

Just because they say they playtest does not mean they actually play test. "Little stuff that got through"...You honestly telling me that I am better at finding broken combos than the people who Run ITC? I find these typically in the first read through of the book in a casual 15 minute review.

By that logic, just because people claim they don't play test doesn't mean they don't playtest. I'd take the word of the people involved in a given project over the word of some random person on the internet anyday to be quite honest.

Heck, James Hewitt flat out mentions playtesting in his free time in the past, and how they were actively employing third party playtesters when he left GW. But sure, they don't playtest and it's all smoke and mirrors.

The evidence is in the quality of the rules being produced. Actual play testing can not be taking place if such power disparity exists. It is actually quite obvious without actually playing how most of these new rules in the supplements are not well internally balanced even. It would be super obvious at the point of actually playing. Like I think it's possible they actually print the rules before any actual play testing goes on. Then they ship the product to play testers to use and point out any issues they have so they can make a quick 2 week FAQ or errata. It's literally the only way such egregious errors in balance could make it to a printer. This way they aren't actually lying when they say play testing occurs. It's just happening at the wrong time.

There is an alternative possibility: playtesting is happening, but it's being done poorly or the feedback isn't being listened to. Granted, that just shifts the problem from "no playtesting resulting in terrible rules" to "poorly implemented playtesting resulting in terrible rules" but I wouldn't be surprised if GW is doing p[playtesting but in some uniquely stupid way. For example, I heard a while ago that their approach is to send lists to the playtesters to test, not send them the full rules and points and allow them to build their own armies from them in an attempt to break things. Not sure how true that is, but it would explain a lot. An IH army with a single Executioner, a Devastator squad, three units of Tacticals and some Intercessors is powerful but nowhere near as good as a tournament-style IH army.

This game is mostly about list construction - if they are honestly sending lists and not letting players build their armies. The play testing is 100% worthless. It might actually be worse than not play testing at all. Plus a big part of balance is points. You don't even see the points if you aren't building a list. Where did you hear this? Is it reliable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't prove that statement.

Iron Hands had some overpowered combinations that have been amended. I see nothing wrong with Ultras, IF, RG, etc

Uhhh IF are also a big problem. +1 damage to vehicles is more absurd than iron hands super doctrine actually. They just didn't get an absurd relic like ironstone. Seriously the game can not survive if IF don't have their super doctrine nerfed.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The new Astartes codex is the 1st actual new Marine book written into 8th edition, with all the things they learned in terms of making exciting and varied books.

You mean fandexes of gamebreaking quality.

They weren't written by ITC, so not really?

How does anyone know the +1 damage is a big problem with Imperial Fists? How many games have you played? No one can categorically say anything.

Dark Eldar also have a +1 to wound and +1 damage in Psychic Awakening.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhhh IF are also a big problem. +1 damage to vehicles is more absurd than iron hands super doctrine actually. They just didn't get an absurd relic like ironstone. Seriously the game can not survive if IF don't have their super doctrine nerfed.

I mean in theory D7 Lascannons are pretty scary but for the most part it means things like autocannons will get a buff against tanks.

And it's not an ability that works against MCs or Battlesuits meaning it's more restricted on units that it can affect. Paired with a need to eventually move into the Tactical doctrine (no later than turn 3 typically) and it's not even a buff the army can hang onto for long periods of time.

And no Marine army makes for a good gunline, not even the IF.

Heck the best anti-tank Primaris unit I can cook up is heavy plasma incinerator Hellblasters on overcharge. Average from them is 6 dmg (vs T8. -5AP means anything with a save worse than a Land Raider doesn't get a save) but they have a 36" range and if they move you probably don't want to over charge which cuts their firepower down further, even with rerolls.

Edit: I should mention that is a 175 point unit which makes it more expensive than most tanks which is a fair trade for how much hurt it can dish out.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When GW was working with a monthly rather than a weekly release schedule, loads of broken stuff still got through testing.

After 20 years of publishing rules as a major part of their core business model, any rational person would expect GW to be far far better at writing them. Instead we get the same problems every edition, and almost every publication.

Agreed, trying to pin it on the release schedule is silly, particularly when releases are planned and executed over the space of a couple of years typically. Hell, even in earlier editions where we got only 1 or 2 codex releases a year there was mind bogglingly stupid stuff that got through like clockwork, and even with the errata the IH rules are still hilariously over the top and stupidly powerful

This is intentional rules bloat to drive sales, as we have seen GW do in the past. There's really no other explanation that passes muster.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When GW was working with a monthly rather than a weekly release schedule, loads of broken stuff still got through testing.

After 20 years of publishing rules as a major part of their core business model, any rational person would expect GW to be far far better at writing them. Instead we get the same problems every edition, and almost every publication.

Agreed, trying to pin it on the release schedule is silly, particularly when releases are planned and executed over the space of a couple of years typically. Hell, even in earlier editions where we got only 1 or 2 codex releases a year there was mind bogglingly stupid stuff that got through like clockwork, and even with the errata the IH rules are still hilariously over the top and stupidly powerful

This is intentional rules bloat to drive sales, as we have seen GW do in the past. There's really no other explanation that passes muster.

The IH airforce is really the only truly broken thing about IH and honestly is on par with that janky Eldar Air Force list.

I feel like the issue there is less that the IH themselves and more how flyers work making them too spammable. The whole detachment system just doesn't work as intended in matched play and needs a rework. It was a nice idea to make fluffy armies functionally by changing requirements to play, but ultimately it's abused and the CP generation being tied to list creation is still a problem that needs correcting.

 Ishagu wrote:
How does anyone know the +1 damage is a big problem with Imperial Fists? How many games have you played? No one can categorically say anything.

Dark Eldar also have a +1 to wound and +1 damage in Psychic Awakening.

DE get +1 damage on poison weapons on a 6...it's garbage - to get that they would have to give up flayed skull or blackheart traits which are way better. +1 to would? I don't recal it but it must be for witches or something and they don't shoot well.

Playing the game is not required here to know +1 damage is broken as a blanket buff. It is quite literally better than a gman buff for heavy bolters (or any high ROF weapon) against vehicles without spending 400 points for it (remember everyone complaining about that? AND WE WERE PAYING 400 for it). It's kind of like getting to shoot twice with your who army against vehicles if you build into it. Simple math shows you a 10 point HB out performs a 25 lascannon against vehicles and we already know it out performs against infantry. It's too much. Anyone with common sense in a review would have literally started laughing at the writer of such a rule because they would have thought they were joking. "HAHA double damage with the whole army vs vehicles!!!" "Good one Timmy!" . It is clear - reviews don't actually take place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhhh IF are also a big problem. +1 damage to vehicles is more absurd than iron hands super doctrine actually. They just didn't get an absurd relic like ironstone. Seriously the game can not survive if IF don't have their super doctrine nerfed.

I mean in theory D7 Lascannons are pretty scary but for the most part it means things like autocannons will get a buff against tanks.

And it's not an ability that works against MCs or Battlesuits meaning it's more restricted on units that it can affect. Paired with a need to eventually move into the Tactical doctrine (no later than turn 3 typically) and it's not even a buff the army can hang onto for long periods of time.

And no Marine army makes for a good gunline, not even the IF.

Heck the best anti-tank Primaris unit I can cook up is heavy plasma incinerator Hellblasters on overcharge. Average from them is 6 dmg (vs T8. -5AP means anything with a save worse than a Land Raider doesn't get a save) but they have a 36" range and if they move you probably don't want to over charge which cuts their firepower down further, even with rerolls.

Edit: I should mention that is a 175 point unit which makes it more expensive than most tanks which is a fair trade for how much hurt it can dish out.

Why would you ever need to go into tactical doctrine...you are spamming heavy weapons in this build. Even your troops can have heavies (though maybe they will have some bolters - AP doesn't really mater vs chaff much anyways) Like over half the armies in the game use a lot of vehicals and HB/AC type weapons are already pretty close to LC vs units that have high invune saves. High ROF is also superior vs tau because of drone spam. It's already superior to LC againt monsters with 4++ saves. Plus - It will literally force every space marine army to play as CF after the iron hands ironstone nerf. Marines pretty much have to play with vehicals in order to get effective anti tank. So do most the imperium of man. Plus 1 army invalidating an entire type of unit is dumb enough on it's own.

And its not like the weapons are bad against Tau either even if it doesnt deal double damage due to them churning through shield drones faster just due to number of ap 2 ignore cover shots. Not that many other monsters being played in the meta from what I know.

The extra wounds not working on infantry isnt bad since no marine army will have more anti infantry dakka then IF anyway since they lose nothing by loading up on it. Its a hard choice/balance for other chapters but not IF. Just load up on the heavy str 5+ ap2+ ignore cover dakka and kill everything.

The only real counter that would see a ton of play, matters a lot if a list is 15% or 1% of the meta, would be IH lists whit the relic but since they nerfed that IF wont have much of a problem with IH vehicles. Sure there is one he cant kill easily but the rest will die as flies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is intentional rules bloat to drive sales, as we have seen GW do in the past. There's really no other explanation that passes muster.

Then why are Iron Hands so totally inconsistent with UM, RG, and WS? Why are the PA updates for Eldar not overwhelmingly crushing like IH?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
When GW was working with a monthly rather than a weekly release schedule, loads of broken stuff still got through testing.

After 20 years of publishing rules as a major part of their core business model, any rational person would expect GW to be far far better at writing them. Instead we get the same problems every edition, and almost every publication.

Agreed, trying to pin it on the release schedule is silly, particularly when releases are planned and executed over the space of a couple of years typically. Hell, even in earlier editions where we got only 1 or 2 codex releases a year there was mind bogglingly stupid stuff that got through like clockwork, and even with the errata the IH rules are still hilariously over the top and stupidly powerful

This is intentional rules bloat to drive sales, as we have seen GW do in the past. There's really no other explanation that passes muster.

The IH airforce is really the only truly broken thing about IH and honestly is on par with that janky Eldar Air Force list.

I feel like the issue there is less that the IH themselves and more how flyers work making them too spammable. The whole detachment system just doesn't work as intended in matched play and needs a rework. It was a nice idea to make fluffy armies functionally by changing requirements to play, but ultimately it's abused and the CP generation being tied to list creation is still a problem that needs correcting.

I'd agree that flyers and detachments definitely need reworking. That said, I still think the getting a half dozen faction traits and treating it as one is a wee bit excessive. Being able to Overwatch like Tau or Defensive Gunners IG, double damage table characteristics like Iyanden and Valhallans, reroll 1's like Cadians, ignore move and shoot penalties like Tallarn, with 6+++ on top of the various SM Doctrines and abilities, is a wee bit much

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is intentional rules bloat to drive sales, as we have seen GW do in the past. There's really no other explanation that passes muster.

Then why are Iron Hands so totally inconsistent with UM, RG, and WS? Why are the PA updates for Eldar not overwhelmingly crushing like IH?

Who knows, it's not like GW are consistent about anything, but a lot of these power issues are obvious at a passing glance to even super casual readings (as has often been the case in the past too) that makes it hard to see as anything but intentional on at least some level.

For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.

It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Why would you ever need to go into tactical doctrine...you are spamming heavy weapons in this build. Even your troops can have heavies (though maybe they will have some bolters - AP doesn't really mater vs chaff much anyways) Like over half the armies in the game use a lot of vehicals and HB/AC type weapons are already pretty close to LC vs units that have high invune saves. High ROF is also superior vs tau because of drone spam. It's already superior to LC againt monsters with 4++ saves. Plus - It will literally force every space marine army to play as CF after the iron hands ironstone nerf. Marines pretty much have to play with vehicals in order to get effective anti tank. So do most the imperium of man. Plus 1 army invalidating an entire type of unit is dumb enough on it's own.

Why would you stay in the devastator doctrine when your unique bonus only works on VEHICLE or BUILDING units? Even so, you have more rapid fire bolters in any given list than you can evem take heavy weapons, so it makes more sense to switch to buff those than it does to sit in the heavy doctrine and marginally increase your AP value against troop units.

You have a very skewed perspective of how Marines work, and should work, I can get my head around. IF get buffs for every doctrine (some are only in relics, but the point stands), playing a static army that only uses one doctrine and doesn't between them (or even going forward and back as needed) seems rather silly.

Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.

You haven't used the IF supplement yet, you can't call it over-powered. Will it be strong? Yes, and it should be.

 Ishagu wrote:
Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.

No one on the internet actually plays games. [/s]

Seriosuly though, IF have small buffs spread pver every doctrine in a manner similar to the UM, only they do it through hitting harder instead of hitting better. That said, IF don't have much in the way of easy defensive buffs, and almost all of their good strats cost 2CP a pop.

Basically they hit a bit harder, but die just like Marines. Which fits their lore pretty well actually.

 Ishagu wrote:
For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.

It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.

The problem is obviously the army rules. Not the units or detachments.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.

It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.

The problem is obviously the army rules. Not the units or detachments.

No, it's arguably detachment issue. It's why Eldar and Dark Eldar are spamming flyers as well. This isn't just an Astartes problem.

I always find that the people who worry the most and make a big deal out of things are the ones who don't actually play that many games. You can't have played many or any games with or against the IF supplement?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.

No one on the interner actually plays games. [/s]

That is very condescending to say to be honest. So everyone who has problems with w40k, isn't playing the game ? What else, they are all children, don't know what the game is REALLY about, and don't spend 99% of their time painting and writing lore for each model in their army. While everyone who does have fun in 8th ed, is not only having fun, but is also a better kind of human, or did I miss something?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.

No one on the interner actually plays games. [/s]

I play quite a bit...It's okay...I'll relax...It's going to be the exact same as iron hands domination though. The only way to advance in tournament is going to be by not including any vehicles. Plus IF will likely still table you because they kill infantry with ease too.