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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ded8a1f1.pdf
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/d4999d16.pdf

'Page 179 – Seismic Devastation
Change the last sentence of this Stratagem to read:
‘Each time you roll an unmodified wound roll of a 6
for an attack made by that unit that targets an enemy
Vehicle that phase, that attack inflicts a mortal
wound in addition to its normal damage.’


well that one was nice while it lasted, hope no one spent a fortune on centurions.


also this is a big one:

'Since releasing Codex Supplement: Salamanders it has
become apparent that the Self Sacrifice Stratagem can
be used in ways that we had not intended – essentially
making a whole army (or at least a great portion of
it) untargetable for a turn. Though the Stratagem
in question is being played ‘rules as written’, on this
occasion it is clearly not something we ever intended.
The intention of the Stratagem was to enable a squad
of Salamanders to bravely protect an ally from harm
by using their own bodies as shields – it was not meant
to be used to make it so no shots could be fired at your
army at all. As a result, we felt it was important to rectify
that Stratagem as part of this errata, rather than wait for
the next online balance changes. This is not something
we do lightly, but given the nature of the feedback, is
something we feel is important.
This is a genuine error on our part, and as such it is
something we wish to correct as soon as possible. As we
are having to make a change of this nature, we are also
taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle
Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance
update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted
are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal
wounds than were ever intended. This change therefore
limits the total number of mortal wounds that this
Stratagem can inflict so that it is more in line with the
mortal wound output of similarly costed Stratagems.'

Seismic Devastation is still amazing to be fair. I'm surprised they let IF keep it at all.

Nice to see the quick response to the Salamanders BS.

Edit: Also nice to see that even GW know how unimportant buildings are since they forgot to add "And Buildings" into the new wording.

Its a pretty reactionary trying to cover all bases response, they could just copy and pasted the new Iron Warrior's cannon fodder strat and changed chaos cultists to '5 strong inf unit' and it'd done the trick

Though the Stratagem
in question is being played ‘rules as written’, on this
occasion it is clearly not something we ever intended.

I really don't know how to parse that 'clearly' and the later 'This is a genuine error on our part.' If you're going to admit to fething up, just go with that. Don't yammer on about 'intentions.'

Q: If I use the Strength of the Primarch Stratagem to affect a model equipped with the Drake-smiter Relic, what is the Damage characteristic of this weapon if I make an unmodified wound roll of 6?
A: The Damage characteristic would be 9.

I hate that this is fine as the 'intended' output. Lucky one-shots of most characters seems out of place in this system.

Literally nothing was changed with seismic devastation because non imperial fists couldn’t even take the detachment to begin with. The codex says replace keywords in units, stratagems and psychic powers with the successor name nothing about specialist detachments.

 Kirasu wrote:
Literally nothing was changed with seismic devastation because non imperial fists couldn’t even take the detachment to begin with. The codex says replace keywords in units, stratagems and psychic powers with the successor name nothing about specialist detachments.

They changed it from 6+ to unmodified 6. Stops it stacking with tank hunters/Chaplain + to wound etc.

Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

That should tell you all you need to know about the quality of GW's "playtesting" then, right?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying it clearly was a loophole and that everyone knew it was one. I wouldn't blame anyone using that in a competitive setting though, which is why I don't play competitively.

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying it clearly was a loophole and that everyone knew it was one. I wouldn't blame anyone using that in a competitive setting though, which is why I don't play competitively.

It could be even be used accidentally. That's not even a competitive vs casual mindset, it is poor writing period.

I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Shivan Reaper wrote:
I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Maybe none of their playtesters had flamer agressors? I mean they where basicly trash before this supplement. Although IMHO play testers should absolutely be proxying and trying multiple combinations

BrianDavion wrote:

Shivan Reaper wrote:
I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Maybe none of their playtesters had flamer agressors? I mean they where basicly trash before this supplement. Although IMHO play testers should absolutely be proxying and trying multiple combinations

Well that's why, despite what some want to believe, a good chunk of playtesting actually involves mathhammer. You sit down, a make a list of everything, and say, OK, how does new <strat/rule/whatever> affect this? And you go through list for every new thing being introduced by a book/supplement/whatever.

Playing a few games with what the playtest groups happen to have on hand isn't playtesting. Its screwing around wasting time. Proper testing is done systematically, and punctuated by setting up scenarios to see how corner cases work out.

Here's a corner case for you to playtest then:
Does new rule/unit work roughly how it's depicted in the narrative?

Can't mathhammer that one out.

Voss wrote:

Though the Stratagem
in question is being played ‘rules as written’, on this
occasion it is clearly not something we ever intended.

I really don't know how to parse that 'clearly' and the later 'This is a genuine error on our part.' If you're going to admit to fething up, just go with that. Don't yammer on about 'intentions.'

They literally spell out what their intention was, and the error was writing wording that didn’t match the RAW to their intent. Not hard to reconcile given it’s spelt out... no?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Voss wrote:

Though the Stratagem
in question is being played ‘rules as written’, on this
occasion it is clearly not something we ever intended.

I really don't know how to parse that 'clearly' and the later 'This is a genuine error on our part.' If you're going to admit to fething up, just go with that. Don't yammer on about 'intentions.'

They literally spell out what their intention was, and the error was writing wording that didn’t match the RAW to their intent. Not hard to reconcile given it’s spelt out... no?

No, its very hard.

One part is apology for screwing up, which is the correct approach to this situation.

The other is a not-so-veiled accusation that they have to change it because people are using it wrong, ie 'as written,' rather than what was 'clearly' intended... whatever that was.

You can't have it both ways.

BroodSpawn wrote:Here's a corner case for you to playtest then:
Does new rule/unit work roughly how it's depicted in the narrative?

Can't mathhammer that one out.

Uh... that's easy. Nothing in the game works as it does in the narrative. That's kind of a given. No member of Gaunt's Ghost's is soloing a Chaos Helbrute with a single grenade or sniper rifle, no marine is killing 100 dudemans alone, no character is getting blown up by 5 lascannons to the face the moment the battle whistle blows. Fluff != rules.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Here's a corner case for you to playtest then:
Does new rule/unit work roughly how it's depicted in the narrative?

Can't mathhammer that one out.

Sicarius and a handful of Marines cannot outfight thousands of Orks according to the rules.

Guess they need a buff!

Voss wrote:

Uh... that's easy. Nothing in the game works as it does in the narrative. That's kind of a given. No member of Gaunt's Ghost's is soloing a Chaos Helbrute with a single grenade or sniper rifle, no marine is killing 100 dudemans alone, no character is getting blown up by 5 lascannons to the face the moment the battle whistle blows. Fluff != rules.

And that's part of the problem with those that peddle the math-hammer focused approach to design and testing. You look at it in such arbitrary and frankly narrow minded terms. Rules are not divorced from the narrative, but hey you're not actually answering the question posed by going for some of the more extreme narrative examples there. That's an excuse to ignore anything narrative in a rule.
So with regards to the playtesting 'only the corner cases' don't you then miss something that could be obvious because you've decided to ignore looking for it as it's not edge-enough to justify testing? Also note that you can't possibly test for everything, but I'm assuming you know that when stating you test in a systematic manner.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Sicarius and a handful of Marines cannot outfight thousands of Orks according to the rules.

Guess they need a buff!

Your words not mine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Cool, so no point in Salamanders again outside gimmicky builds. Fun while it lasted to have e a whole army that couldn't be shot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying they didn't expect anyone to use Self Sacrifice like that is fething asinine. There's simply NO point where a playtester didn't use that on a Character and maybe think "this could be a bad idea".

Using it on a character and then hiding that character was obviously not intended, I can totally understand that. But they didn't just remove that, they removed about 90% of the utility as well, without changing the cost.

It's an obvious loophole that was actually caught on leaks of the Stratagem coming out. From newer players at that.

I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying it clearly was a loophole and that everyone knew it was one. I wouldn't blame anyone using that in a competitive setting though, which is why I don't play competitively.

It could be even be used accidentally. That's not even a competitive vs casual mindset, it is poor writing period.

In a casual game you'd go "hm. This is called self sacrifice. Now the HQ I accidentally used it on is not sacrificing themself and the other guy can't shoot ANYTHING due to that. Hey, let me retarget the strat or even refund it, this doesn't seem fair or fun at all".

You usually wouldn't do that in a competitive setting.

Voss wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Voss wrote:

Though the Stratagem
in question is being played ‘rules as written’, on this
occasion it is clearly not something we ever intended.

I really don't know how to parse that 'clearly' and the later 'This is a genuine error on our part.' If you're going to admit to fething up, just go with that. Don't yammer on about 'intentions.'

They literally spell out what their intention was, and the error was writing wording that didn’t match the RAW to their intent. Not hard to reconcile given it’s spelt out... no?

No, its very hard.

One part is apology for screwing up, which is the correct approach to this situation.

The other is a not-so-veiled accusation that they have to change it because people are using it wrong, ie 'as written,' rather than what was 'clearly' intended... whatever that was.

You can't have it both ways.

Except you can. Because the apology is for not writing rules that matched their intent, and their intent is then spelt out so you can see their logic. The word ‘clearly’ is something that shouldn’t be in there, it’s like an email “reminding” you of something when telling you the info for the first time. This poor phrasing choice aside, it reads just fine. I think you’re bringing a little too much emotion/soapboxing to reading this. It seems fairly clear to me that they didn’t intend to provide a way to make an unshootable army... and now it’s patched so you can’t. Problem solved. Let’s all I’ve on with our day.

Totally fair Salamander nerfs. My only complaint is putting the hammer damage into an faq that declares 3x2x2=9 rather than an errata that changed it to +3 damage so the math actually works out to what they want.

The fact they had to errata that, and no one caught on or even noticed how it was easily abused is always going to be an issue. This isn't a basement game of DnD, this is a very large company who does this for a job, an industry leader in the field , and they can't see very easy glaring, stare you in the face snafus and they aren't even caught in proof reading or editing.

It's not the end of the world but come on, how many times does this large company full of people with decades of game making experience need everyone to " not bully " them because they are so bad at what they do ?

If it was one case out of thousands, I'd be all for just turning the other cheek. They do this kind of stuff all the time. As well, they didn't just say, " Hey, we messed up, our bad. " They instead sort of slide in their they couldn't have seen how it would be used, as written. That is terrible. Furthermore they even state they " didn't want " to change it right now, but because of Feedback, they feel they must. So if it was up to them, they'd leave it in, despite it being totally wrong in how they wished it to work.

Just goes into case after case of not doing their job correct for the type of product and company they claim to be, a high quality one.

That is always a problem and shouldn't get pushed under the rug for a millionth time.

 AduroT wrote:
Totally fair Salamander nerfs. My only complaint is putting the hammer damage into an faq that declares 3x2x2=9 rather than an errata that changed it to +3 damage so the math actually works out to what they want.

I agree that the answer could - and should, via errata - be made clearer.

I think what they're aiming for is if there are two effects which would double your damage, you don't double it, and then double it again, but you treble it instead. Essentially, each of the "double" effects can be viewed as "do your damage again", rather than a mathematical doubling, if you follow me.

Voss wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Shivan Reaper wrote:
I can't believe they didn't anticipate people using fires of battle on aggressors. That was literally the first thought I had when seeing the stratagem.

Maybe none of their playtesters had flamer agressors? I mean they where basicly trash before this supplement. Although IMHO play testers should absolutely be proxying and trying multiple combinations

Well that's why, despite what some want to believe, a good chunk of playtesting actually involves mathhammer. You sit down, a make a list of everything, and say, OK, how does new <strat/rule/whatever> affect this? And you go through list for every new thing being introduced by a book/supplement/whatever.

Playing a few games with what the playtest groups happen to have on hand isn't playtesting. Its screwing around wasting time. Proper testing is done systematically, and punctuated by setting up scenarios to see how corner cases work out.

Then again from sound of it looks like playtesters are literally just given armies to play and give opinion. What if none of the lists had flame aggressors? Or they weren't given that stratagem...

GW playtesting!=usual playtesting.

From my years of hearing how the studio works i think the GW design process has historically been:

likes of jes goodwin come up with cool concepts, themes, a narrative focused and aesthetic approach to a new army / refresh.
the miniature designers follow this brief if new models are needed
finally the rules writers encapsulate both those concepts (they have too) while also under some corp pressure to make rules that sell.

I doubt hardcore math hammer comes up much when compared to the 'rule of cool', they are selling an idea, a narrative and an aesthetic first whilst creating that 'cool new rules buzz'.

Recently you could argue GW are (perhaps not consciously intentional) are now coming up with rules to meet the brief, fluffy, part of the narrative and juicy on the tabletop to keep everyone (corp and players) happy to make a release a success but on the last point going too far and getting away with it because they can just FAQ the backlash later. It's win win and on the face of it is anti consumer and shady.

rules have never been GW's USP

It just gets old to hear " Whoops, we made an oopsie " again.

Further adding, how was it so hard to imagine how much damage flame aggressors could do with strats in the book ? Just spit balling it we came to the conclusion within moments it would be sick. Me and my usual buddies aren't power gamers so when we can easily see the problem I don't know how it slipped under the radar.

It's all mind bottling, you know like when your thoughts get all wrapped around and dropped into a bottle ?

at least GW corrects their opsies now, so it's progress of a sort :/

BrianDavion wrote:
at least GW corrects their opsies now, so it's progress of a sort :/

Yeah, but the big oopsies (e.g. Point costs) they only fix behind a paywall
So learning process on how to nickle and dime even more.