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, if ITC was the way to play in our group, I wouldn't be buying the book either - and there really is no reason to buy it just for the points.

I bought the original, and kind of regretted it. As a consequence, I missed out 18.

In the end, the scenarios in 18 turned out to be fantastic, so I decided to bite the bullet and buy 19.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
One word...Battlescribe

That only gives you the points from the Munitorum Field Manual. If you dont want the new missions and fortification rules then go for it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I buy the CA's because I like to go to tournaments, and they usually require you to have the current rules.

We've found a use for tournaments at last - social pressure to people to not be pirates.

I sat out on the other CA as I could copy what few point changes were relevant off my friend's copy. But now that it has all points for every unit and wargear option I decided to get it. It's nice to have all points in one place and I can make my list as God intended again, lurking over my armybook without having to flip constantly back and forth between the datasheet and the points.
Furthermore I'm actually interested in Maelstrom games now that they seem less beholden to pure randomness, so having the rules for that is nice too.

I have not bought a 8th edition book since the blood Angel's codex as I just download them, if they cannot be bothered to proof read there books or not spread gak over half a dozen separate books for no reason other than a quick buck I am not going to reward them for this. Besides I bought the grey knights 8th codex and after that drek still bought a couple more so I am probably due some compensation.

So the product's rubbish but you still want it enough to steal it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
so I am probably due some compensation.

Yeah, there are some features on my car that dont work well so I guess I'll steal my next one

 Brother Castor wrote:
So the product's rubbish but you still want it enough to steal it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
so I am probably due some compensation.

Yeah, there are some features on my car that dont work well so I guess I'll steal my next one

Kind of need it since its a paid for balance patch to fix THEIR mistake. Its not a DLC.

Only GW have people defending a company for charging money for bug fixes. EA wish they had as gullible of a costumee base. Imagine how much they would earn for charging only 10$ for a day 1 patch.

30$ for 1-2 pages of mostly copy pasted numbers isnt far off being called a scam or exhortion.

Bad balance is not a bug.

Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

I would infer the Acolytes are supposed to be 5 pts., but the 25 bikers totally sounds like GW.

Anyways, I’m not one to buy these books, and I certainly wish GW would take more care with proofreading, but I don’t think releasing the book is a mistake - just something that doesn’t interest me and therefore I won’t buy. If someone else sees value in its content, I’m not going to call them sheep for going out and buying it. But I will laugh at someone who grumbles against it, then goes out and buys it anyway.

I don't think anyone has argued the book is a mistake, just the utter lack of editing or QA on it.

Now, whether it should be a book in the first place instead of a free PDF, that's another discussion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

Why does one matter and the other doesn't?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

It's also a typo that Infantry Squads are 4 points. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to. It doesn't matter.

Why does one matter and the other doesn't?

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but not on this. Common sense is a pretty good indicator in an extreme situation like this. It's overwhelmingly obvious that mistakes are made sometimes. You are smart enough to know that GW did not intend for 55point acolytes. Now go ahead and type up your reply calling out the relativity of common sense and how, by the rules, do you even define what common sense is. I am sure someone will care, but it won't be me.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

Neither matters. It's just extremely obvious to anybody willing to apply a modicum of common sense that one of them is a typo.

Are you like this in real life? If so, maybe you should give the ultra-pedantry a rest – I can't imagine that people, particularly anyone you're playing a game with, find your company terribly enjoyable.

I am glad we both agree that the Infantry Squad points are a typo.

Seriously, you can't pick and choose. It's either all ok to dismiss as "typos" or none of it is.

Can you provide any argument other than special pleading as to why one is "obviously" a typo and one isn't?

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, but not on this. Common sense is a pretty good indicator in an extreme situation like this. It's overwhelmingly obvious that mistakes are made sometimes. You are smart enough to know that GW did not intend for 55point acolytes. Now go ahead and type up your reply calling out the relativity of common sense and how, by the rules, do you even define what common sense is. I am sure someone will care, but it won't be me.

You could easily just as argue that GW did not "intend" for re-rolls to be applied before modifiers, nor did they "intend" for negative hit modifiers to stack and make a unit unhitable, nor did they intend for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapon, but all are true and confirmed as intentional.

The sad truth is that reductio ad absurdum cannot

When both the error and the intended value are this obvious, there is no reason to just fix it.

In fact, if you argue that acolytes should be played as costing 55 points, you are doing this for no other purpose than intentionally trying to ruin the game for your opponent.

 Jidmah wrote:
When both the error and the intended value are this obvious, there is no reason to just fix it.

In fact, if you argue that acolytes should be played as costing 55 points, you are doing this for no other purpose than intentionally trying to ruin the game for your opponent.

Why? They are following the rules. By definition it's the opponent arguing to be allowed to break the rules is the one trying to ruin the game.

Because that's how the real world works.

If you insist on being a brainless text parser instead of a thinking human being, people will simply not play you.

 Nazrak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

So you're ok with 55ppm Acolytes and 25 model Deathwatch Bikers?

Given that these are both incredibly obviously typos to anyone with even a modicum of common sense, then I really can't bring myself to give a gak about that. Mistakes happen. Sure, it's a bit goofy but it really doesn't affect anyone's ability to play the game.

Ok, pretend I'm a new (or just a returning to 40k player) CSM or DW player right now, prior to any coming errata.
I'm set up with the codex & CA 2019 by the people at my local shop - neither of wich are abreast of all the minutia (like for ex the exact current pt costs of everything in the game) that makes up an edition of the game. While they both know how to play 40k in general, they have NO IDEA of the errors(?) this book contains. They know what their rep tells them about why a customer would want this book - new options, more missions, current pts values. "Oh, OK. Sounds like we need x of them on the next order."

As a CSM player? Yeah, I'll probably wonder about the HUGE pts change in the cultists.
But as a DW player? I see in my codex that bikers are 25 pts. I see in CA19 that they're 25 pts. What modicum of common sense would lead me to believe this is an error?

Probably the fact, that you don't have 25 bike models in your army?

 Jidmah wrote:
Because that's how the real world works.

If you insist on being a brainless text parser instead of a thinking human being, people will simply not play you.

Going to hazard a wild guess that this is *exactly why* Bcb has so much time to spend being performatively confused on the Internet, tbh.

ccs wrote:

But as a DW player? I see in my codex that bikers are 25 pts. I see in CA19 that they're 25 pts. What modicum of common sense would lead me to believe this is an error?

They aren't priced at 25, the unit size is 25 bikers in Veteran squads. It's obviously* a case where the old points were accidentally put into the Unit Size column, but a literal reading says each and every Veteran squad needs exactly 25 bikers, no more or less.

*Unless you're BCB of course.

 Nazrak wrote:
Love how people are extrapolating from a poll on this forum, famously full of some of the most hardcore complainers about 40K, that CA is somehow a misstep by GW.

It kinda was? Changing to a once per year PRINTED balance patch that costs money, but is full of blatant errors is a misstep.

Imagine if the Munitorum Field Manual was a free online PDF. Release the CA missions and charge for all the bonus content and sell a nice "Munitorum Field Handle" which is a glorified notebook that you can slide in and out the pages from the pdf. Typo? print a new page and replace the old bad one. Big Tournament coming up? Print a fresh copy of everything to sleeve in. GW can even milk whales by creating a warlord edition with Purity Seal bookmarks etc.

Piracy has been, and always will be a service issue. 55pt Acolytes and 25 bike DW bikers are clear evidence that the service sucks.

If Chapter Approved still had interesting additions to the game that don't get a proper codex or supplement, like Kroot Mercenaries or 40K in 40 Minutes like in the good old days, and not just points updates that are free anyway or missions that aren't worth a dime , I'd buy it.

There are many forces that need rules, not just Kroot. Tau Stealth-themed armies for example. Renegades? Cool flavourful armies that get shafted by GW's increasingly formulaic codices.

All subfactions are just reduced to a paragraph of miniscule effect and people are just choosing whichever one's least trash anyway, despite being clearly modelled as a different subfaction, and it makes me want to vomit.

And until CA is used as a tool for good and not evil I'll avoid everything about it.