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.

Any Ork changes?

Voss wrote:
They can't take them. One of the flaws of this new system (if it isn't listed its free) is it doesn't account for actual access- everyone has to do all the cross-referencing, no matter how deep a rabbit hole that is.

So, in this case, to the datasheets:

Warbikers have no weapon options.
Nobs do, and the datasheet tells you they can replace their weapons with items from the nob weapon list,
So you have to jump to page 83, but here you find the footnote that states that kombi weapons can't be taken by Nobs or Boss Nobs on warbikes.

In this case, the weapons aren't listed, not because they're free, but because they aren't available as options. But you have to go through two different documents in three different places to find that out.

It's funny, 5th edition had excellent system with all options being plainly shown, no flipping, options and points tailored to units. You'd think after four editions of first bringing back stupid useless mass flipping garbage that was the armoury system, then trying weird 5th/8th crossover, GW would finally go back to the best point/balance system they ever had, but nooo, that would be too easy

I still miss the alternative troops system from 5th (which is now in full swing in AoS, why the hell it's not back in 40K, did it kick puppy of 40K rule writer?) as well as individually balanced options (because it totally makes sense power fist costs the same on A1 sarge as well as A6 chapter master, eh?), but it was back when GW had actually competent rule writer. Too bad a bunch of useless idiots whined him out of company because they didn't like a single line of fluff he wrote (without even checking if he was actually fluff writer in that book...)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And well what a surprise the typos people decided to make molehills to die on did turn out to be typos! Shocking. Guess BCB will have to rip all the Reaper Chaincannons off his Termies now, sad times.

I know, right. It's almost as if simple common sense solved 99% of these ""issues"" unless someone was trying to reach or troll really hard. Imagine that

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, tell me, how much does a Sword Brother cost in a Black Templars Crusader Squad?

15 points. You're welcome

 Irbis wrote:

It's funny, 5th edition had excellent system with all options being plainly shown, no flipping, options and points tailored to units. You'd think after four editions of first bringing back stupid useless mass flipping garbage that was the armoury system, then trying weird 5th/8th crossover, GW would finally go back to the best point/balance system they ever had, but nooo, that would be too easy

It seems reasonably clear that the current layout of points is as a result of 8th edition initially being designed without points, like AoS at launch, but being altered well into development when AoS released.

That now GW can sell everyone yet another book each year as a result is just a happy accident.

I honestly prefer the current layout.
Also, the MFM would be a mess if it had to patch the old layout.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Dark Eldar Reavers are back at 20 points.

And Hellions stayed 17... ffs GW.

The Dark Eldar codex and the Field Manual are released close enough together that it is plausible they know the final point costs from the book. So maybe they are 20 and 17 now because they will be worth those points in 4 weeks.

An Archon may dream.

FAQs are to fix things now, now to fix things for a future release.

Alas GW's stance seems to be point costs are also for future references. See how either imperium played with overcosted weapons long time because GW used point cost for future stats or GW forgot to adjust points when weapons got even twice as good as before if not more.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
It also looks like the Power Level document was also updated today, but I definitely have no idea what changed there.

If you have the old PDF saved, slap the old and new into https://draftable.com/compare

Unfortunately I hadn't downloaded it, was merely viewing it in a tab which I foolishly closed.

Spoletta wrote:
Also, the MFM would be a mess if it had to patch the old layout.

Y'see, the real solution would be for GW to balance points on release such that it wasn't necessary to alter them every year...

How many years of play-testing do you think will be needed to get everything perfect at release?

 alextroy wrote:
How many years of play-testing do you think will be needed to get everything perfect at release?

No-one is asking for perfection, we're asking for basic proofreading. After 46 years you'd think they'd have at least THAT nailed down.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Their power weapons remain the same zero cost as their chainaxes, though, meaning all the people who converted a whole squad with chainaxes to minimise the squad's cost remain screwed. But I think we've established by now that "feth the converters" is deliberate GW policy.

As someone who converted all of my guys to have Chain Axes (buying the Forge World arms, no less!), my irritation is hard to put into words. They could have at least made Chain Axes a sidegrade, or even remove a few points.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No-one is asking for perfection, we're asking for basic proofreading. After 46 years you'd think they'd have at least THAT nailed down.

They drink a very nice proof before reading.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Their power weapons remain the same zero cost as their chainaxes, though, meaning all the people who converted a whole squad with chainaxes to minimise the squad's cost remain screwed. But I think we've established by now that "feth the converters" is deliberate GW policy.

As someone who converted all of my guys to have Chain Axes (buying the Forge World arms, no less!), my irritation is hard to put into words. They could have at least made Chain Axes a sidegrade, or even remove a few points.

Just say they are Power Chain Axes

Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Also, the MFM would be a mess if it had to patch the old layout.

Y'see, the real solution would be for GW to balance points on release such that it wasn't necessary to alter them every year...

BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
How many years of play-testing do you think will be needed to get everything perfect at release?

No-one is asking for perfection, we're asking for basic proofreading. After 46 years you'd think they'd have at least THAT nailed down.

You aren’t, but Lord Damocles seems to be.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Their power weapons remain the same zero cost as their chainaxes, though, meaning all the people who converted a whole squad with chainaxes to minimise the squad's cost remain screwed. But I think we've established by now that "feth the converters" is deliberate GW policy.

As someone who converted all of my guys to have Chain Axes (buying the Forge World arms, no less!), my irritation is hard to put into words. They could have at least made Chain Axes a sidegrade, or even remove a few points.

Just say they are Power Chain Axes

I 100% second this. If anybody gives you guff just brush the teeth of the weapons in some blue and white and call it a power field.

 alextroy wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Also, the MFM would be a mess if it had to patch the old layout.

Y'see, the real solution would be for GW to balance points on release such that it wasn't necessary to alter them every year...

BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
How many years of play-testing do you think will be needed to get everything perfect at release?

No-one is asking for perfection, we're asking for basic proofreading. After 46 years you'd think they'd have at least THAT nailed down.

You aren’t, but Lord Damocles seems to be.

You are incorrect.

Why in the world would Inquisition Acolytes go UP in points? They're guardsmen with 2 attacks.

It's really strange that they've also added quite a few weapon options to Inquisotors and Acolytes (while removing needlers, for some reason). It's a welcome change (aside from the points), and it makes me wonder if an update is coming some time in the near future.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It seems reasonably clear that the current layout of points is as a result of 8th edition initially being designed without points, like AoS at launch, but being altered well into development when AoS released.

That now GW can sell everyone yet another book each year as a result is just a happy accident.

Obviously

 Irbis wrote:

It's funny, 5th edition had excellent system with all options being plainly shown, no flipping, options and points tailored to units. You'd think after four editions of first bringing back stupid useless mass flipping garbage that was the armoury system, then trying weird 5th/8th crossover, GW would finally go back to the best point/balance system they ever had, but nooo, that would be too easy

I still miss the alternative troops system from 5th (which is now in full swing in AoS, why the hell it's not back in 40K, did it kick puppy of 40K rule writer?) as well as individually balanced options (because it totally makes sense power fist costs the same on A1 sarge as well as A6 chapter master, eh?), but it was back when GW had actually competent rule writer. Too bad a bunch of useless idiots whined him out of company because they didn't like a single line of fluff he wrote (without even checking if he was actually fluff writer in that book...)

5th edition codex design was horrible, with unique rules and equipment being written in the lore section of the codex, general equipment having their own section and the datasheets missing both the unique rules and equipment rules.

And of course, 5th edition books never received any update regarding point costs, and their rules were so badly written Pyrovores accidentally became nukes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just say they are Power Chain Axes

There is even official precedent for this. Chaos Terminators had the option for chainaxes in 2nd edition, but lost it in 3rd. At the time, GW explicitly told CSM players to count their Terminators' chainaxes as power axes.

... I feel old now...

Arson Fire wrote:
Here's a link to a convenient comparison of the old and new documents.
https://draftable.com/compare/upyBgmtCMpWH

That was super handy, thanks a lot for that link.

Sadly, they still managed to have a document riddled with errors. The very first change in the document was to remove Multi-Melta cost from SOB Dominions... while leaving the cost for the non-options of Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers

 alextroy wrote:
Sadly, they still managed to have a document riddled with errors. The very first change in the document was to remove Multi-Melta cost from SOB Dominions... while leaving the cost for the non-options of Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers

LOL, free Multi Meltas on Dominions. That's perfectly funny. If that doesn't get FAQed pronto I see Sisters lists mopping up in tourneys.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
With all the patches and FAQs, the points values might as well have been microscribed on a hedgehog testicle and hurled at the surface of Mars. I just let Battlescribe sort it out.

Battlescribe is probably the worst for points values and army validation. LOL

 cuda1179 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Sadly, they still managed to have a document riddled with errors. The very first change in the document was to remove Multi-Melta cost from SOB Dominions... while leaving the cost for the non-options of Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers

LOL, free Multi Meltas on Dominions. That's perfectly funny. If that doesn't get FAQed pronto I see Sisters lists mopping up in tourneys.

Dominions can't have Heavy Bolters, Heavy Flamers, or Multi-Meltas. The removed the unnecessary points value of Multi-Meltas but not the other two.

dhallnet wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It seems reasonably clear that the current layout of points is as a result of 8th edition initially being designed without points, like AoS at launch, but being altered well into development when AoS released.

That now GW can sell everyone yet another book each year as a result is just a happy accident.

Obviously

My claim is sourced from Cruddace's 'Echoes From the Warp' article in White Dwarf January 2019.

In which he describes how 8th edition was being made in some unspecified way(s) significantly different from 7th, and was at a sufficiently advanced stage of production that unit datasheets had been written for it; when shortly after the release of 1st edition AoS, Cruddace had some kind of revelation, and decided to change course entirely and make a modified version of 7th edition instead.

 alextroy wrote:
How many years of play-testing do you think will be needed to get everything perfect at release?

3-9 months to test all the different ways you can implement different rules and represent the fluff, testing out what the writing group has suggested in brainstorming sessions and then testing out some ideas the playtesting groups come back with like "it'd be cool if this unit had this extra rule or stat change or didn't have this rule". One day to get rid of the typos in the rules writing and points costs. One month to iron out the silliest points costs and get everything playable. Three months and a day to perfect points and ensure no typos get published.

I think there is negative playtesting for points currently, they send out the points and then ask how good they did, they get told they did not so good in some places and then say it's too bad because it's already in the printers. Brrrr, print money at the cost of audience faith and support. Then there are the crap playtesters and beta readers that didn't realise the difference in power levels between Dire Avengers traits in PA, stupid knife-ear podcasters.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It seems reasonably clear that the current layout of points is as a result of 8th edition initially being designed without points, like AoS at launch, but being altered well into development when AoS released.

That now GW can sell everyone yet another book each year as a result is just a happy accident.

Obviously

My claim is sourced from Cruddace's 'Echoes From the Warp' article in White Dwarf January 2019.

In which he describes how 8th edition was being made in some unspecified way(s) significantly different from 7th, and was at a sufficiently advanced stage of production that unit datasheets had been written for it; when shortly after the release of 1st edition AoS, Cruddace had some kind of revelation, and decided to change course entirely and make a modified version of 7th edition instead.

He never says they planned to make 40k not have points in the article. I don't understand how you get that from the article, I also don't understand how the 9th edition MFM could happen with more than 2 people looking at it.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Sadly, they still managed to have a document riddled with errors. The very first change in the document was to remove Multi-Melta cost from SOB Dominions... while leaving the cost for the non-options of Heavy Bolters and Heavy Flamers

LOL, free Multi Meltas on Dominions. That's perfectly funny. If that doesn't get FAQed pronto I see Sisters lists mopping up in tourneys.

Uuuhh....no? The datasheet doesn't list multi melta as option for dominion. The fact they removed point cost just makes it bloody obvious they can't get it. On what logic you are giving multi melta for dominion without option in datasheet nor even point cost? Better question is why have heavy bolters and heavy flamers there still when they still can't get them(no option in datasheets). Having point cost listed doesn't actually allow you to field them as nowhere mention is how many you can take, are they replacement for special weapons they can take up to 4 or in addition etc.

Nothing in datasheet, can't take. Period. Hardly free when you can't even take one in the first place. Nor can you take heavy bolter or heavy flamer but GW stupid copy&paste means point costs are there for no use.

 vict0988 wrote:
One day to get rid of the typos in the rules writing and points costs.

Just popping in here to say that these are the words of someone who has never worked in print production.

I think what, as with whenever these discussions come up though, what the people expecting demanding higher standards (whether that amounts to "better than what they currently do" or "only absolute perfection is acceptable") fail to realise is that from a cost/benefit perspective, what GW are currently doing is, from their perspective good enough. *You* may not think they're good enough, but with GW currently doing very well for itself as a company, they're not going to increase the resources (time, and therefore cost) they plough into rules production unless somebody can demonstrate doing so will result in a commensurate increase in the number of books they sell. At the moment, enough people are sufficiently happy with the standard of the rulebooks to pay for them, despite any errors (and yes, that includes anyone who buys the book but then complains about it on the internet) and clearly the calculation's been made that the increase in resources to improve them past a certain point would not pay off in terms of more revenue.

 Dysartes wrote:
Storm Trooper Squads still pay for a Bolt Pistol on the Sergeant, but not a Plasma Pistol - because that makes sense. The ST Officer, on the other hand, does pay for a Plasma Pistol if you give him one.

In a small degree of fairness, I don't think I remembered to email them about that one. But surely someone else might've done?

Well, have finally sent that in to the 40k FAQ address, along with asking for PA Njal and OG Ragnar to be added to the Space Wolves Legends document - and that further changes to the MFM and PL docs be highlighted in the same way as new FAQs are.

If you've seen things which are blatantly incorrect - like these Dominion heavy weapon options still being present, for example - can I suggest you take the couple of minutes required to send a polite email in regarding it, so that hopefully the next revision clears even more of these errors out?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It seems reasonably clear that the current layout of points is as a result of 8th edition initially being designed without points, like AoS at launch, but being altered well into development when AoS released.

That now GW can sell everyone yet another book each year as a result is just a happy accident.

Obviously

My claim is sourced from Cruddace's 'Echoes From the Warp' article in White Dwarf January 2019.

In which he describes how 8th edition was being made in some unspecified way(s) significantly different from 7th, and was at a sufficiently advanced stage of production that unit datasheets had been written for it; when shortly after the release of 1st edition AoS, Cruddace had some kind of revelation, and decided to change course entirely and make a modified version of 7th edition instead.

He never says they planned to make 40k not have points in the article. I don't understand how you get that from the article, I also don't understand how the 9th edition MFM could happen with more than 2 people looking at it.

Cruddace can't (and wouldn't) directly say that 'The Game That Never Was' was not going to include points, because that would be an admission of failure on the part of Age of Sigmar.

We know that mechanically 8th edition is similar to AoS (fixed hit rolls rather than charts, mortal wounds, weapon damage stats, save modifiers, power levels, fixed scores for psychic/magic tests, removal of fall back mechanics etc.)
We know that the design vocabulary of the two games is the same ('accessible' (short), 'precise', 'robust').
We know that the physical end product is essentially the same (core rules in a mini pamphlet).
It is clear that both systems were designed to be very similar.

We know that the removal of points from AoS was considered a mistake, since they were patched back in later on.
We know that the change from 'The Game That Never Was' to the 8th edition we got occurred shortly after the release of Age of Sigmar.
We know that the major difference between 8th edition 40K and 1st edition AoS at launch is the presence of points.



I suppose the other way of reading the article is to assume that 'The Game That Never Was' was something totally different, which was effectively replaced with Age of Sigmar in Spaaace because Cruddace saw just how very well the initial AoS release was going...