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.

 NAVARRO wrote:


Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.

I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.

Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.

Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?

I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?

The P word again. Nobody expects perfect, just not so egregiously wrong that they're binned within days of launch, not after 40 years of practice.

Lord Inquisitor wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Ergo why they did the Day 0 patch for Votaan after hearing tournaments and stores would ban Votaan from being played. Nobody to buy their new darlings because nobody will play against them = lost money.

So you're saying they balanced the new army because a balanced game generates more money? In some way this is a bad thing?

They're saying the brave and noble internet masses frothed at GW hard enough they capitulated to peer pressure because nobody would ever play against a dangerously high wr army. Nobody would buy their op stuff because they won't get games in...

Stares intently at all the other 70% WR armies people lapped up over the last 3 years and cleared tourneys with

Lord Inquisitor wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:


Depends on what you measure the best to be.
Personally such mistakes should not be printed, but if they are they should be replaced with new books and clients refunded or replace the books. Yet same books on the shelfs ( arguments about its impractical they cant turn it around fast enough a reprint is too expensive... well mistakes have consequences)
See for me, if the rules were free, and the books optional I would not need refund and its fair play.
But - here's a book, sorry we made a big mistake so dont use those points use these instead... and then just a few months do it again thats quite frustrating.

I fear that like others said its not about balancing at all.

Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.

Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?

I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?

I dont expect perfection no, but I didn't expect or want the apologies stunt or gross mistakes. Im quite flexible but I dont see the relentless churn in of books and respective updates a good sign. One thing is small tweaks and amends another thing is what we see now.
Fair play who is on board with this, seems like its going to get worse before getting better.

Lord Inquisitor wrote:


Would it be better if they didn't print points in the books at all? And simply posted points as a pdf online? And updated the pdf? This is what happens with X-wing for example.

Because the datasheets have power levels and not points, I interpreted the points in the back just to be a "starter" points values and to expect the points values to update online. Would this not make sense?

I just feel if we're talking about a book that needs substantial errata, I get what you're saying. But if we're talking about points values it's just impossible to expect them to be perfect especially as the meta changes. I don't see that as evidence of a faulty product. I mean, you're preaching to the choir about free rules. Why not make the rules absolutely free online and then you can edit them and lower the (massive) barrier to entry? I've never understood that. But it seems like power levels are printed and points are just an afterthought in the printed material to be updated later. No?

I actually like the idea of not printing the points values in the book and just having a PDF online. That said I would want those points to be released as soon as the earliest book came out (typically in the initial army box) rather than having to wait a month or two for the general release to take place.

GW's current pace of rules releases coupled with their high cost and past idiocy with short print runs (thinking of WZ: Nephilim) seems unsustainable to me, although I could certainly be wrong! I just hate having to pay for expensive books what feels like ALL THE TIME and then, as others have said, get slapped in the face with my expensive book changing so quickly after purchase. I got all of ONE GAME in with LoV before they fundamentally changed the book on me!

I do agree that LoV had to be addressed out of the gate, but I would've MUCH preferred that GW had used literally any foresight to see what a problem the army was going to be upon release.

*grumble grumble*

 Azreal13 wrote:

There's a lot of argument there based on some, AFAIK, pretty baseless assumptions. If you've got any genuine data or information about GWs demographics and marketing I'd be genuinely interested to read it. In fact, I'm not even sure in store gaming is a thing in all locations any more.

This may be out-of-date. GW themselves have said their core demographic is "12-18 yr old boys" ... I'm struggling to find the original thing but this references it. Now whether that's actually true is another matter as GW has always had a reputation for not doing actual market research. A number of investor reports etc have said similar things. And web traffic seems to corroborate to some degree. And the demographics were clearly different from the UK (teenagers playing in GW shops) to US (older players in indy game stores).

Anecdotally I can say that was my impression when I worked in GW. That was a long time ago (like 20 years ago) so absolutely I may be wrong about these days. And GW have definitely pivoted towards competitive play ... a bit.

So all I'll say with confidence is that definitely used to be GW's target demographic and you can look up old interviews with designers - competitive play was really a dirty word and considered just not the proper way to play the game. There were exceptions, Alessio was keen on balance but even he came out with clunkers like the 7th ed Skaven that just were OP and after leaving GW in interviews said it was just impossible with GW's deadlines to adequately playtest.

So I'm confident about what I'm talking about 10+ years ago, I used to have a finger pretty much on the pulse then. Have things changed? I would be fascinated to find out if GW's demographics have changed. Clearly the designers are more concerned about balance, although that may not be saying much but certainly better than before which was not at all and proud of it.

That's what I thought you were basing your ideas on, I'm unconvinced they still apply, at least in the same significance, in a post-Covid, Rowntree era marketplace.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That's what I thought you were basing your ideas on, I'm unconvinced they still apply, at least in the same significance, in a post-Covid, Rowntree era marketplace.

Well, put another way, is there any evidence that GW have changed in the post-covid world? As opposed to just keeping on truckin' with their tried-and-tested formula? I mean that as a genuine question.

The numbers. More Rountree than Covid, but there aren't that many more teenage boys in the world. Covid wise, we know that significant numbers of people came back to the hobby because they told us, it even made mainstream media, and the figures also back that up.

Anecdotally, most of the people I play now are the same people that played when I was a teenager, no reason to think that's particularly anomalous either, and therefore the teenage audience that GW were aiming at in the nineties are, to some extent, still present in the hobby and still customers.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.

I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.

I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.

It has been mentioned, especially early on in the thread. Then the thread derailed abit, unsurprisingly.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.

I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.

I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.

They never needed a 4++ to begin with.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.

I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.

it was, but given the higher numbers of marine players, a lot of people are more annoyed/worried about the buffs they have received, so its kinda fell by the wayside.

 Tyran wrote:
You seem to be forgetting that 40k was dying before 8th, so no it wasn't doing fine.

You got a citation to go with that assertion?

Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

tneva82 wrote:
Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

At this point they just need to bite the bullet and compile something like the comprehensive rules for Magic: The Gathering, i.e. a living and errataed rulebook with numbered rules, defined rule hierarchies and priorities.

tneva82 wrote:
Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

I thought that was the case anyway tbh.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

I thought that was the case anyway tbh.

Well it wasn't before as duty eternal was just modifying damage characteristic rather than ignoring wounds.

Tsagualsa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

At this point they just need to bite the bullet and compile something like the comprehensive rules for Magic: The Gathering, i.e. a living and errataed rulebook with numbered rules, defined rule hierarchies and priorities.

I fear that if they try, they will find such a mess that they'll never actually succeed at finishing it. Especially before another round of rules changes.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Just noticed today GW changed all the ignore FNP type of rule weapons also ignore -1 damage rules like dreadnought in latest set of FAQ.

I thought that was the case anyway tbh.

Well it wasn't before as duty eternal was just modifying damage characteristic rather than ignoring wounds.

I see, I think I was subliminally reading it as the intended then. I took duty eternal to be a method of ignoring a wound, but I can see why there was a RAW argument for the attacks characteristic being lowered isn't the same as avoiding the wound.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Inquisitor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

How about just stick with what you have even if unbalanced for more than a few months.

It's funny isn't it.
GW used to release FAQs and rules changes at a glacial pace, but now they release them too damn fast.
At least your codex still had some semblance of value when the pace was slower.

I've been out of 40K for a while. Is this really where we are? Complaining about better game balance? GW games just stunk in terms of balance and an unbalanced book would break an edition.

Better game balance? Where? The balance is still terrible, it just breaks at a faster rate while we pay more for the rules.

I honestly don't know you so please don't take this as an attack, but what edition did you start playing? I remember the glory days of 4th-7th where balance was created by having to negotiate with your opponent before the game because external balance was such that some armies had to try really hard to lose to the bottom tier armies. Christ, 7th edition you had like 3-4 armies that were just head and shoulders better than everyone else..Ironically one of them being SM because they got *Wait for it* Free Transports which because GW never thought about it, became Razorbacks with heavy weapons.

Balance isn't great but it beats the hell out of older editions where you had 3-5 years of 1-3 factions just being better in every way than others.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Warhammer is for *everyone.
*In our exclusive club of elite players.
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.

The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...

Yes, competitive 40k is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game... the game is more balanced, players have more input than ever before, the staff actually respond in a timely manner. So terrible.

Dudeface wrote:

They're saying the brave and noble internet masses frothed at GW hard enough they capitulated to peer pressure because nobody would ever play against a dangerously high wr army. Nobody would buy their op stuff because they won't get games in...
Stares intently at all the other 70% WR armies people lapped up over the last 3 years and cleared tourneys with

Never thought I'd agree with Dudeface but here i am. There is a very loud and vocal minority in the game who scream whenever a threat appears to their beloved army of hotness which is hard to pin down because they change it rather often. My absolute favorite example of 9th edition is when an Ork list forced a top player in the world to concede at the end of turn 1. No thought was given to the fact that the DE list was the worst thing you could possibly take against the Ork list and that he had only a handful of weapons capable of hurting the Ork vehicles. Zero thought was given to the fact that Orks at the time had the 3rd highest Win rate behind DE and Ad-mech. Nope it was all scream and pulling hair out about the fact that an upstart ork had the temerity to beat a meta list. What happened? MASSIVE nerfs to the ork army including nerfs to A named character who wasn't even being used but whom the internet had freaked out over.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do understand.

See, you say that, but...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Swapping a chainsword for a lascannon doesn't immediately make you a more effective model in all circumstances.

... then you go and say something like that.

This isn't about whether something is effective. It's about replacing base equipment with upgraded equipment for no cost. Your Chainsword to Lascannon example doesn't even really make any sense, because I can't think of many units that start with Chainswords that can upgrade to Lascannons.

But if you want to go with Chainswords, there are now tons of Marine/CSM models that can swap out Chainswords for Power Fists, Power Swords, Power Axes and sometimes even Thunder Hammers for free. Why wouldn't you? Ditto for Bolt Pistols to Plasma Pistols. They are straight upgrades and you lose nothing in the exchange.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You still have a choice to make an effective list and it probably isn't stuffing as much melta as you can, which means free upgrades isn't as simple as it might appear on it's face.

This isn't about effectiveness. It's about the fact that you can get hundreds of points worth of stuff for free. There's no reason not to take every upgrade possible when every upgrade - regardless of whether it's "effective" - is free.

How do you not understand this yet?

Because its Daed and his entire shtick is being as pedantic as possible so that he doesn't have to challenge the main point that he knows is correct.

 oni wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
obsolete

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 oni wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is it really healthy to the game the relentless updates? Seriously.

No. It’s not.

FAQ’s and errata are one thing. Constantly and frequently changing & adding rules and game mechanics solely to alter the meta is bad, very bad, and if allowed to continue will eventually kill the game. It will slowly alienate all audiences except the most competitive and at that point the game will be dead.

A game can easily survive without competitive players. W40K has done fine without them for more than 25 years. A game will die if the only audience or overwhelming majority is competitive play.

This kinda hit home hard for me. GW is punishing my 10-year-old's Tyranids because a bunch of try-hard WAAC-babies keep finding new ways to break them.

The main Nid units GW hit were not fun to play against. But the good news is you can play with the older versions on the tabletop at home, if you wish.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:


I honestly don't know you so please don't take this as an attack, but what edition did you start playing? I remember the glory days of 4th-7th where balance was created by having to negotiate with your opponent before the game because external balance was such that some armies had to try really hard to lose to the bottom tier armies. Christ, 7th edition you had like 3-4 armies that were just head and shoulders better than everyone else..Ironically one of them being SM because they got *Wait for it* Free Transports which because GW never thought about it, became Razorbacks with heavy weapons.

Balance isn't great but it beats the hell out of older editions where you had 3-5 years of 1-3 factions just being better in every way than others.

4th edition, and yes, some updates did take too long.
Necrons completely missed 4th edition and had to wait around a decade before they got their 5th edition book.
Sisters are another example.

However, the difference here is that the balance is still not good, you still have weak armies and favorites, and they change the contents of the codex in one of their balance updates after you just bought the darned thing. At least in 4th edition you got to hold onto your book for a while and the contents there-in were still valid, and at least codices were cheaper.

From a book keeping / cost effectiveness standpoint it's a mess that you pay for. And the balance and quality of writing is still mediocre.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.

"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."

Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.

"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."

Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.

It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.

Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Harlequins having their invulnerable saves nerfed across the board.

I know wargear costs (or the lack thereof) is an issue but I would have thought such a drastic change might have raised some eyebrows.

I mean, everything has a native -1 to hit not counting the defensive bonuses they get via Light Saedath or how prime being able to Advance + Charge is.

They never needed a 4++ to begin with.

I can understand thinking that a 4++ on every unit (including troops, vehicles, jetbikes) is a bit over the top.

However, it seems a little strange that it was stripped from all their characters as well. I'm struggling to see why a 4++ on a Troupe Master or Shadowseer or Death Jester is beyond the pale, yet a 4++ on a SM Captain, a Necron Overlord, a Canoness, an Autarch, a Succubus, an Exalted Sorcerer, a Farseer etc. is perfectly fine.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Warhammer is for *everyone.
*In our exclusive club of elite players.
Mike Brandt = The worst thing to have ever happened to Warhammer.

The worst thing that has happened to Warhammer so far...

Yes, competitive 40k is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game... the game is more balanced, players have more input than ever before, the staff actually respond in a timely manner. So terrible.

The way GW are doing it with churn and burn cycle, yes. But, alas- I guess you just enjoy throwing your money into a giant pit or something...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.

"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."

Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.

It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.

Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?

Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.

 alextroy wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does the codex match the actual rules? No? Then it's obsolete.
Don't Princess Bride me when I've been using the word in it's correct context.

"Obsolete (adj): no longer produced or used."

Given that the codexes are still produced AND used, updates to them do not make them obsolete. The points themselves may no longer be accurate, and a few rules may be updated or added, but the codex itself is not obsolete; in fact, it's still very much required.

It also means :
"Out of date"
So yes, it is obsolete. It's required, but it's still out of date. Also, sometimes it's more than just "a few rules". Sometimes it's entire rules and data slates being revised. Such as adding "Core" to destroyers or completely changing how Command Protocols works, or changing invuls of an entire swathe of units.
Do they even update new prints of the codex to reflect the changes to the rules? Like, is there a codex v2? I recall that they used to do that but I'm not sure if that's still a practice.

Isn't the life cycle of codices just shorter in general now? We're down to two years, aren't we?

Something can’t be on-sale and required and yet obsolete at the same time. If it is impossible to play the game without the codex then it isn’t obsolete. Online copies and your memory don’t count.

I take it that you use the original data in your codex then? After all, they are still up to date and valid, right?
If not, then you aren't actually using the codex, now are you?