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.

To take a quote from reddit:

Just a few moments ago Pete discussed the process, going forward, for FAQs. During the weekly 40k Twitch stream he talked about how they want to formalize the FAQ process so players can be more confident that units purchased based on a new codex won't be rapidly altered immediately after the codex's release (e.g. commissar changes right after AM codex came out). The process will be this: two weeks after every codex release they will produce an FAQ that ONLY clarifies the wording of rules if there's any confusion in the community. For balance, twice annually they will do an FAQ where they change how units work, update points, etc. based on competitive feedback; once in March and once in September. Thoughts? Comments?

So, FAQs 2 weeks after codex release, Fixes every 6 months. All this says to me is that we're going to have 6 month cycles where one broken army list rules the roost before they can fix it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To take a quote from reddit:

Just a few moments ago Pete discussed the process, going forward, for FAQs. During the weekly 40k Twitch stream he talked about how they want to formalize the FAQ process so players can be more confident that units purchased based on a new codex won't be rapidly altered immediately after the codex's release (e.g. commissar changes right after AM codex came out). The process will be this: two weeks after every codex release they will produce an FAQ that ONLY clarifies the wording of rules if there's any confusion in the community. For balance, twice annually they will do an FAQ where they change how units work, update points, etc. based on competitive feedback; once in March and once in September. Thoughts? Comments?

So, FAQs 2 weeks after codex release, Fixes every 6 months. All this says to me is that we're going to have 6 month cycles where one broken army list rules the roost before they can fix it.

Six months is perfectly reasonable. Other wargames typically do errata once or twice a year, even the best ones typically don't do any more than twice a year. I'm usually pretty hard on GW, but 6 months cycles are fine, in and of itself. Any faster and you risk introducing more potential confusion than is necessary, and lack sufficient time for playtesting beyond just a single event or two or for the previous Errata changes to be really felt. This isn't like a videogame where they can scrape server data for thousands of match results in a couple of days and analyze it.

Yeah, I find cicles of 6 months totally reasonable. In Hearthstone for example, those balance fixes are or when the edition change and some cards stop being standard (So, once a year), or whenever they feell like it, that can be more than once a year, or just once in two years, etc...

Even big balance changes in videogames ,that is a market that demand a much higer speed for this kind of things, are normally once every 1-2 months.

IF they can get balance right then it will be a good thing; rather than buying/not buying models because they have good/bad rules we can just buy the ones we generally like (or like the sculpts for) and be fairly confident they will be usable in competitive play.

Aye I have to agree it sounds pretty sane. 6 month revisions are a viable approach to allow pooling of data. Don't forget also that, unlike a computer game, GW can't ensure that everyone is playing the game correctly; or well or indeed even playing at all. So a large body of data is suspect; so it will take some time to pool accurate and reliable data.

Also don't forget most computer games only do major balance adjustments rarely; the quicker updates are often small adjustments closer to what we'd consider an errata rather than a wholesale balance change.

Indeed it sounds like great news that they are thinking this far forward with how to continue and balance 8th edition. Plus lets not forget they are already doing a pretty darn good job already.



Ps don't forget there's already at least one thread complaining about hte rate of updates; the costs and the flowcharts!

I don't think this will be a problem once the initial rush of Codexes is over. I fully expect everything to be broken and weird until Chapter Approved 2018 even if GW does a good job of balanced rules writing.

After the rush is over, I think that every six months is a reasonable amount of time to release fixes. That doesn't necessarily mean we will have to wait six months for things to get fixed. If they time their major releases right they could drop a new Codex three months out before the rules-changing FAQ. That gives enough time for things to be thoroughly playtested without having to wait too terribly long for a fix.

Did they say whether or not Chapter Approved will also include rule changes? It will certainly include points adjustments. That means we're possibly looking at three major rules adjustments per year. That's pretty reasonable.

 greyknight12 wrote:
IF they can get balance right then it will be a good thing; rather than buying/not buying models because they have good/bad rules we can just buy the ones we generally like (or like the sculpts for) and be fairly confident they will be usable in competitive play.

Agreed, although list building will always be part of the game and we'll never be at a stage of just throwing "anything" down works. But yes arriving at a point where all models have their spot works. Heck GW has already shown they can make great strides toward this with Tyranids - they've gone from almost a few one-trick ponies into an army with a wide array of viable options. GW is even nerfing the Malanthrope which prior was almost an "auto include"

Sounds good to me, even if the thread title is attempting to make it sound awful.

Six months between each marketing tactic is fine.

 Overread wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
IF they can get balance right then it will be a good thing; rather than buying/not buying models because they have good/bad rules we can just buy the ones we generally like (or like the sculpts for) and be fairly confident they will be usable in competitive play.

Agreed, although list building will always be part of the game and we'll never be at a stage of just throwing "anything" down works. But yes arriving at a point where all models have their spot works. Heck GW has already shown they can make great strides toward this with Tyranids - they've gone from almost a few one-trick ponies into an army with a wide array of viable options. GW is even nerfing the Malanthrope which prior was almost an "auto include"

It will also be easier for the to more thoroughly playtest individual units once this initial rush is over, so I expect fewer unbalanced units in the future. Assuming the whole "new units must be the best" creep doesn't come back.

I wouldn't mind an emergency fix every now and then, well ahead of the 6 month grace period. A bit like the flyers early on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Sounds good to me, even if the thread title is attempting to make it sound awful.

Yeah. BaconCatBug is honest about GW many times, bot for good and for bad, but others , like this one, his troll attempts are a little weak.

Gladius and Scatterbikes lasted longer than that. I'm content with 6 month cycles as that's the nature in Yugioh.

torblind wrote:
I wouldn't mind an emergency fix every now and then, well ahead of the 6 month grace period. A bit like the flyers early on.

Yeah, if something is REALLY broken they should fix it ASAP. But things shouldn't be that broken to begin with.

Seems reasonable as a general policy.

They can always issue emergency bans / fixes if something broken shows up like Magic: the Gathering does from time to time.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

It will also be easier for the to more thoroughly playtest individual units once this initial rush is over, so I expect fewer unbalanced units in the future. Assuming the whole "new units must be the best" creep doesn't come back.

I think that "new codex is best ever" mindset was a symptom of how GW used to release things for a long while. Because the time between codex releases was so big and because a release was often twinned to a big investment in new moulds and sculpts GW almost had to make each new codex a huge release event in order to help regenerate interest from new, casual and serious gamers. So making each codex very powerful really helped be part of that. Plus because of how the codex used to roll out not every army would even get an update with every rules edition; and even if you did it might not be till the near end.


So I think now that they've had a huge culture change in how releases are handled I don't think they'll need that "best ever" mindset behind releases any more. Indeed making sure the new releases Fit into the current balance will be far more important. Of course there likely will be some that are going to be powerful releases; plus if they introduce new mechanics/features (eg like how they introduced air units) then we might see some hiccups along the way; but with balance adjustments at least every 6 months that should minimise any major issues (plus GW have started to show that they will address big issues sooner - and likely will be in a better position to do so once htey've released all the codex)

Yeah, too frequent FAQs/errata make an unstable playing environment. Every 6 months is a heck of a lot better than waiting for a whole new edition for something broken to get fixed.

 Overread wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

Spoiler:

It will also be easier for the to more thoroughly playtest individual units once this initial rush is over, so I expect fewer unbalanced units in the future. Assuming the whole "new units must be the best" creep doesn't come back.

I think that "new codex is best ever" mindset was a symptom of how GW used to release things for a long while. Because the time between codex releases was so big and because a release was often twinned to a big investment in new moulds and sculpts GW almost had to make each new codex a huge release event in order to help regenerate interest from new, casual and serious gamers. So making each codex very powerful really helped be part of that. Plus because of how the codex used to roll out not every army would even get an update with every rules edition; and even if you did it might not be till the near end.


So I think now that they've had a huge culture change in how releases are handled I don't think they'll need that "best ever" mindset behind releases any more. Indeed making sure the new releases Fit into the current balance will be far more important. Of course there likely will be some that are going to be powerful releases; plus if they introduce new mechanics/features (eg like how they introduced air units) then we might see some hiccups along the way; but with balance adjustments at least every 6 months that should minimise any major issues (plus GW have started to show that they will address big issues sooner - and likely will be in a better position to do so once htey've released all the codex)

Yeah, I'm also optimistic that we won't see the creep issues returning any time soon.

One exception, and this is a tinfoil hat kind of thing: I think that as they flesh out the Primaris line with new releases we might get a Primaris-only codex in a couple years that is significantly better than the "legacy" Space Marine codex. I don't think it's a sure thing, but I think there's a decent chance.

New low for thread titles.

I think 6 months is okay IF it also means that they're going to test gak better; this is how Privateer Press does things IIRC and it works pretty well in Warmahordes. Otherwise, it WILL be 6 months of whatever the flavor of half-the-year is dominating tournaments, and then 6 months of the next thing, and so on.

Of course the easy solution to that is to just realize 40k is terrible as a competitive game and stop trying to make it fit that mold.

The thing is, it creates a stable base for future items. Sure, something might be broken for 6 months, but then you get an attempt at a fix. Over the course of a year or two, the "old stuff" gets stable, and while the new stuff might tilt things around, you will have a stable base. Better than waiting 5 or more years between codex releases and hoping and wishing and sacrificing goats for a good codex, and then have to wait another 5 years for another shot at a good codex.

Looking at you, Orks...

Anyhow, at the very least things will change every 6 months, and freshen up what's at the top of the heap.

Seems like a decent policy. OP seems weirdly upset about it, though.

They also said Smite balance wouldn't be dealt with till the FAQ in March.

I see no issue with a 6 month look at the game.

My issue is with the execution, as it has been, and as it always be.

WatcherZero wrote:
They also said Smite balance wouldn't be dealt with till the FAQ in March.

Where is this said?

Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

As a technical point, those playing GW games are a part of the larger wargaming hobby. Disliking GW's inability to balance a game should not mean they leave the entire hobby. You probably mean leave 40k/other GW games, but it happens on these forums on occasion.

Dakkanauts, pat yourselves on the back. This is the least toxic, most positive thread I’ve seen in a long time.

IMO this demonstrates that GW is moving towards a more open gaming platform. I’m looking forward to a time in the future where we’re making minor adjustments - 5-or10-point adjustments for a unit. I wonder if we’ll ever get there.

Ecdain wrote:

WatcherZero wrote:
They also said Smite balance wouldn't be dealt with till the FAQ in March.

Where is this said?

Write up of the Twitch on Spikeybits.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
Sounds fantastic. Unlike the cynical, jaded, negative attempt at a thread title. I do hope those with this mindet are able to find a new hobby.

As a technical point, those playing GW games are a part of the larger wargaming hobby. Disliking GW's inability to balance a game should not mean they leave the entire hobby. You probably mean leave 40k/other GW games, but it happens on these forums on occasion.

No I don't mean that. I mean what I said.