CA2018 Preview - Matched Play

TeenageAngst wrote:

GW's policies towards *the consumer*. GW doesn't hate this or that or any faction, they are only ever actively malicious against the person on the other side of the cash register.

I stand corrected, and agree 100%.

Saying you are forced to pay for a rules errata is absolutely wrong, because you have that part out already. You have not purchased anything, yet the points costs are already common knowledge a week before release. It's the part of the book that is simply unrealistic to monetize, as all that info will be out in the internet anyway and in every third party army builder. Nobody looks at their codex when making an army, they use an app. That is why Chapter Approved is far more than just the points rebalancing and they hqrdly expect you to buy the book for just that, the real draw to buy the book is the expanded list of missions, the beta rules of the Sisters of Battle et cetera. The actual FAQs and errata are free of charge.

If you want to be bitter, it's your choice, but this "meta churning" used to be with releases of codexes once every few years at best and there were no attempts to fix anything. It wasn't very fun waiting five years for the next shot at Dark eldar rules update. The last year and a half has seen far more involvement in balance and response to concerns than there has ever been since maybe mid 90s. GW ain't no angels, but they're not devils on the level of EA either. This kind of hyperbole is a bunch of nonsense that contributes to nothing, and this dripping bitterness is quite honestly offputting.

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

Saying you are forced to pay for a rules errata is absolutely wrong, because you have that part out already.

You mean I have shaky-cam pictures from a cell phone from some guy in a GW store.

Quote :

You have not purchased anything, yet the points costs are already common knowledge a week before release.

/tg/ gets it done, what can I say?

Quote :

It's the part of the book that is simply unrealistic to monetize, as all that info will be out in the internet anyway and in every third party army builder.

And yet here they are trying to monetize it.

Quote :

Nobody looks at their codex when making an army, they use an app.

And people wonder why top tournament players' lists are wrong all the time.

Quote :

That is why Chapter Approved is far more than just the points rebalancing and they hqrdly expect you to buy the book for just that, the real draw to buy the book is the expanded list of missions, the beta rules of the Sisters of Battle et cetera. The actual FAQs and errata are free of charge.

Then I should be able to go on their website and download them for free in a convenient .pdf like every other FAQ/errata.

Oh wait, I can't.

I can't, Siticus.

Do you know why?

BECAUSE THEY WANT ME TO PAY FOR IT.

Also if they were trying to sell us on buying the book for a beta codex (as in not playtested) for an army most hobbyists do not own they'd better tighten their belts.

Quote :

If you want to be bitter, it's your choice, but this "meta churning" used to be with releases of codexes once every few years at best and there were no attempts to fix anything. It wasn't very fun waiting five years for the next shot at Dark eldar rules update. The last year and a half has seen far more involvement in balance and response to concerns than there has ever been since maybe mid 90s. GW ain't no angels, but they're not devils on the level of EA either.

EA never made me pay for a balance patch. Activision Blizzard never charged me for their Halloween or Summer Games Overwatch events.

Quote :

This kind of hyperbole is a bunch of nonsense that contributes to nothing, and this dripping bitterness is quite honestly offputting.

Is there a point at dividing my post into separate sentences when you're not even going to address what I'm actually saying, instead just resorting to hair splitting and technicalities than the actual points?

So, taking your claim at absolute face value, how will you be able to play without shelling out those 35 dollars for this mandatory errata? Will you use the old points and absolutely refuse to look at the wealth of online blogs devoted to 40k strategy that are providing precise points costs as they currently are, third party apps that have that included for free or just taking an innocent little peek into the copy of CA2018 on your game store's shelf? And you will certainly plug your ears to all the video and podcast content that describe these new points costs in great detail. Truly, Games Workshop must be exercising some impressive control over you for any of this to be true.

For your claim for a mandatory 35 dollar errata to be true, GW would be issuing Cease and Desist to every single blog and website hosting that information. They have not done so and it would be absolutely counterproductive to the last two years of their marketing strategy to even consider doing so. However, such things have been done and an example would be Warmachine during 2e where even their dedicated fan website Battle College refused to put up precise stats or points costs because that would breach Privateer Press' IP, so the alternative was either piracy (ironic, considering the name of the company), purchase of the cards (just to see whether you'd even like the faction or not) or the purchase of their own official list building app (that also required you to purchase virtual decks). And there were no printable card erratas back then as Privateer Press is doing now. You wanted the updated few cards? Buy the whole deck.

But since you're referring to 4chan as your source for points costs, it's crystal clear that you're just funposting and playing up the bitterness because the cost of the CA2018 is not a concern to you at all. You're just going to pirate it anyway.

Quote :

Is there a point at dividing my post into separate sentences when you're not even going to address what I'm actually saying, instead just resorting to hair splitting and technicalities than the actual points?

You don't have an actual point.

Quote :

So, taking your claim at absolute face value, how will you be able to play without shelling out those 35 dollars for this mandatory errata? Will you use the old points and absolutely refuse to look at the wealth of online blogs devoted to 40k strategy that are providing precise points costs as they currently are, third party apps that have that included for free or just taking an innocent little peek into the copy of CA2018 on your game store's shelf? And you will certainly plug your ears to all the video and podcast content that describe these new points costs in great detail. Truly, Games Workshop must be exercising some impressive control over you for any of this to be true.

If I use emulators, is Nintendo still trying to sell me their 47th Virtual Console release of Super Mario Bros. 3?

The answer is yes.

Quote :

For your claim for a mandatory 35 dollar errata to be true, GW would be issuing Cease and Desist to every single blog and website hosting that information.

The Dark City and numerous Facebook groups have already demanded users not post points updates because it is piracy and they would be liable if GW should come knocking because it has happened numerous times in the past to usergroups that have posted points on their platforms, including in youtube videos. The fact you think this doesn't happen baffles me.

Quote :

But since you're referring to 4chan as your source for points costs, it's crystal clear that you're just crap and playing up the bitterness because the cost of the CA2018 is not a concern to you at all. You're just going to pirate it anyway.

I'm allowed to be indignant about anti-consumerist practices on principle, it's the entire reason why DRM is a debate.

Look if you want to shill for GW that's fine, shill away. But don't pretend that because I want things like "mandatory rules errata to be free from the publisher" and "beta codexes to not be paid content" among other things that I am being unreasonable. Just the opposite, I am trying not to be fleeced. And I am encouraging others to not frame this as "oh this or that army is in rough shape because GW hates them and their players" but rather "this or that army is in rough shape because GW actively wants us to spend more money on more models by telling us which ones are good."

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/12/11/11th-dec-forgotten-heroes-of-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-4/

Honestly more curious about AdMech replacing IG, they are cheaper and players (yes i know IG are slightly better at shooting and other things) but bring them might synergies better in other ways.

At least players will try it out.

Melta changes i dont think will change much other than for sisters, (just makes some unit cheaper for them now). Im more worried about sob meta than IG/Knights now.

SoB (I also play them 4k army lol) has gotten much cheaper over all for some lists, and only slighty for others. But the fact that Vehicles can get AOF now via stratagems means we will have to Vect that stratagem every chance we get. Forcing the entire army to move +3" or +1 to hit can be damaging for us. With Mass HB, HF, SB's and SB's doing -2ap 2D for 1 unit each turn, they can really damage units.

Coven keeps getting more and more important to me, wehre melta, plasma, PF's, and many other point drops all having ap as an important part, a 4++ (and 6+++ to small arms like HB/SB/Plasma) will really help.

It's been a few months since I managed to play a game, but post-codex I didn't find any army overly threatening. It wasn't because I'm a great player, I'm relatively new and by no means a seasoned tournament min-maxer. I was almost *wanting* some point increases for Dark Eldar, as it felt too easy to grind marines into the dirt, or beat down the vast majority of armies I played. I felt like my codex had the game won before a dice was rolled, and that sucked. My list only had 2 ravagers, I took hellions, wyches, reavers. Units that are "sub-par" but they still did the job easily. So other armies getting cheaper, in my opinion, is just levelling the playing field. And offering up more slaves for Commorragh! Besides, a shakeup of other armies will shake up list building for DE anyway, even without changes for us as the units we encounter more frequently shift and we need to adapt to compete.

Yes it's a shame that units needing love didn't get it. But there are ALWAYS going to be units that lose out in a codex. If hellions got buffed, or beasts or the court? They'd just push something else out wouldn't they. Because our "weak" units tend to be compared to our "strong" units, and everyone takes the strong units. There is very little in our codex that genuinely isn't viable. I'd say probably beasts and the court. Incubi are sub-par but can perform a role. Same for hellions and the majority of other units that draw criticism. They aren't the strongest unit entry, but they aren't *broken*. They just aren't optimal.

Criticism is fine. It's even justified and I can fully understand annoyance at CA 2018. But when all some posters can do is complain relentlessly, about everything without ever managing to find a positive for the army they play in a game they (presumably) enjoy, then any valid points just tend to get lost amongst the white noise. Blind misery is no different to blind optimism. Neither stance provides a very balanced viewpoint of the situation.

Overall the CA is actually really good, They only did 1/2 this years codex on purpose too, so they had time to look over those books and get the rules out. They cant just make a CA within 2-3 months, these books take 4-6 months to make.

The Problem is players dont understand that and will arguing with you if you tell them "No, show me proof thats how it works!"

Well... my proof is I DID THIS FOR A JOB, it wasnt for GW, but i had to write books and re-write systems for a Job. IT TAKES MONTHS.

So this of CA 2018 as an update from 2017's till May 2018, everything within that time line got looked at, some armies like Space Wolves were Retroactive changes b.c of other SM changes.


CA 2018 is good, andw ill change some of the meta for sure. And also Remember ITC IS NOT WAR-AMMER its ITC-HAMMER. GW isnt trying to build fixes for ITC, you want a more balance game? PLay missions from CA, they are very good (well all but 2-3, tho those 2-3 are still better than BRB ones).

And you can also add in narrative rules, like Soft and Hard cover. Its YOUR GAME, play it your way.

I really like the Cities of Death rules, but I don't foresee any tourneys adopting them (unless they get integrated into 9th ed.. and I *do* foresee that 'lucky shot' will eventually be part of the main 40k rule set), due to the reluctance to add more rules in a game where it can be a struggle to finish satisfactorily within the allotted 2 hour tourney round.

amishprn86 wrote:

Overall the CA is actually really good, They only did 1/2 this years codex on purpose too, so they had time to look over those books and get the rules out. They cant just make a CA within 2-3 months, these books take 4-6 months to make.

The Problem is players dont understand that and will arguing with you if you tell them "No, show me proof thats how it works!"

Well... my proof is I DID THIS FOR A JOB, it wasnt for GW, but i had to write books and re-write systems for a Job. IT TAKES MONTHS.

I believe you that books take a long time to write.

If only there was some other, much faster way through which GW could release point changes to their players, which didn't require any printing or physical materials.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Overall the CA is actually really good, They only did 1/2 this years codex on purpose too, so they had time to look over those books and get the rules out. They cant just make a CA within 2-3 months, these books take 4-6 months to make.

The Problem is players dont understand that and will arguing with you if you tell them "No, show me proof thats how it works!"

Well... my proof is I DID THIS FOR A JOB, it wasnt for GW, but i had to write books and re-write systems for a Job. IT TAKES MONTHS.

I believe you that books take a long time to write.

If only there was some other, much faster way through which GW could release point changes to their players, which didn't require any printing or physical materials.

Yeah that would be nice, but honestly we just need 8.5 to be released, add and change a couple core rules.

amishprn86 wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Overall the CA is actually really good, They only did 1/2 this years codex on purpose too, so they had time to look over those books and get the rules out. They cant just make a CA within 2-3 months, these books take 4-6 months to make.

The Problem is players dont understand that and will arguing with you if you tell them "No, show me proof thats how it works!"

Well... my proof is I DID THIS FOR A JOB, it wasnt for GW, but i had to write books and re-write systems for a Job. IT TAKES MONTHS.

I believe you that books take a long time to write.

If only there was some other, much faster way through which GW could release point changes to their players, which didn't require any printing or physical materials.

Yeah that would be nice, but honestly we just need 8.5 to be released, add and change a couple core rules.

Out of curiosity, which core rules would you most like to see changed?

Cover for sure, Moral system, let some units DS turn 1, and personally Ally system

CA narrative cover is where we need to move towards.

Moral should ALWAYS make a unit fail, even fearless. But limited it or change it. If you lose more than your LD then you lose D6, and only then, if you are fearless or has rules to stop it, just make it always count the role as 1 (this way negatives to LD now matters as well)

Pods, Spore Pods, and limited units should be able to DS turn 1. But dont make them dedicated, limited it to Ro3, meaning only 3 Drop pods in an army. This gives reason for many more units. yes it allies alpha strike, but again can make it so it can NOT DS in the opponents DZ (your DZ and no mans are fine).

For me allies; The detachment system was a great idea, build it your way, but its way to hard to manage, it need to be limited to 1 detachment at least.


But at minimum Moral and Cover

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

Saying you are forced to pay for a rules errata is absolutely wrong, because you have that part out already. You have not purchased anything, yet the points costs are already common knowledge a week before release. It's the part of the book that is simply unrealistic to monetize, as all that info will be out in the internet anyway and in every third party army builder. Nobody looks at their codex when making an army, they use an app. That is why Chapter Approved is far more than just the points rebalancing and they hqrdly expect you to buy the book for just that, the real draw to buy the book is the expanded list of missions, the beta rules of the Sisters of Battle et cetera. The actual FAQs and errata are free of charge.

If you want to be bitter, it's your choice, but this "meta churning" used to be with releases of codexes once every few years at best and there were no attempts to fix anything. It wasn't very fun waiting five years for the next shot at Dark eldar rules update. The last year and a half has seen far more involvement in balance and response to concerns than there has ever been since maybe mid 90s. GW ain't no angels, but they're not devils on the level of EA either. This kind of hyperbole is a bunch of nonsense that contributes to nothing, and this dripping bitterness is quite honestly offputting.

I concur!

Although our army did not get direct changes and most of the others got a bit cheaper I think the CA has a very important change from which we benefit more than most of the other armies. And this is the new deployment rules in de CA missions.

Knowing that you can set up your complete army second if you are not getting the first turn is very powerful. Of course, every army benefits from that, but because our army is less resilient than most other armies I think we benefit slightly more from this. I also think that this favors CC units a little bit as you already know during deployment if you are going to start or not (except for the D6 seize initiative).

I had my first CA18 game yesterday and the new deployment rule really played into my hands.

EDIT: Also a great thanks to GW that they managed to even the odds between the player going first and second a little bit. In the past most changes just changed the probability who is going to start second and being screwed. With the stratagem from the FAQ and the new deployment rules this is a lot better now.

Played a game with the new CA2018 eternal war missions; was a lot of fun but really favoured my army. We played the mission where the objectives move around and FLY has obsec, my DE vs his Nids with no Flyrants. I set up second too which was a great advantage as I didn't want first turn (wanted him to rush up to me) so deployed way back and screened his Genestealers, then just picked everything off.
MVP was 10 wracks with a Scissorhand deleting his broodlord, Swarmlord and 20 Genestealers with the help of torturers craft. I almost threw the game despite tabling him as I didn't play the mission til too late so if the game hadn't gone past turn 5 it would have been a draw. Biggest douchebag award went to Urien Rakarth who, whilst trying to deal with the Broodlord and Swarmlord, activated his Crucible of Malediction failing to injure the tyranid psykers but succesfully doing 3 mortal wounds to Eldrad who was just there with his guardians to lend a helping hand. Jeez!