PDA

View Full Version : should point adjustments be done to existing armybooks?



SgtTaters
28-03-2011, 23:18
Think of a "2nd edition" of an existing armybook, one that adjusts points without modifying the rules.

In videogamey terms, a 'patch' instead of a sequel/expansion.

Would you be cool with something like that?

We've seen this done with Dark Angels and Black Templars in 40k. That was largely to placate fans of popular armies with old rules, but what if they did that for existing under/overpowered armylists?


A .pdf that says "reduce cost of (your favorite fluffy but stupidly bad to field model) by X", one that says "increase points of (the overpowered unit you hate to play against most) by (reasonable number)"

Or is that somehow against the GW way of doing things

*AH NUTS I meant to post this in 40k general... oh well, let's make it a Armybook poll then

theunwantedbeing
28-03-2011, 23:22
Wow, another 40k post that gets posted in the fantasy section.

Well done. You rock.
The Fantasy section needs to be re-named "Warhammer Fantasy" to help 40k players post in the right place.

I voted no.
We don't need points adjustments, we need rules adjustments.

Stronginthearm
28-03-2011, 23:29
Personally I could go both ways here(and if I was a college student I would make some joke about that phrase) On the one hand it would help with the problem old army books face while waiting for something new, we've all seen it, Wood elves, brets ogres are all anxiously waiting(not saying they need it, won't open that can of large violent forum posters here) but on the other hand its really annoying to have to consult your computer for the latest version and it would be really easy to get into large altercations(shouting matches) because two guys versions don't quite match up

Conclusion: It would be nice but I don't think they could get it right


*and I agree that you 40k wierdies need to read the "Fantasy" part before posting your stuff(I play 40k I'm allowed to say that)

Ultimate Life Form
28-03-2011, 23:56
*and I agree that you 40k wierdies need to read the "Fantasy" part before posting your stuff(I play 40k I'm allowed to say that)

40K gamers who read? That would be novel indeed.

As for the topic,





...no.


Why? Because if GW can't get it right the first time around, why would they later? Basically, it would just swing imbalance in the opposite direction. I can already see the countless whineseer threads...

'why did you have to make this cheaper?'
'why did you have to make this more expensive'
'why didn't you change this one?'
'why did you change something AT ALL? Keep your hands off my rules, you horrible, horrible people! Anything you touch becomes a bloody mess! Your ruleswriting is just so horrid...'

Kalandros
29-03-2011, 00:14
They can just FAQ those 4 questions with one answer:

Deal with it.

Harwammer
29-03-2011, 01:33
ULF, your argument is strong!

Even before the edition change points pricing in the 7th ed books was off so I can't even suggest that should be addressed due to 8ths different focus.

artisturn
29-03-2011, 05:30
I voted no.

I would rather see them put that effort into the army books.

Stronginthearm
29-03-2011, 06:48
I can already see the countless whineseer threads...

'why did you have to make this cheaper?'
'why did you have to make this more expensive'
'why didn't you change this one?'
'why did you change something AT ALL? Keep your hands off my rules, you horrible, horrible people! Anything you touch becomes a bloody mess! Your ruleswriting is just so horrid...'

So unlike our own dear warseer;)

I still stand by the problem of conflicting printouts, this way we have hard copy's, everyone knows when a new one comes out and can get to grips with it. We can be comfortable in our complaining, I still haven't figured out the major gripes with the OnG book, but I'm slow I'll get there in the end

WarhammerNoob4ever
29-03-2011, 07:01
I think points should be adjusted.... i dont think there is anything wrong w that..... release an FAQ on the website and make it in such a way that the changes can be cut out and glued to the correct page in the Army book.

And release a smaller, complete version that everyone can print out and carry w them, so they kno what changes have happened across the board.

Part of the prob with "power creep" in the army books, is that the various books have been (currently) created with 3 different editions of the game in mind. So yes, points do need to be adjusted. Its a quick (at least quicker than writing new books) fix that allows the game to be more balanced and fair between the books that are old and the books that are new.

Plus it lets them correct things that happen in more recent books (ie Beastmen Monster cost) that wont be fixed for almost a decade....

Urgat
29-03-2011, 08:12
'why did you change something AT ALL? Keep your hands off my rules, you horrible, horrible people! Anything you touch becomes a bloody mess! Your ruleswriting is just so horrid...'

"Can't deal with it? Don't buy it in the first place?"
I voted yes (heh). People whine about too cheap abombs, too expensive beastmen big gribblies, things like that. That's most likely the things they would change. Look at the 7th ed DE list, they did just that, a minimum amount of necessary points adjustments (plus a couple rules adjustments here and there like hadding heavy armor to executionners), and they did it right.
Are you not all bored being like that? You spend your days pissing on GW's work, you complain about how it's not balanced or it is written wrong or whatever, you spend days in useless topics about how they should have done that this way and this that way - but maybe those topics are not useless and GW read them (the recent faqs tend to prove this, since all the most stupid questions asked in the rules forum end up in the faqs right after, go wonder); but then you all scream how you don't want them to fix the rules given the opportunity?
You people don't really complain for a reason besides the pleasure of complaining, right?

@stronginthearm: there's nothing major really, a couple details here and there that may raise a couple questions, but that's really much it. "insert comments about it being written by GW, worse, by Jeremy "Skaven" Vetock and must therefore have hidden gems somewhere that will require a 12 pages FAQ, just because".

"looks at poll". I'm being unfair to warseer. As usual, vocal minority deal.

Flash Felix
29-03-2011, 08:35
I voted yes.

I don't think that GW would get it perfect, but they'd get it better than the current range of Army Books that span something like 7 or 8 years.

I think it would be a relatively cheap and easy fix, and while it would create a new range of problems, I think they'd be fewer and smaller than a world of 2pt Skavenslaves, 175pt Hydras and overly-priced Cygors and Gorgons.

Gharof von Carstein
29-03-2011, 09:54
Ya know what id like to see? Since O&G are now the only army book with a hard cover (followed soon by TK) and actually decent written up rules and adjustments, id rather see GW not release a revamped army or new models the coming year. Just release the entire line of army books over again. rewrite a few small things, reduce a point cost here and there, up a point cost here and there. for armies that got the shaft big time or are older (WE, Ogres, Bretts, VC, Dwarfs) make new rules AND PLAYTEST THOSE RULES! shouldnt take em more than a few months to rework some point costs for beastmen, (less expensive rares) skaven, (more expensive slaves) DE (Hydra has got to go up in points..), Lizardmen, (try to balance this army out somewhat?).

Basically im sure that what takes a new army release so long is the modeling, sure the book shouldnt be rushed. the rules and items need to be good and not overpowered. But if they dedicate to this full time they should be able to crank out a new book every 2 months or so, or hell all at once in a years time or so. This way you can playtest new rules against each other and immidiatly get some sense as to what is broken and what is not.

not to mention they should do this every edition.

TheLionReturns
29-03-2011, 11:16
I don't have a problem with codex/army book updates in principle but I think there are some potential issues.

Firstly I think it would be confusing and unreasonable to do it much in the current setting. Hard copies of the army book would have to be filled with glued entries, something I would hate to do, and players may not always have the latest FAQ. I think if GW eventually move to digital codices, however, then this is a more viable suggestion.

The other issue is deciding when there needs to be a tweak. Sure if something is broken to the extent of unplayable maybe a tweak in points is in order, but what about the more marginal things? For the sake of argument lets say abombs are too cheap. Are they broken? People still win against Skaven. If you change that one where do you draw the line? Is it a constant quest for the perfect balance and never ending changes?

There is also the issue of what standard you use to judge the changes. Tournament players may say XYZ are undercosted but the vast majority of GW's customers will have no such problem. I personally don't think the rules should be dictated by the needs of the top tournament players or the most vocal internet whiners, yet this may happen if such an approach is taken.

There is also the grim prospect of GW being able to boost the rules of poor selling ranges to boost sales more easily than in the current system. Good for them perhaps but not great for customers I might suggest.

I think generally GW has been right to stick to the rules they publish by and large. I would echo the need for better playtesting and long term army book/codex planning. Drifting in 40K for a moment I do support the changes to the DA and BT codices. I think when we are talking about the rules for the same pieces of equipment but in different books it makes sense to bring it all into line for the sake of continuity of the universe. That said a better game design regimen to avoid such issues in the first place would be better.

Spiney Norman
29-03-2011, 11:34
Yes they should adjust points, but its not remotely realistic to expect them to actually do it. The time that would be required to fully playtest each existing army and re-jig the points values would not be worth it when they could be spending the time writing a new book for the the few books that were do damaged by the 8E changes that they're no-longer competitive (TK, WE & VC). TK are about to get their new book anyway, and arguably VC could be saved with an army wide pts adjustment to account for fear now being totally useless. All of the other books can compete fairly well without an adjustment, and even VC isn't exactly unplayable, they're just in the place that TK has occupied for about the last 4 years - all horribly overpriced.

Although if they could find time to ban the book of Hoeth I would be infinitely grateful.

Gharof von Carstein
29-03-2011, 12:27
The thing that just bothers me is that they expect us to still have fun playing a game when people who invest in the newest and often cheesiest armies get to have all of it... I just walked into a GW a few weeks ago. I had not yet played 8th after a year long sabbatical and I wanted to put my VC down for something new. New edition, new army. Makes sense right? I had already experienced lizardmen, skaven, daemons and WoC before and disliked all of them. I hate the skaven rank and file models, the lizardmen style of play didnt appeal to me and Daemons and WoC just arent my cup of tea as they often stink of cheddar to me (at least whenever people used them against me, so absolutly no positive feelings towards them). I saw ogres just standing there, begging me to take them home. I am however a competitive player and so I just couldnt bring myself to take them home. Having heard nothing about beastmen, I fell in love with the models and after hugging a batallion box of those i took around 200 euro's worth of beastmen home with me.

Suprise suprise, i play my first 8th edition game with them and i draw against a lackluster list by someone who isnt ranked pretty high strategically in my book. I havent gotten the hang of them yet but I have found out that this book was not "made with 8th in mind" like GW claim. And if that would truly be the case... than GW really hates beastmen. which kinda makes me really sad... just fix the book already please! And fix Ogres while your at it!

My point is. There has to be a way for all of us to have fun, fix up the army books for everyone in some form or another. If thats not possible than at least let every army book from now not be so broken i can make a point and click army of doom. Im all for fluffyness when it comes to warhammer, but this hardly reflects on some armies. seriously the fluff behind skaven and lizardmen and daemons could be really cool. yet everyone i play against doesnt know jack about that fluff seeing as they only play the army to destroy other people with it. You could say, dont go to tournaments anymore or dont play those people anymore. Kinda have to seeing as the player scene in holland isnt that diverse. And im not traveling 3 hours towards Belgium for it to become diverse...

WarmbloodedLizard
29-03-2011, 12:44
fixing rules is hard, slightly adjusting point costs is a lot easier. both things are needed. I'm totally pro pdf with price adjustments (you can easily put all price adjustments of all armies on 1-2 A4 pages.). Adjusting rules would also be really nice, but is a lot more harder to do, as you don't know how a new/adjusted rule interacts with every other rule.

all changes should then be included in newer print runs. (together with orthography...)

Kevlar
29-03-2011, 13:12
I think a ravaging hordes style pamphlet should be produced with every new edition. They don't have to go into much detail, but if their new business model for that edition aims to reduce point costs to drive up model sales then they should do it across the board to keep the game fair.

Harwammer
29-03-2011, 13:28
if their new business model for that edition aims to reduce point costs to drive up model sales then they should do it across the board to keep the game fair.
What? Beastmen went up in points, orcs got some rises and some drops but stayed about the same depending on what units you chose and that's the only 8th book and only 7th book GW described as 8th in mind.

Although we have little data so far it seems armies designed for 8th are not getting cheaper.

TK's skeletons will likely get cheaper, but if you look at these 3 books and compare them to lists from their predecessors I'm sure there would be little overall downward trend.

sssk
29-03-2011, 13:31
I think that yes, it would be very beneficial to bring some of the absolute lowest of the low back onto battlefields. However, we all know GW would do it wrong somewhere, and everyone would complain, and it would just end in tears all round, so for that reason, no they shouldn't.

In any case, there're no armies which totally don't work at the moment (except maybe TK, who're getting done next anyway) so why bother? if it ain't (completely) broke etc

Ultimate Life Form
29-03-2011, 13:41
Because we all know GW's credo:



"If it ain't broke, I'll break it. If it *is* broke, I'll fix it."

DJElam
29-03-2011, 13:46
I vote yes.
Just think of the years between books. Having books that were make for a different set of rules. Having the points adjusted is only a temp thing but it would go a long way to evening out the armies til the next book came out.
It's also for New unit types. I know my Ogre army that were a 1st of it's kind for the whole army to be multi wound monsters, were over priced to begin with because GW didn't want them to be over powered yet went too far the other way.
But I don't think they will ever do it.

Harwammer
29-03-2011, 14:44
I know my Ogre army that were a 1st of it's kind for the whole army to be multi wound monsters,
False. eg BoC mino spam?

Rosstifer
29-03-2011, 17:21
I voted yes, just so I could use my Ghorgon without hamstringing myself. Only part of the Beastmen book I don't like is the point's cost on rares.

thebom
29-03-2011, 23:04
Hell yeah, I'm sick of the fact that if I want to optimize my winning chances I have to play either Dark Elves, Skaven, Lizardmen or Deamons.. Adjusting points would be awesome both for internal and external balance.

sulla
29-03-2011, 23:21
I dunno. I'd rather they just fixed broken stuff. I'd only really be happy with points increases for my hydra, pendant and dagger if they could make combat characters worthwhile in general (especially expensive, squishy elven ones), and let me get useful characters into my khainite units somehow.

I'd like to see rnf great weapon costs adjusted, especially for core with great weapons, just to make taking the other options relevant again. Ans s5 template weapons should definately get errata'd to death. S4 max please gw.

But it seems a slippery sloe to go down. Either adjusting points or army entries is so subjuective that in general, I think it's better to wait till a new book and properly test the units then. (Properly testing includes the public, GW!)

Geep
30-03-2011, 00:08
One of the main reasons GW don't do this (at least from what I vaguely remember) is that the amended rules wouldn't get around equally- you'd have awkward situations where one guy is playing his list straight from the book, unaware of any update, while another is at a distinct advantage with new rules. In a tournament this kind of thing could be a real pest.

If they released an amendment pamphlet with a new edition boxed set I can see it working, but really is that amount of effort (updating every army, playtesting it all, etc.) really worth what is essentially a tiny change?

decker_cky
30-03-2011, 01:15
But it seems a slippery sloe to go down. Either adjusting points or army entries is so subjuective that in general, I think it's better to wait till a new book and properly test the units then. (Properly testing includes the public, GW!)

I dunno. Even if they only deal with the really obvious stuff that's badly overpriced or badly underpriced. The different rules argument is weak - serious players should have their FAQs and casual players will either find it out, or won't and will be none the wiser.

Go through all the books and find 5-10% of the things that are overpriced, and 5-10% of things that are underpriced. Deal with those, and you'll be surprised how well balanced everything is in GW's games gets.

As to playtesting, you wouldn't need that much since they'd just be shifting the balance of the books a bit. The changes would be the result of lots of playtesting, since that's what we've all be playing for the past year.

Kevlar
30-03-2011, 01:21
but really is that amount of effort (updating every army, playtesting it all, etc.) really worth what is essentially a tiny change?

When you have 25% of your armies using 6th edition books, and your rulebook is on its 8th edition? Yes, it is worth it.

Ultimate Life Form
30-03-2011, 01:24
As to playtesting, you wouldn't need that much since they'd just be shifting the balance of the books a bit. The changes would be the result of lots of playtesting, since that's what we've all be playing for the past year.

I'm not sure if it should make me sad or angry that it's us players who do the playtesting for GW... and happily pay for it as opposed to being paid.

TMATK
30-03-2011, 02:12
I can't see them ever adjusting points and rules in between books. It's in their interest for customers to have confidence in the army books as written.

Imagine someone goes out and spends money on 3 metal hellcannons, then a week or 2 later GW FAQs them to raise their point cost and/or tone down their rules. That person will be annoyed but, more importantly, will be far less inclined to make a purchase like that in the future.

dinobot
30-03-2011, 02:25
I submitted this very idea to GW's contact address a number of years ago. In return I recieved some sort of ad for a space marine. Not to be dissuaded, I again wrote in about my idea, this time limiting myself to <2 syllable words and utilizing the kind of simplistic anology that one would use to convey information to a particularly dimwitted child. This time I recieved a response.

From what little I could glean from the poorly spelled reply, it appeared as though the GW higher ups were opposed to the idea on the grounds that it would require too much work. That's right gentlemen, GW considers rewriting perhaps a dozen unit costs as "too much work". I suppose this information comes as no surprise around here; such tales are so common that I can already guess the response to it. "That happened 6 years ago, GW has changed!" *cue corporate goons entering and rifling through the warseerian's pockets* "GW no longer employs inept miscreants or charges extortionate prices for shoddy goods!" *one corporate goon begins making threatening gestures with a baseball bat in one hand, while extending his hand in expectation of an offering with the other* "GW has changed, I promise you, I swear it on my life!!!" *the warseerian places a small stack of cash in the goon's hand, however it is not enough and the goons' advance, surrounding the poor fellow right before another hits the light switch. Nothing can be seen, but the screams for mercy can be heard from 3 blocks away*.

Continue to mire in your ignorance, but I know the truth. GW will never change their business model, because there is no need. They see their customers as cattle, and those cattle do not need compassion, hope, entertainment, they merely need to be hooked up to the money siphon so that their bills can be sucked out of their wallets and shipped to England in an efficient and orderly manner. It looks like it's time for you lot to make your bi-monthly "donation" to dear leader, Mark Wells! As for me? I'm one step ahead of you lot, that's why I keep my money in my shoes.

DJElam
30-03-2011, 04:02
I know my Ogre army that were a 1st of it's kind for the whole army to be multi wound monsters,

False. eg BoC mino spam?
Hmmm. I don't play BoC but I do know for a fact that minos are not your only core that can do damage in the BoC book. BoC wasn't made to be just big multi wound guys ogres was.

Vaktathi
30-03-2011, 04:02
*Personally*? I have no problems with Errata to fix points costs.

The problem is that GW has never done it properly, so when they've done such things in the past (e.g. like in 40k when they took Obliterators from T5 to T(4)5) they didn't really advertise any changes, and they don't seem to really want to put the effort into publishing rules changes and making it known when they do.

Hell, I know more than a few players who never knew GW had online Errata not only do you kinda have to know where you're going on the website to find it, but they don't say anything on the website (typically, though there have been a couple exceptions) and they put nothing in White Dwarf (which is exactly what such a magazine *should* be for, not a $9 advertisement for next months products), so when people learn of changes its often more of a "WTF when did that happen" rather than a "they've been talking about these changes and just published the errata making them effective now".

Urgat
30-03-2011, 09:41
Hmmm. I don't play BoC but I do know for a fact that minos are not your only core that can do damage in the BoC book. BoC wasn't made to be just big multi wound guys ogres was.

He's referring to the previous book, where taking a doombull was for many people about allowing minotaurs as core (a rule now gone), effectively making this army the first army centered around ogre-sized infantry.

Harwammer
30-03-2011, 09:46
Edit: ninja'd by the goblin... Urgat is now a Skulker?


Hmmm. I don't play BoC but I do know for a fact that minos are not your only core that can do damage in the BoC book. BoC wasn't made to be just big multi wound guys ogres was.

I'm not sure if I was clear previously, I was talking of BoC not Bm.

But yeah, BoC also had a 'skirmisher' unit, a ranked unit with a 1:1 rule (like gnoblars?) and chariots.

However the most common unit types were large infantry (minos, ogres, drogres, trolls) and monsters (giants, monstrous mutants, shaggoths, spawn). It was definitely designed with a multi wound army option in mind and if anything was testing the water for the subsequent OK book release.

During 7th most BoC armies I saw were based around minotaur core with troll or ogre bodyguard for the doombull and dragon ogres/shaggoths for pace.

I don't think ogre's biggest problem is pricing, rather that it lacks the kind of units that 8th favours and is vulnerable to the 'remove models' spells.

orkmiester
30-03-2011, 10:03
it would be a good idea but as has been mentioned many people would be left out or ignorant of the updates.

saying that i agree wih the 40k point, both black templars and dark angels (space marines who would have thought it...) suffered from marine codex creep and much of their equipment was out of date by the current standards. So it was only right that they got an update to bring them in line so to speak.

decker_cky
30-03-2011, 19:20
it would be a good idea but as has been mentioned many people would be left out or ignorant of the updates.

I'd say a large percentage of Warhammer players are exposed to either White Dwarf, or to the website. Release a supplement with White Dwarf advertising that it's updating all the books to be truly 8th edition compatible or something. Send out an email and release those online as well. The vast majority of Warhammer players would get that update.

On the update, mention that additional updates like this will be released every 6 months. Stick to that schedule, and before long people are trained.

Kevlar
30-03-2011, 19:32
I think releasing updated points costs with the Rulebook for a new edition would be the way to go. Anyone who didn't have access to the revised points cost wouldn't be playing the new edition. The bestiary in the back of the BRB could easily have included a column for revised point costs for all troops of every army.

Storak
30-03-2011, 20:37
I dunno. Even if they only deal with the really obvious stuff that's badly overpriced or badly underpriced. The different rules argument is weak - serious players should have their FAQs and casual players will either find it out, or won't and will be none the wiser.

Go through all the books and find 5-10% of the things that are overpriced, and 5-10% of things that are underpriced. Deal with those, and you'll be surprised how well balanced everything is in GW's games gets.

As to playtesting, you wouldn't need that much since they'd just be shifting the balance of the books a bit. The changes would be the result of lots of playtesting, since that's what we've all be playing for the past year.

of course i support an online update!

and fixing just the most obvious stuff would be a great start. and to fix the stuff that needs a change because of the new edition. (like the new command costs they seem to introduce with O&G)

not a lot of work and it would make the game way better. it is the 21st century. people expect a patch to stupid rules (snotling pricing, for example) within a month. not years later (if ever...)!

Jetty Smurf
31-03-2011, 20:13
Interesting that people have mentioned that putting these changes in an online pdf would cause confusion, or potentially mean some miss out on the changes while others know about them from the moment they come out, thus making the whole idea a bit of a mess. Just a quick question for those... Do you play without the erratas and FAQs? These are the exact same as what is being proposed, and in some cases completely change the way a rule works. That's just as significant as a points change to ~10% of units, yet I see no problem with the erratas and FAQs, and from what I can tell, not only do people not mind this, they in fact seem to be in favour of it.

Would it be really that difficult to print off a 2 page list for this, considering the pages and pages of FAQs and erratas currently on the GW site?

The idea meantioned by decker_cky about promoting the changes on the site and in White Dwarf seems the most logical, and would definitely be a good way to get the information out there. I don't really remember seeing much in terms of promotion for the FAQs/erratas, but do remember something (thought maybe most of it was from here :p).

Unfortunately, a topic such as this is pretty much moot. While it's great to talk about the possibilities of an "errata" to adjust point costs, and indeed the positive impact it would have on the game (unless completely and utterly mishandled (which, to be honest, isn't quite out of the realm of possibilities if GW ever does decide to do this)), it just does not seem like something GW would actually do. Which is a shame really.

If we take a long hard look at 8th ed fantasy, we can tell that there are some problems with balance. If we actually have a long hard think about it, we should be able to see that perfect balance IS impossible. However, there do seem to be some glaring errors (surely some points costs are more typos that got through than well thought out decisions, first draft that forgot to get edited? Surely?), but it's unlikely much is to be done about this except for the slow trickle of books to be released, and even then, there's still likely to be grave imbalances somewhere.

Man, this is making me depressed. I think I need to go paint something...

I am glad I enjoy this game for what it is, otherwise that corner over there would be wet from my tears... :p

popisdead
31-03-2011, 20:19
Beastmen need it bad.

Zaknifa
31-03-2011, 23:44
I voted yes to this due simply to the fact that many choices in books are out of balance and internal balance in many books is severly out of wack and be fixed with a quick FAQ adjsuting points within books to make internal balace at least achived.

The best example I can think of is the Ogre Kingdoms special selection. Yheetes and Leadbelchers are too overcosted and sraplaunchers are the best choice, and his to may be alittle out of wack.

TheLionReturns
01-04-2011, 00:23
Interesting that people have mentioned that putting these changes in an online pdf would cause confusion, or potentially mean some miss out on the changes while others know about them from the moment they come out, thus making the whole idea a bit of a mess. Just a quick question for those... Do you play without the erratas and FAQs?

Just to reply to this point specifically, I do use the FAQ's and erratas and whilst usable I do have some concerns.

I think it is mostly that it creates the image of a shoddy product. Having to refer to a printed piece of paper in addition to the codex when making a list isn't ideal, nor is having to check online in case a new FAQ is out. I think computer games get away with it because the patching process is seamless. Games can be designed to check for updates automatically and once applied the changes are incorporated and largely invisible.

As I have mentioned I think digital codices would be able to achieve this but current paper codices and printed FAQ's just makes the product look poorly designed.

gdsora
01-04-2011, 01:03
I wanted this the moment i got my hands on 8th edition rules.

(TK player)

Doesn't matter much now with a new booking almost here.

But all the games ive played since 8th

8 Point skeletons...
I think that is enough said

Fear isn't worthless, but just very very very ineffective.
Unbreakable is negligible now that you can get Steadfast + General/Hero LD

Skeletons aren't even close to 8 points

Trasvi
01-04-2011, 02:36
I Vote yes, with some caveats.

The biggest problem is fragmentation:
I look to BFG, which has had a number of stealth updates. Heck, the rulebook is in the 2nd (3rd?) edition of printing and most people don't even know that!! One major change which isn't readily apparent to those still using the original book is Nova Cannon: Previously they were a guess range weapon; now they are a scatter weapon. Another is ships running out of ordnance. I was playing a game with someone a week ago, we both had printed rulebooks but he was referencing all these old rules - the confusion isnt helped when the only difference between the old and new edition is the presence of the Games Workshop logo on the cover.

People need to be aware of what changes are taking place, and when. I think the easiest way to do this is to have a regular date for rules changes (ie, 1st of June and 1st of December), or publish their intent to release an update at least 3 months in advance, with a preview 1 month in advance. With their website, fan sites like warseer, white dwarf, GW stores and possibly even being able to put printed updates in the boxes themselves, GW would warn and inform 99.9% of their player base.

But I do think armies using books from 1-2 editions ago need at least a nod in their direction for rules that just don't work.

Gharof von Carstein
01-04-2011, 07:57
If GW truly wants their games to be ready for competitive play they actually need to start doing this on at least a quarterly basis. Look at all competitive collectible card games like magic or yu-gi-oh. They have ban and restricted lists which are amended constantly when a card shows up or is used in a certain way that simply breaks the metagame. This list is a tool to keep everything fair and good. Why the hell wouldnt GW do that with their armybooks?

I mean basically it takes years for a new armybook to get worked over completely. So even if they are amended in ways (going further than the current FAQ's) people will still buy the new books, its not like they wont be needed anymore. If Id be a paranoid person Id probably guess that the reason for not doing this is because GW wants to constantly have us wanting the new competitive armies because the old ones dont cut it anymore. I however think that amending armybooks on a regular basis if needed would end up in more models sold, people will stick with their armies longer and will still keep buying the new stuff if the models dont suck (GW's responsibility) and the book is wel written.

dinobot
01-04-2011, 09:01
Skeletons aren't even close to 8 points

Skeletons are worth 3 points each, anyone who tells you otherwise is an uneducated career loser incapable of GRASPING the very concepts of dynamic unit expidenture statistics, an area of expertise that I mastered whilst attending my local high school at age 12.

Urgat
01-04-2011, 09:06
I think it is mostly that it creates the image of a shoddy product.

So, no corrections, so GW doesn't look bad? To save face? You know, that's probably already why they don't do that, I'm sure. And it's a very sad way of thinking. It amounts to saying they know they made mistakes, but will refuse to admit it, because it would make their products badly designed. So deal with the mistakes.
As for making lists, sure, but it's not like it's not a game where we got lots of notes flying around on pieces of paper anyway.



If GW truly wants their games to be ready for competitive play
They don't, it's not the aim of 8th ed and it's written quite plainly somewhere in the book.

Gharof von Carstein
01-04-2011, 10:08
yet there are several competitive tourney scenes which enhance the popularity of the game. It is directly in GW's best interest to focus on competitive play as well. Hence they make the scenario's and restrictions in army composition, unit composition etc. They can claim whatever they want. Saying that warhammer is not meant to be competitive in any way is just plain naive. Sure you can play a tournament to have fun. but if warhammer wasnt competitive in some aspect than why is it subject to powergaming? powergaming is something that springs forth from a competitive scene where people will use whatever means necessary to win and be the best. Look at 'ard boyz tournaments and tell me again that warhammer is not meant to be competitive in any way...

Urgat
01-04-2011, 10:53
It is your opinion, which is one among many. Your opinion is that they should change their ways because a selection of people have decided that they should focus on tournaments.
Well it doesn't work that way, if they don't care about tourneys, they don't care, I'm afraid to say. So in turn I can say '"you can claim whatever you want", saying that they should bring the scope on tourneys is just plain naive', which amounts to nothing really, since it's in turn, only my opinion, right? You can indeed say that you don't have to care about what they wanted to achieve and do whatever you want with the rules (they do encourage you to do just that after all, tournaments are one aspect of adapting the rules to what one find fun), but you cannot deny them the right to have their own views on the product they're making.
Warhammer has always been about fluff, it started almost as a RPG after all. It's that kind of people who develop the game, so nope, they're not going to focus on competitive play. They never did, and they most likely never will. And that's also within the scope of the rules: if you want competitive gameplay, you can adapt the rules for that. They keep repeating it over and over in the BRB, on their website, in the white dwarf. You're not going to have better than that.
And as for why it is subject to powergaming? It's because like with everything else, there's people who can't help it, they need to win whatever they do, period. It's got nothing to do with weither the rules are written with tournaments in mind or not.
I could use that analogy the US people like so much (even though I hate it) regarding guns. They're for self defense, they're not for killing, so why do some people use those for aggression instead? That's right: because they can, plain and simple. You're not going to rationalise this, and no matter what you do, perfect rules, accurate laws, passwords, cops, whatever is used to enforce order, you're going to have people who will want to abuse the system as much as they're allowed to (or beyond what they're allowed to, cheaters, in Warhammer's case, criminals of various scopes, in the real world).
So I look at 'ard Boyz and I tell you warhammer isn't meant to be played competitively. It's plain obvious actually, looking at 'ard Boyz; you ain't going there with a balanced list or any random army, that's for sure, some choices are just plain better for competitive play, which means that no thoughts have been put into making a leveled competition.

TheLionReturns
01-04-2011, 11:19
So, no corrections, so GW doesn't look bad? To save face? You know, that's probably already why they don't do that, I'm sure. And it's a very sad way of thinking. It amounts to saying they know they made mistakes, but will refuse to admit it, because it would make their products badly designed. So deal with the mistakes.
As for making lists, sure, but it's not like it's not a game where we got lots of notes flying around on pieces of paper anyway.


I think its important to stress that I don't find the current situation perfect. There are problems with codices and army books, particularly some older ones and the product is far from sparkling in that sense. It is just that FAQ's solve the issue in one way (ie the rules catch up) but creates new problems as I mentioned. I don't think it is necessarily a denial of mistakes, after all if thats the case why try to fix them in a new edition? I get the impression that GW believe that any improvement they get on the rules front with FAQ's is countered with the less coherent nature of the product it would produce.

It is a sad way of thinking but the image a company projects to its customers is important. Whilst inconsistent rules may cloud our impression of GW as established gamers, new gamers may react differently. Imagine a new customer looking to get into the game being sold an army book and then told to go and download these couple of documents where they got the rules wrong. That is bad and confusing for those new to the system. I think GW worries more about what new customers think than established ones. After all we are already hooked. Not great for us but GW are far from alone in valuing new customers over established ones.

I think the most important thing GW can do is improve their game design. This needs 2 things. Firstly a consistent long term plan that all books are designed in accordance with. Secondly improved playtesting to stop these seemingly obvious issues.

Even with this there will likely still be errors. FAQ's could fix this but to avoid creating new problems I would prefer these occur under a system of digital codices/army books. 5 years down the line this may well be the case.

As I have said before I think this would open a new can of worms, namely how do you decide what needs updating? Is it a constant tweaking in search of the elusive perfect balance or do you only fix the glaring errors? Where is the line between these two? However, that doesn't mean FAQ's are not worth doing in this way. I don't however, believe all will be right in the hobby under a FAQ system. There will remain scope for disagreement.

Urgat
01-04-2011, 12:34
I don't think it is necessarily a denial of mistakes, after all if thats the case why try to fix them in a new edition?

Ah, but GW aren't going to present a new edition as a fix, but as an evolution ;) And they're never going to seriously comment back on stuff they did or said (find your White Dwarf issue about the release of 7th ed. In one of the articles, you'll find they claim it is the final edition, that they consider perfect, and are not going to ever release a new edition again, just new armybooks to streamline or expand the game...).
Likewise, they'll present list corrections as updates and streamlining, not as "fixing errors":
"Based on constent following of our teams, we've decided to release a document that should further streamline the experience of the player, enhancing the gaemplay in ways that should please everybody".
Then there's the way you do it. Of course, if they release a new list every two months, it's going to be disturbing. If they release a yearly compendium of updated rules and FAQ every May, well, it's something customers are actually going to look forward to. And if you play Warhammer, you should know either a shop, the website, a forum or someone who knows about that. If you don't know about updates, and don't play people who would know about it, it's unlikely it would cause problems, since, well, you wouldn't know. And for the tournament people who also happen to know nobody and never play outseide tournaments, I suppose tournaments provide a list of what rules, what FAQ and so on you're supposed to follow, no? If not, and if such guy actually exists, well, he'll learn it the hard way on the first tournament, and then either quit because he's pissed off (but nobody will care, not GW because obviously he's never been in contact with them and therefore bought through third party), neither the other players because, well, he just doesn't matter, or he will just know that faq exist and will look into it for the next time.
As for the image, now it is my own opinion, and my own feelings on things, but I'm always better inclined towards companies that provide regular support rather than those who just wait till the last moment and then tell you to buy the new version. I'm no GW hater, but they certainly never earned points with me based on their following and update of their rules.
Finally, I'm not convinced at all that they're going to go digital anytime soon. It's not their philosophy at all, as displayed by their absolute lack of enthousiasm for any of the videogames or movies based on their own franchise (nothing on the website, a quarter of page in the White Dwarf when a ******* MMO based on warhammer is released? Any other company would have dedicated the whole ISSUE of of the magasine to it), and on the switch to hardcover for armybooks. They like their armybooks as much for the rules in it as for the "object" itself.

Mmh, I'm quite talkative in this thread, and I had decided to not post much anymore, so I guess I'll just leave it at that. Not that I really have a point to make anyway.

sninsch
07-02-2012, 01:04
Yes !
Sadly GW won't do it. I like to have 1 book for every race with all the fluff, pictures and painting advices and an online pdf for the rules and point cost. So they can adjust points when it's needed.

Has anybody try to make more reasonable point cost for the overpowerd or underpowered choises in the army books? I'am planing to do so and any advice will be very welcome =).

Thanks!

samw
07-02-2012, 06:46
131772

I do love that picture...

T10
07-02-2012, 10:57
Beastmen need it bad.

Beastmen need to be crushed.

Mercilessly.

Fix the points cost for the other army books? Sure, why not. After all, if the current points are spot on they won't change, and if they're off target it's better to have them adjusted.

And it can be done, too! Just look at the Dark Elves revision that the whiny Dark Elf players managed to weasel out.

-T10

Edit: Didn't notice the necromancy issue. Still:

Beastmen need to be crushed.

Mercilessly.

Grocklock
07-02-2012, 12:53
Yes !
Sadly GW won't do it. I like to have 1 book for every race with all the fluff, pictures and painting advices and an online pdf for the rules and point cost. So they can adjust points when it's needed.

the problem with this is what is the insentive for power gamers to buy the book, if the rules where pdf documents which you just down loaded, GW would lose out on sales, and a bad business desission. I bet if you did a poll asking people if the rules where seperate from the background and you had to pay for the background but not the rules, i cannot see alot of people buying the background.

I would also not like to see it the other way round where the books where just books with rules but no fluff, as it would be a dull book to own.

sulla
07-02-2012, 23:30
the problem with this is what is the insentive for power gamers to buy the book, if the rules where pdf documents which you just down loaded, GW would lose out on sales, and a bad business desission. I bet if you did a poll asking people if the rules where seperate from the background and you had to pay for the background but not the rules, i cannot see alot of people buying the background.

I would also not like to see it the other way round where the books where just books with rules but no fluff, as it would be a dull book to own.

I think there is probably a market for ebooks that either contain just the rules, or are even duplicates of the full armybooks. I know I'd probably get a reader if I could get proper ebooks of all the rulebooks instead of having to lug around the BRB, armybook and possibly a supplemental book like storm of magic. A lot more space friendly on the tabletop too.

Grocklock
08-02-2012, 12:30
I think there is probably a market for ebooks that either contain just the rules, or are even duplicates of the full armybooks. I know I'd probably get a reader if I could get proper ebooks of all the rulebooks instead of having to lug around the BRB, armybook and possibly a supplemental book like storm of magic. A lot more space friendly on the tabletop too.

Thats a good idea, forgot about ebooks, i know i prefer electronic documents as it is easyer fro me to read then paper, also once you have bought them they can update them as you will have proof of perchachse. id think though they would have to do both book and ebooks, so that people without the tecnology could still participate in the game.