Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[Halandaar]

I was assuming you meant that one could photocopy them. And the book bloat issue wasn't and isn't the BRB, both editions have pocket sizes that are quite manageable, it's all the ancillary rules (codex, formations, allies, chapter approved, etc).

 

I don't even know what your point is; I'm not talking about "book bloat" or the nonsense of 7th edition. We're talking about 8th edition which as Dosjetka pointed out, requires only two books to play; your army rules, via either their Codex or an Index, and the rulebook. 

 

Really want to play matched play games and feel like you *need* the updated points? but don't want to buy Chapter Approved? No problem, just use the photos from earlier in this thread to update the points values in your codex/index. Still only need two books to books to play.

 

The rest of the content in Chapter Approved is optional. So if multiple books is a problem for you, simply do not buy.

[Panzer]

Honestly, once they release their own list building app (or if you trust battlescribe enough) you won't even need the points section of your book and could play with up to date point costs even without the CA book. ^^

 

Just because you CAN have a ton of books with all kind of additional stuff (many of them of course improving the core game) it doesn't mean you need those. GW didn't lie in that regard.

[Son of Carnelian]

So... Who's excited for the section on modelling objective markers? I am!

[Halandaar]

So... Who's excited for the section on modelling objective markers? I am!

 

Haha, actually yeah, that did catch my eye on the website preview!

[Ranwulf]

So... Who's excited for the section on modelling objective markers? I am!

Oh, we can like this book? Got the wrong idea from this thread.

 

Ran

[Daigo Cannon]

You only need CA for the points, that is 1 page for your army.

Index is obsolete, only needed for "special" units not listed in codex.

One main rules book needed, rules are easier now, normally I just use the book for pre game set up.

And your codex is your main book.

I don't see why everyone is so vocal about the amount of books, I'm a marine player and doing fine just with my codex coming along with me, points adjustment are transcribed into my notebook where I do my army list.

[Schlitzaf]

What I care about the most are FAQ's included in these CA? For me that is the single biggest thing that I want for more than anything (okay bar Neophyte point reduction..)

[Ficinus]

My impression is that one of the promises of 8th was that one would require fewer books than in 7th. Implicitly, this seemed to be addressing the issues of needing multiple books to have access to all units and formations in an army in 7th. In 7th and in 8th, one needed/needs only two books: codex (or index) and brb. That was all I needed in 7th and it has been all I've needed in 8th. If we're talking about the bare minimum one needs to play, it has been two books since 3rd ed (once codexes were released for it). Rules bloat has never existed if we're talking about the minimum needed for an army.

 

If, however, we're talking about what one needs to play all of their models with all of their rules, we're now approaching four books for some armies within 6 months of release (a White Scars army with bike chaplain or librarian, for instance, or a Guard army with Rough Riders). Given that Chapter Approved has not only points changes but core rule changes (such as how characters can be targeted and objective secured), it does not seem to be as optional as some people have implied.

[Ishagu]

What if CA actually has the core rules included in the book? Doesn't that mean you only need CA and your codex? :-D

[TheWolfLord]

GW answered quite a few posts today regarding CA and explained they've updated units based on customer feedback rather than meta data. So the more complaints or feedback they've received the more likely a unit has been altered.

 

Now before people start running about screaming this is common in other games too such as Malifaux and War Machine. There are games that do use meta data such as Infinity but GW do not have a system in place to do that. There are advantages and disadvantages to using community feedback, the major disadvantage being that some units are nerfed simply due to complaints when it's not justified or if little feedback is given no updates are provided.

 

The way around this is make sure you also pass feedback to GW, they've been criticised for years that they don't listen to the community. They promised they would and now they are, if we don't offer our own feedback then we are relying on others and hoping they provide the same feedback as we would give. I know these online communities can be inward looking at times but maybe that needs to change.

 

There is also another balance pass happening in March, so now is the time to pass on good feedback regarding your army and your opponents units and actually have some impact going forward.

Edited November 27, 2017 by TheWolfLord

[Mitchverr]

How does 1 pass cirticism to GW though... They dont exactly have a simple way to do so beyond FB which I refuse to use lol.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

How does 1 pass cirticism to GW though... They dont exactly have a simple way to do so beyond FB which I refuse to use lol.

Then you're SOL. Lol.

[deathspectersgt7]

Another Balance pass ? 

[Ciler]

I for one am happy for points adjustments being active rather than by-codex, esp. with them happening annually.  Overall, the CA seems like something of a "lessons learned" year-end cap on the current game condition.  I share the concern that charging for something like this seems a bit dirty, but compared to being stuck with a 5+ YO codex I think times have improved greatly.

 

[...]

 

With that being said, we can each decide what CA means to us, or indeed if it has any personal value at all.  The subjective nature is implied, OFC 

Pretty much the same. As much as I am personally unhappy with the actual changes made (as they increase the value of my army), I feel the method is correct. Ideally, those point changes should be available for free separately though.

 

How does 1 pass cirticism to GW though... They dont exactly have a simple way to do so beyond FB which I refuse to use lol.

Oh, I don't know, have you considered the "contact us" email on their website ?

[TheWolfLord]

How does 1 pass cirticism to GW though... They dont exactly have a simple way to do so beyond FB which I refuse to use lol.

As Ciler has said you can pass feedback via email too.

[Mitchverr]

Most companies simply ignore feedback you send via such, they dont exactly make it obvious as a route to getting good feedback, not to mention FW usually goes "do as you please" so it doesnt help with that lol.

[TheWolfLord]

Another Balance pass ?

 

Yes, Chapter Approved is first and foremost designed to offer new content not to make balance changes.

 

Because GW wants to try and keep on top of issues they have 2 major balance reviews. One is lumped with Chapter Approved (something I don't particularly like as all points changes should be issued as an Errata free online) the second is done around March and I expect that to be when the next major raft of FAQs and Erratas are issued. It was mentioned by either Pete Foley or Robin Cruddace on Twitch.

[TheWolfLord]

Most companies simply ignore feedback you send via such, they dont exactly make it obvious as a route to getting good feedback, not to mention FW usually goes "do as you please" so it doesnt help with that lol.

They mentioned it several times during the launch of 8th that they wanted feedback and how to give it.

 

The Community team has said many times that they pass all feedback to the rules team who judge if it needs acting on. You can't criticise them for the attempts they've made even if the result is less than perfect.

Edited November 27, 2017 by TheWolfLord

[deathspectersgt7]

Thanks @ TheWolfLord I agree with you on CA . This is a mess so far I'am not impressed .

[Ciler]

Most companies simply ignore feedback you send via such, they dont exactly make it obvious as a route to getting good feedback, not to mention FW usually goes "do as you please" so it doesnt help with that lol.

So, your point is that there's no way to send feedback. Once a way is suggested, you assume it will be ignored. Heads you win, tail I lose, that's no way to discuss.

 

Fact is there are ways to provide feedback. it may not be very convenient, nor very effective, but at least it's possible which is much more than could be said not even two years ago...

[Panzer]

GW answered quite a few posts today regarding CA and explained they've updated units based on customer feedback rather than meta data. So the more complaints or feedback they've received the more likely a unit has been altered.

 

Now before people start running about screaming this is common in other games too such as Malifaux and War Machine. There are games that do use meta data such as Infinity but GW do not have a system in place to do that. There are advantages and disadvantages to using community feedback, the major disadvantage being that some units are nerfed simply due to complaints when it's not justified or if little feedback is given no updates are provided.

 

The way around this is make sure you also pass feedback to GW, they've been criticised for years that they don't listen to the community. They promised they would and now they are, if we don't offer our own feedback then we are relying on others and hoping they provide the same feedback as we would give. I know these online communities can be inward looking at times but maybe that needs to change.

 

There is also another balance pass happening in March, so now is the time to pass on good feedback regarding your army and your opponents units and actually have some impact going forward.

That reads to me like "Spam us on Facebook and make sure you are loud."

While I don't mind them collecting player feedback from various sources I think I would've prefered them actually observing the meta and asking a selected group of competetive player about their opinion on each unit. 

[Ishagu]

I don't think player feedback was the only decider.

Players were not complaining about expensive Sicarans a lot for example?

[TheWolfLord]

I don't think player feedback was the only decider.

Players were not complaining about expensive Sicarans a lot for example?

I'm sure they were, even with their generous points drops they still aren't on par with Leman Russ and other Codex options. They are well costed now, they were expensive previously, fun to use and a great model which is why they were taken rather than because they were cheap. Edited November 27, 2017 by TheWolfLord

[TheWolfLord]

 

GW answered quite a few posts today regarding CA and explained they've updated units based on customer feedback rather than meta data. So the more complaints or feedback they've received the more likely a unit has been altered.

Now before people start running about screaming this is common in other games too such as Malifaux and War Machine. There are games that do use meta data such as Infinity but GW do not have a system in place to do that. There are advantages and disadvantages to using community feedback, the major disadvantage being that some units are nerfed simply due to complaints when it's not justified or if little feedback is given no updates are provided.

The way around this is make sure you also pass feedback to GW, they've been criticised for years that they don't listen to the community. They promised they would and now they are, if we don't offer our own feedback then we are relying on others and hoping they provide the same feedback as we would give. I know these online communities can be inward looking at times but maybe that needs to change.

There is also another balance pass happening in March, so now is the time to pass on good feedback regarding your army and your opponents units and actually have some impact going forward.

 

That reads to me like "Spam us on Facebook and make sure you are loud."

While I don't mind them collecting player feedback from various sources I think I would've prefered them actually observing the meta and asking a selected group of competetive player about their opinion on each unit. :huh:

And as I mentioned other companies do the same thing.

 

If you have no way to record tournament meta data like Infiniti then asking a small number of tournament players is as anocdotal as using feedback on Facebook posts.

 

I'm sure the loudest voices are heard regardless of the merits of their feedback. That's why the more people who provide good feedback the better so there's quantity to counter their persistence.

[Nusquam]

Then who was complaining that Fellblades needed to be the same points cost of two shadowswords? That doesnt make sense. Fellblades were already bad.

 

I still dont see reasoning