Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[Bryan Blaire]

It's more something I'd expect to see in a White Dwarf article, not in something like the CA.

I realize it's a bit different now, but articles from White Dwarf are exactly what Chapter Approved used to be - even the compiled Chapter Approved books were simply re-printed and nicely bound pages lifted out of White Dwarf.

[RedFox]

Did the javelin speeder drop in point? One of my favorite model but not so good in game...

[Frater Cornelius]

Did the javelin speeder drop in point? One of my favorite model but not so good in game...

 

It is 110pts without wargear. I believe that is a 7pts hike. According to BattleScribe at least. I don't own the Index.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Frater Cornelius

[RedFox]

It went up in points!? golly gee

[Charlo]

Orks get the mob up rule via a strategem, apparently.

[taikishi]

 

Simple. You tell them to play what looks cool or seems fun rather than worry about squeezing every possible iota of point-efficiency out of the system. I know it's an alien concept for you -- I'm not insulting, I've just been here long enough to know your outlook on the game -- but you could try to step away from WAAC ideals.

Once a WAACer, always a WAACer.

 

 

I take double offense at this, especially as someone who is a competitive person by nature who enjoys theorycrafting. I want to win every time I play something, whether cooperative or competitive. That doesn't make me a bad person regardless of what some of you might think. And while I hate losing, I'm only bitter about it when I do something that causes me to lose OR I find myself in a situation where I'm basically watching everyone else play and I'm just twiddling my thumbs praying for anything to happen to at least make me 'not automatically last'.

 

http://thediscipleproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/PTWTG-450x244.png

 

Fun is entirely subjective, and I'm always going to do what I can to help teach someone to be a better player if they ask for help on why they're not winning. If that means eschewing fluffy, so be it. Doesn't mean I don't sometimes do wacky simply to be wacky, like my never once worked Fallen Thunders deck in old L5R or my refusal to put any Shadowlands cards in my Toturi's Army deck despite CTB being better. But I still want to win even when I do those kinds of things :P

[Wispy]

Competitive people getting defensive of their competiveness is a good warning signal.

[taikishi]

Not defensive, just don't understand people who treat winning and people who like to win as if it's a "bad thing" or people who are wired that way are "bad people".

[The Unseen]

Not defensive, just don't understand people who treat winning and people who like to win as if it's a "bad thing" or people who are wired that way are "bad people".

Because it's people with attitudes like yours who thought it was great fun to take a taudar list in 6th and table newbie players in 2 shooting phases. This game is played to win of course, but also for both players to have fun.

And way to many people focus very heavily on the winning, and not on whether their opponent is gaining any enjoyment.

 

Basically, your saying "don't hate the player, hate the game", but that's a load of :cuss, people are more than capable of not using their smelliest cheese, but they choose to do so anyway.

[Ishagu]

Playing to win and building to win are two separate things

[OnboardG1]

 

Not defensive, just don't understand people who treat winning and people who like to win as if it's a "bad thing" or people who are wired that way are "bad people".

Because it's people with attitudes like yours who thought it was great fun to take a taudar list in 6th and table newbie players in 2 shooting phases. This game is played to win of course, but also for both players to have fun.

And way to many people focus very heavily on the winning, and not on whether their opponent is gaining any enjoyment.

 

Basically, your saying "don't hate the player, hate the game", but that's a load of , people are more than capable of not using their smelliest cheese, but they choose to do so anyway.

 

 

Strawmanning is bad. Very few competitive players get their rocks off stomping newbies because that doesn't develop your skill or your army building at all. I play competitively with a friend of mine quite a bit and we both play to win. This isn't like world of tanks where you get thrown into a common pool of people whether you like playing to win or not. If I'm playing competitively I'll play with a good player who expects the same things out of the game that I do. I like self-improvement when I play games and that means throwing my hardest list and someone else's hardest list and seeing what breaks. Then I work out what went wrong and whether it's a list defect or not. It's that analysis that drives my enjoyment of the game, and frankly there's nothing wrong with that (with the caveat that both players should consent to that style of play). 

 

Anyway, feels like we're getting off topic here.

[TheWolfLord]

Not defensive, just don't understand people who treat winning and people who like to win as if it's a "bad thing" or people who are wired that way are "bad people".

Nobody said being a competitive player was a bad thing, being a win at all costs player is a bad thing. They aren't automatically the same thing.

 

I am a competitive player, I want to win when I play and I don't particularly enjoy losing. I play in tournaments but I'm also happy to play narrative games and don't take my tournament lists to friendly pickup games.

 

I don't play what could be called top tier lists, I play Space Wolves and I don't use allies so obviously I hamstring myself deliberately, I also allow my opponent to change moves or actions, I let them move units in the shooting phase if it's obvious they've forgotten and I remind them of rules even if it's detrimental to me.

 

Nobody suggested a competitive player equals a WAAC player. I don't take offence when somebody criticises a WAAC player as I'm not a WAAC player.

 

You are being defensive as you've assumed they are criticising you. It's only a criticism of you if you are a WAAC player.

[m0nolith]

Competitive people getting defensive of their competiveness is a good warning signal.

A thousand times this!

[Scribe]

There is nothing wrong with being completely focused on competition. The only issue is when ones opponent is not.

 

This is why points and balance are critical.

 

For narrative types it's irrelevant, you lose nothing by having a tight balanced system.

 

The only group that ever loses from poor balance are the bleeding edge competitive players.

 

This is true of everything, any game, table top to PC, to hoops in the backyard.

[m0nolith]

 

 

Simple. You tell them to play what looks cool or seems fun rather than worry about squeezing every possible iota of point-efficiency out of the system. I know it's an alien concept for you -- I'm not insulting, I've just been here long enough to know your outlook on the game -- but you could try to step away from WAAC ideals.

Once a WAACer, always a WAACer.

 

I take double offense at this, especially as someone who is a competitive person by nature who enjoys theorycrafting. I want to win every time I play something, whether cooperative or competitive. That doesn't make me a bad person regardless of what some of you might think. And while I hate losing, I'm only bitter about it when I do something that causes me to lose OR I find myself in a situation where I'm basically watching everyone else play and I'm just twiddling my thumbs praying for anything to happen to at least make me 'not automatically last'.

 

http://thediscipleproject.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/PTWTG-450x244.png

 

Fun is entirely subjective, and I'm always going to do what I can to help teach someone to be a better player if they ask for help on why they're not winning. If that means eschewing fluffy, so be it. Doesn't mean I don't sometimes do wacky simply to be wacky, like my never once worked Fallen Thunders deck in old L5R or my refusal to put any Shadowlands cards in my Toturi's Army deck despite CTB being better. But I still want to win even when I do those kinds of things

You should take double offence to this because it was directed at this exact kind of toxicity.

You can try whatever kind of cognitive gymnastics you need to do to justify this kind of toxic behavior, but at the end of the day if you have to affirm your character and self worth by winning at all costs at toy soldiers, then you have far bigger problems to deal with in your life.

 

If its against and opponent that want this kind of competition, then by all means, you play the game that you two want to play.

The toxicity comes out is when the other guy doesn't, but a WAACer has to win at all costs to justify his self worth.

 

Here's the difference between Herm Edwards in that meme and toy soldiers. Its Herm Edward's job. There is literally a monetary incentive to win in that industry.

Toy soldiers don't have that. Its a fun hobby, and that's what WAACers don't get. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by m0nolith

[Scribe]

Wow....

 

Lets pump the brakes a bit here.

 

Competitive, playing to "Win the Game" is not a crime.

 

The only negative connotation of WAAC is that you would cheat, if you could. I highly doubt anyone is claiming the title of WAAC with that in mind.

 

There is NOTHING toxic (lol am I on the overwatch forums again...) with being competitive in focus.

 

Not everyone plays for the same reasons, and thats perfectly fine.

 

I mean can I call anyone who doesnt like GrimDark toxic? (Please? :p)

[Calyptra]

I think that "WAAC" and "narrative player" are helpful concepts, but they're not a binary. I think there's a point where they stop being useful, and are just painting individual players with a very large brush. That's fine with models but not so much with people.

[Cpt_Reaper]

*inhale*

 

HEY GUYS, CHAPTER APPROVED IS NEARLY HERE. I AM VERY EXCITED FOR THIS BOOK. THE BOOK THIS THREAD IS DISCUSSING. THIS BOOK, CHAPTER APPROVED, IS A GOOD THING.

 

*exhale*

 

A thought occurred to me after seeing a LOT of criticism about the book in that the first version of CA was never going be released at "the right time". They either:

• release it now to balance current releases (bring index armies up to par, balance codex armies etc)
• release it after every army receives a codex, meaning index armies and certain codexes die off because they were so far behind.

I am glad they released it now. The changes might be small, the rules additions may be restricted but this is just the first iteration.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

First of all, I wasn't directing any sort of stigma against WAACers. My comment was directed at one particular Frater who has a well deserved reputation on the forum for discounting any unit or wargear that is not 110% point efficient, and amounted to "tell new players to play what looks cool for once." Secondly, I never tried to cast tournament players in a negative light. My moderator status is a construct of my 5th edition activity on the boards...when I was a supremely active tournament player. I've been there, been one of those guys, and I'd never attack a Frater because of how they enjoy the game.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I love paying for patches to my games. It feels like good old EA is at the helm.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Every codex release, every edition of the core rulebook is a "patch".

 

Chapter Approved is an effort to routinely ensure balance to the game rather than going a whole edition or two or three where your army is so utterly broken that either the United Nations considers it to break the Geneva Convention to even put your models on the board because they will be subjected to torture beyond human comprehension...or they will do the subjecting.

 

If you are just going to focus on the perceived negatives about CA, then I shall do my best to bring the positives to light. This release might not be perfect, but it's a damn big step in the right direction for 40k.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Every codex release, every edition of the core rulebook is a "patch".

 

Chapter Approved is an effort to routinely ensure balance to the game rather than going a whole edition or two or three where your army is so utterly broken that either the United Nations considers it to break the Geneva Convention to even put your models on the board because they will be subjected to torture beyond human comprehension...or they will do the subjecting.

 

If you are just going to focus on the perceived negatives about CA, then I shall do my best to bring the positives to light. This release might not be perfect, but it's a damn big step in the right direction for 40k.

No, a codex is DLC. FAQs are patches. CA is FAQs in pay-to-play format.

[Panzer]

I love paying for patches to my games. It feels like good old EA is at the helm.

Nah EA would make us pay subscription fees for each book and army or something like that.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Reclusiarch Darius
removed off-topic content

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

 

I love paying for patches to my games. It feels like good old EA is at the helm.

Nah EA would make us pay subscription fees for each book and army or something like that.

 

Point conceeded. :P

[Cpt_Reaper]

 

No, a codex is DLC. FAQs are patches. CA is FAQs in pay-to-play format.

 

Warhammer 40k is not a video game. It is a tabletop wargame. There is no DLC or patches.

 

I'm a lot happier paying $55aud for Chapter Approved rather than the same for Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, a campaign supplement AND vdr rather than the same price (or more) for each book.

 

I am really struggling to understand why you are unable to see the potential good in this book. What am I missing?