We had a live stream answering questions about Chapter Approved for you. Check it out if interested!
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
Posted on December 10, 2018
in 40K, News, videocast
Tags: 40K chapter approved news videocast
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
Will ITC format be adopting the new deployment rules in the CA missions? Sorry if you answered this in the show, I have not had time to watch it yet.
We’re not changing our missions this close to the end of the season. But, for next season we are open minded to changes.
Really like the idea of you can deploy last if you are going second, for balance and speeding up the game!
Yeah, not a bad idea at all.
Great to get some insight when CA was written, it explains a lot. However this begs to ask the question, why have points adjustments in a book that is written 6 months in advance? I also don’t like the implication that lesser factions simply have to wait for a new codex. As you might have guessed I like my tequila with salt and lemon.
Do you think that “in the moment” point adjustments are the answer? As in “this unit just performed really well at this even so we will immediately adjust it’s points”?
No. They were sort of doing that in the beginning of 8th and got mountains of complaints from customers saying the game was changing too fast.
So with more rapid updates that was the complaint, with more structured but spaced out updates you get the opposite complaint.
You seriously can’t please everyone, haha.
Oh for sure haha I think changes of this nature should not be “in the moment” (aka knee jerk) because changes of this nature should emerge over time and metas. I like this yearly approach.
Quite the opposite Reece. If they didn’t have a book they would had several more months of time evaluating the points.
I’m not sure you understand what I mean.
If GW would have had the points adjustments in electronic format they could have fine tuned them another 3-4 months and still release them in December.
Then they would have had many more codices released and more data.
I do understand your point but you’re missing a lot of how the process works and I can’t go into detail on it due to my NDA, unfortunately.
I only brought up the timing issue to try and answer some of the obvious questions about why some things weren’t in CA but it has caused more questions than answers, lol. People start making assumptions on timelines and how things work. Going forward I just won’t bring it up as it doesn’t seem to be a sufficient answer for some people. Oh well, lesson learned.
Thanks for a thorough answer Reece, I do see that it’s not a simple thing and GW has processes and strategies that I’m not aware of.
Having only one army (Necrons) that’s struggling competitively and hoping that each FAQ and CA will give something is frustrating. This leaves me wondering about the future of 8th ed, for me anyway.
Yeah, I feel you. I mean, you got better in CA for sure but if it is enough remains to be seen. I wish you luck!
Well, I didn’t say when the book went to print exactly, but with print media, there will always be a gap between when it is written and when it comes into the consumers hands. I think that should be pretty obvious, actually. It takes time to edit, print, ship, etc.
And whether or not it is worth it to you is something only you can decide, you know? CA brings a lot of love to a lot of units that were struggling and that is only a benefit. However, if you like it or not is a personal choice. As for the smaller factions getting supplementation? Well, of course GW is going to update the main factions first, you know? Vastly more people play those armies, it only makes sense to update them first.
And Tequila with lemon?!?! You fiend! =P
I do like CA and the way GW handles 40k now and understand that the major factions always will get more love. There are still things that they could handle better.
Lemon is the only way I can drink tequila.
Speaking of the tactical, I don’t really understand the excuses:
1. “But look at the other units”. Cool, but why should we leave suboptimal units as they are? Why is it OK that no one will ever take this unit into a competitive game?
2. “They didn’t want to reduce points as that would make marines a horde army”. While I’m sure going from 13ppm to 12ppm would wreck the army’s image /s But why not just do that. Sure it’s not enough but at least people don’t think tacticals were completelly forgotten.
So are the point changes for Space Marines across the board to all Space Marine books, like Dark Angels and Space Wolves. Noticing from some of the images on the internet, space marine units are reduced but ones like Inceptors and Aggressors are not reduced for Dark Angels and Space Wolves. Any clarification?
Mail (will not be published) (Required)