Alright now for this thread I will try to handle this with kid gloves. There is a matter that we need to address as a community and see if we can get ForgeWorld to address it.
We should all make our reasonable suggestions for change and once we get a list of items put together submit them to ForgeWorld as Errata. They took very well to the FAQ so now lets do the Errata side of that same idea.
Changing stats or cost of units.
I only have 2 changes I want to suggest both of which I am sure are very reasonable.
1 The number of attacks vs the initiative of the bull centaur models needs to be swapped. At 40points a model only having 2 attacks is a lil silly. Pushing them up to 3 attacks each at initiative 2, keeps well within the spirit of the unit and does not call for re-working of points cost.
2 Ironsworn, the point cost of this unit is 2 points too much as the rules stand. I suggest they either have the points lowered 2 points or give them an extra rule to make them worth the rather high point cost. As for extra rules I was thinking either stubborn OR +1 attack. So they have 2 attacks base each. Again a simple change that can easily be done.
Also Forge World already changed to cost of the command group. That is a sign (at least to me) that they are willing to talk about and errata points values. Just so long as we don’t go insane.
Lastly, before anyone jumps on this or makes a big brew about it. Bare in mind these changes are to help the book with play value. As such I ask you to look in all the other books that are relevant (IE 8th ed only as this books is clearly an 8th ed and not 7th ed book).
Compare any monstrous beast units of the same venue and cost with the bull centaurs. Same for any fighting brick in the special slot in the case of the iron sworn.
I’m with Thommy with this. As far as I know the only time when GW changed their rules was in 6th edition with Dark Elves. And that was because of a MASSIVE wine of thousands of people around the world (and I assume a worrying drop in DE sells)…
My concern right now is that CDO’s staff might be needing a little bit of help. Artisan’s is not up, the community awards has been frozen for weeks, and there’s no talk of the next GH. I would say that maybe our staff needs help? I like this forum and it’d be sad to see it close.
People take Bull Centaurs in their army, so I’m guessing they can’t be too bad to need a rules change.
GW rarely does any micromanaging of army elements once the book is published, and I’m certain they won’t again until electronic lists become the vast majority. So in this case, it’s not going to happen. Can we as a site promote any changes? No, they won’t be accepted by a majority of members. The current list might not be great, but it’s not bad. The best we can do is to make sense of the unclear rules and promote that.
My concern right now is that CDO’s staff might be needing a little bit of help. Artisan’s is not up, the community awards has been frozen for weeks, and there’s no talk of the next GH. I would say that maybe our staff needs help? I like this forum and it’d be sad to see it close.
Life kinda gets in the way some times. And there are often things going on behind the scenes that take time to resolve. This site won’t close, the community is too strong for that, but I suppose we could delegate some of the regular competition operations to members. The amount of work in running a comp is a lot more than it looks.
Yeah, but they’re not going to do anything that rewrites the lavish, hardcover book they put out at great expense. Look, even if the rules were complete crap, their priority is to sell the book they made, not ensure an optimum gaming experience for the minority of GW hobbyists who go on the internet and are aware of the concept of game balance. If it needs a lengthy PDF to use it, no one will buy it. So no, fundamental changes like this are never going to happen. It would be ridiculous.
I have to say I am saddened by your post there Tommy H. You assume the worst case and instead of trying to see the good in the idea you just shove it down and assume that the suggestion of write your own book is the only correct answer. My suggestions are fair and reasonable, and as stated by Time of Madness ForgeWorld has been very open to hearing us out. So lets submit another list to them, only as I said before this time its the Errata worthy and not the FAQ.
Well my free time as valuable as it is, is still mine. As such mine to waste however I see fit.
As to your logic of they just want to sell books and have no interest in balance. Mate your just flat ass wrong. First off they made not 1 but 2 FAQ’s on alot of questions that really mattered. If there entire goal was just to sell the book, then they never would have made even the first FAQ. Gods below they make more than enough of there actual profit on the 40k side of forge world to even have to bother with the CD range. Secondly you wrong for a whole other reason. If they make the model rules more to the liking of the target audience then we that audience will be inclined to spend more money on said models.
You say it will have to be a massive PDF to correct the list. Nope, the entire thing could be fixed in less than 3 paragraphs. End to end whole book, but that is not the point here. The point is, typing up a few lines of errata and or FAQ cost them very lil, and the return is a customer who is happier to spend more money on their toys. That is a massive windfall in the business world. So there is no reason at all Forge World will not see our ideas and take the ones that are less broken or more in fitting with the current views, do a lil tweaking and rewrite them in a PDF errata/FAQ.
GW and ForgeWorld are in a rare business model where they can make serious amounts of cash on model sells just by the written word of the rules they attach to those models. It takes alot less effort and work to write out rules that they know we the gamer want to see than to actually brain storm a model create it and then figure out the 50 different looks for it. Words alone dictate the buying value of a model due to its rules, not the actual model. Sure some models look cool and will sell alot more than others, but those models with the rules that everyone likes. Those models will sell be the truck load only because their rules are better.
Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t we just get a FAQ update last week? If you look at the track record for current books we actually have fw taking our insight. But like Thommy said you are wasting your time.
Alright now for this thread I will try to handle this with kid gloves. There is a matter that we need to address as a community and see if we can get ForgeWorld to address it.
We should all make our reasonable suggestions for change and once we get a list of items put together submit them to ForgeWorld as Errata. They took very well to the FAQ so now lets do the Errata side of that same idea.
Changing stats or cost of units.
I only have 2 changes I want to suggest both of which I am sure are very reasonable.
1 The number of attacks vs the initiative of the bull centaur models needs to be swapped. At 40points a model only having 2 attacks is a lil silly. Pushing them up to 3 attacks each at initiative 2, keeps well within the spirit of the unit and does not call for re-working of points cost.
2 Ironsworn, the point cost of this unit is 2 points too much as the rules stand. I suggest they either have the points lowered 2 points or give them an extra rule to make them worth the rather high point cost. As for extra rules I was thinking either stubborn OR +1 attack. So they have 2 attacks base each. Again a simple change that can easily be done.
Also Forge World already changed to cost of the command group. That is a sign (at least to me) that they are willing to talk about and errata points values. Just so long as we don't go insane.
Lastly, before anyone jumps on this or makes a big brew about it. Bare in mind these changes are to help the book with play value. As such I ask you to look in all the other books that are relevant (IE 8th ed only as this books is clearly an 8th ed and not 7th ed book).
Compare any monstrous beast units of the same venue and cost with the bull centaurs. Same for any fighting brick in the special slot in the case of the iron sworn.
Thank you
Geist
Look, while I agree that a Monsterous Beast with only 2 attacks seems odd, 40 points is about right. Compare Bull Centaurs with Dragon Ogres:
Dragon Ogres and BC's are on the same base, and both move 7 with the same LD, WS and I. DO's have S5, T4, BC's have S4, T5. So let's say that evens out (personally, I think a higher T is worth more). That leaves us with Attacks, Wounds, armor save and cost. Dragon Ogres have an extra attack and and extra wound with a 4+ Armor save. BC's have a 3+ armor save. If I didn't know anything else, I'd say they are fairly close in value but that extra attack and wound on the DO's should probably bump up the cost an extra 10 points or so. However, DO's are 60 points a piece. BC's are 40. You're basically paying 20 points (a 50% increase) for an extra attack and wound with 1 less armor save. If you look at options, the BC's have access to shields which will improve their Armor save to 2+ with parry save, the DO's don't have that option. BC's have access to standards which also can be magical and musicians, DO's don't have access to a standard or musician at all. Don't underestimate the ability to take a magic standard. The only other difference is the cost of GW's. DO's can get them for 8 points, BC's have to pay 10. All in all, I don't feel paying 40 points for BC's is out of whack at all. Look at it this way. For 360 points you can have a unit of 6 DO's. For 365 points you can have a unit of 5 BC's with Standard and have them led by a BC Taur'ruk (total of 6 models). The DO's will be have 18 S5 attacks and a total of 24 T4 wounds with a 4+save. The BC's will have 4 S5 attacks and 10 S4 attacks with a total of 19 T5 wounds and a 3+ armor save including a standard. So, the BC's have 4 less attacks and 5 less wounds, but the wounds are going to be much, much harder to take from the BC's. The DO's will be a little more offensive in nature, the BC's more defensive. I don't see enough of a problem here for FW to messing with their profile or cost.
Alright now for this thread I will try to handle this with kid gloves. There is a matter that we need to address as a community and see if we can get ForgeWorld to address it.
We should all make our reasonable suggestions for change and once we get a list of items put together submit them to ForgeWorld as Errata. They took very well to the FAQ so now lets do the Errata side of that same idea.
Changing stats or cost of units.
I only have 2 changes I want to suggest both of which I am sure are very reasonable.
1 The number of attacks vs the initiative of the bull centaur models needs to be swapped. At 40points a model only having 2 attacks is a lil silly. Pushing them up to 3 attacks each at initiative 2, keeps well within the spirit of the unit and does not call for re-working of points cost.
2 Ironsworn, the point cost of this unit is 2 points too much as the rules stand. I suggest they either have the points lowered 2 points or give them an extra rule to make them worth the rather high point cost. As for extra rules I was thinking either stubborn OR +1 attack. So they have 2 attacks base each. Again a simple change that can easily be done.
Also Forge World already changed to cost of the command group. That is a sign (at least to me) that they are willing to talk about and errata points values. Just so long as we don't go insane.
Lastly, before anyone jumps on this or makes a big brew about it. Bare in mind these changes are to help the book with play value. As such I ask you to look in all the other books that are relevant (IE 8th ed only as this books is clearly an 8th ed and not 7th ed book).
Compare any monstrous beast units of the same venue and cost with the bull centaurs. Same for any fighting brick in the special slot in the case of the iron sworn.
Thank you
Geist
Look, while I agree that a Monsterous Beast with only 2 attacks seems odd, 40 points is about right. Compare Bull Centaurs with Dragon Ogres:
Dragon Ogres and BC's are on the same base, and both move 7 with the same LD, WS and I. DO's have S5, T4, BC's have S4, T5. So let's say that evens out (personally, I think a higher T is worth more). That leaves us with Attacks, Wounds, armor save and cost. Dragon Ogres have an extra attack and and extra wound with a 4+ Armor save. BC's have a 3+ armor save. If I didn't know anything else, I'd say they are fairly close in value but that extra attack and wound on the DO's should probably bump up the cost an extra 10 points or so. However, DO's are 60 points a piece. BC's are 40. You're basically paying 20 points (a 50% increase) for an extra attack and wound with 1 less armor save. If you look at options, the BC's have access to shields which will improve their Armor save to 2+ with parry save, the DO's don't have that option. BC's have access to standards which also can be magical and musicians, DO's don't have access to a standard or musician at all. Don't underestimate the ability to take a magic standard. The only other difference is the cost of GW's. DO's can get them for 8 points, BC's have to pay 10. All in all, I don't feel paying 40 points for BC's is out of whack at all. Look at it this way. For 360 points you can have a unit of 6 DO's. For 365 points you can have a unit of 5 BC's with Standard and have them led by a BC Taur'ruk (total of 6 models). The DO's will be have 18 S5 attacks and a total of 24 T4 wounds with a 4+save. The BC's will have 4 S5 attacks and 10 S4 attacks with a total of 19 T5 wounds and a 3+ armor save including a standard. So, the BC's have 4 less attacks and 5 less wounds, but the wounds are going to be much, much harder to take from the BC's. The DO's will be a little more offensive in nature, the BC's more defensive. I don't see enough of a problem here for FW to messing with their profile or cost.
Geist: why would anyone buy a big, hardback book full of amazing art, that smells great if they knew the content of it was completely superseded by a PDF on the website? It’s just pretty pictures if you can’t pick that single, beautiful object up and use it for your games. Balance is a secondary issue when it comes to making some money out of the huge investment of making this thing in the first place. If you errata your book too much, you make it worthless. The main GW studio has the resources to do that kind of thing in exceptional circumstances, but Forge World don’t.
This is what FW are all about: boutique products for collectors. The rules in Tamurkhan aren’t going to stand up to extreme scrutiny because, as should be clear from looking at the thing, the main objective was to make something pretty. Just like the Bull Centaur models are way too big for what they represent. You don’t buy them because they make sense or because they’re good in a game. You buy them because you want them. That’s their whole business model.
Dragon Ogres and BC's are on the same base, and both move 7 with the same LD, WS and I. DO's have S5, T4, BC's have S4, T5. So let's say that evens out (personally, I think a higher T is worth more). That leaves us with Attacks, Wounds, armor save and cost. Dragon Ogres have an extra attack and and extra wound with a 4+ Armor save. BC's have a 3+ armor save. If I didn't know anything else, I'd say they are fairly close in value but that extra attack and wound on the DO's should probably bump up the cost an extra 10 points or so. However, DO's are 60 points a piece. BC's are 40. You're basically paying 20 points (a 50% increase) for an extra attack and wound with 1 less armor save. If you look at options, the BC's have access to shields which will improve their Armor save to 2+ with parry save, the DO's don't have that option. BC's have access to standards which also can be magical and musicians, DO's don't have access to a standard or musician at all. Don't underestimate the ability to take a magic standard. The only other difference is the cost of GW's. DO's can get them for 8 points, BC's have to pay 10. All in all, I don't feel paying 40 points for BC's is out of whack at all. Look at it this way. For 360 points you can have a unit of 6 DO's. For 365 points you can have a unit of 5 BC's with Standard and have them led by a BC Taur'ruk (total of 6 models). The DO's will be have 18 S5 attacks and a total of 24 T4 wounds with a 4+save. The BC's will have 4 S5 attacks and 10 S4 attacks with a total of 19 T5 wounds and a 3+ armor save including a standard. So, the BC's have 4 less attacks and 5 less wounds, but the wounds are going to be much, much harder to take from the BC's. The DO's will be a little more offensive in nature, the BC's more defensive. I don't see enough of a problem here for FW to messing with their profile or cost.
Problem with this comparison is that Dragon Ogres are basically bollox as well. 60pts for 3 attacks? Really? They are both awful.
FW won't change stats. I'm still surprised they changed any rules. If they change stats once, they'll have no end of clamouring for more changes to this and that, it would be ridiculous. And I certainly agree that a lot of things need fixing in the LoA list, but they can't do it without looking stupid and half-arsed.
Problem with this comparison is that Dragon Ogres are basically bollox as well. 60pts for 3 attacks? Really? They are both awful.
Baggronor
That may be true, but wasn't really the point. I guess I was trying to make a comparison to something similar from a recent book (can't get much more recent than Warriors of Chaos). It would be kind of hard to get FW to make a change to BC's without all the Warrior players raising their hands saying "what about us".