How is it a straw man. Thunder hammer point goes up in points, but only for characters, and not even all space marines characters, and stays the same for non marines. Why couldn't someone think it is a type of some sort, specialy when the point rise was huge comparing to the initial cost. And there were no signs from GW that they want to rethink the cost of Thunder Hammers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace 784064 10685789 wrote:
Because that's not how large corporation tend to work. There's a process and they're following it. In this case it's a stupid process because they really should have rushed out a quick fix for the most egregious errors like the 55 point Neophytes and the messed up Deathwatch unit sizes, with an understanding that a more complete errata would be forthcoming later.
I don't know, when boeing was proved to sell planes that blow up in the air. They had their head exec out in like 24 hours. And a rule change isn't a matter of life and death. What is the desing studio suppose to be responsible for, if not stuff like this? Specialy as that is what they do when they write a CA. Is the difference the fact that people have to pay for a CA, and GW doesn't want to fix stuff they broke for free?
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
I use extreme examples because it shows the flaw of the argument. You cannot stay logically consistent when you allow the ignoring of some rules and not allow the ignoring of others. If the argument was sound I would not be able to provide extreme examples to show the argument isn't sound.
Plus non extrem examples are ignored with the argument that this is not an error, but what GW really wanted. Even if it gets fixed a year or more later.
BaconCatBug wrote: I use extreme examples because it shows the flaw of the argument. You cannot stay logically consistent when you allow the ignoring of some rules and not allow the ignoring of others. If the argument was sound I would not be able to provide extreme examples to show the argument isn't sound.
Reductio ad absurdum. It's a logical fallacy, I believe. You have repeatedly stated that "all opinions are equally valid," which is just not true. If my opinion is that "snow is neon green" and your opinion is that "snow is white," one of our opinions has less value.
In any case, and as always, discuss it with your opponent.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.
And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.
And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.
While you're absolutely right, I wouldn't bother. These lot just ruin every single discussion on this forum with this "hyper-logic to the point of absurdity" nonsense. It'll just keep going round and round and round.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.
And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.
While you're absolutely right, I wouldn't bother. These lot just ruin every single discussion on this forum with this "hyper-logic to the point of absurdity" nonsense. It'll just keep going round and round and round.
Meh, this discussion has run eleven pages now. If it dies, it has died a good death, and we will sing its praises in the halls of Valhalla.
But we find ourselves in absence of objective criteria because GW is too lazy/greedy/whatever to provide it.
You guys are getting hung up on the GSC costing 55 points which is a symptom of GW not giving a feth. They've had ample time to fix it (and the many other inconsistencies what many believe are errors) before, during and after but have chosen to go radio silent and a lot of people are fine with that.
Other big issues with CA 2019 that impact my ability to use GW rules are the SW fast attack page being re-printed from the INDEX and the custode FW price reversions that can't be handled with the "of course swift claws don't cost what they cost in the index" because who knows what GW really wanted them to cost (not like I can play my SW now because of the SM 2.0 dex but it's still pretty sloppy).
So move on from the 55 point neos and realize that GW messed up large swaths of the CA2019 and for some reason are sitting on their thumbs not doing anything about it.
bananathug wrote: But we find ourselves in absence of objective criteria because GW is too lazy/greedy/whatever to provide it.
You guys are getting hung up on the GSC costing 55 points which is a symptom of GW not giving a feth. They've had ample time to fix it (and the many other inconsistencies what many believe are errors) before, during and after but have chosen to go radio silent and a lot of people are fine with that.
Other big issues with CA 2019 that impact my ability to use GW rules are the SW fast attack page being re-printed from the INDEX and the custode FW price reversions that can't be handled with the "of course swift claws don't cost what they cost in the index" because who knows what GW really wanted them to cost (not like I can play my SW now because of the SM 2.0 dex but it's still pretty sloppy).
So move on from the 55 point neos and realize that GW messed up large swaths of the CA2019 and for some reason are sitting on their thumbs not doing anything about it.
So it has been said. "Clearly, GW doesn't care, blah blah blah." So, vote with your money, don't buy CA, and be done with it. In fact, stop buying GW products entirely. IN FACT, just stop playing the game entirely! That'll show them!
Whatever the reason, we are in an absence of objective criteria. Complaining about it on a General Discussion forum is unlikely to change that. Do the best you can with what you have, and that either means using subjective criteria or not playing the game.
Now, if you want to argue about what those subjective criteria should be, then we've got a real discussion happening. Just blaming GW and then getting mad at people who don't blame GW isn't very productive.
I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...
I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.
The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.
To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.
But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.
Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.
I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.
The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.
Lord Damocles wrote: Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!
So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?
Lord Damocles wrote: Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!
So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?
I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.
oni wrote: I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...
I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.
The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.
To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.
But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.
Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.
I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.
The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.
Wake up people.
ya know, you'd have a point if they did not literally lower the points back down again... to the same point level again.
Lord Damocles wrote: Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!
So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?
I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.
I mean, I respect Jervis Johnson's opinion more than some random person on the interwebs opinion.
Lord Damocles wrote: Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!
So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?
I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.
I mean, I respect Jervis Johnson's opinion more than some random person on the interwebs opinion.
Cool! So do I! That doesn't mean everyone does, or that anyone should!
I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.
Agreed. The constant bickering over whether 55ppm is "correct" is pointless. For the time being it is the printed and official point cost, and an organized competitive tournament environment should use the official printed rules. To do otherwise and allow this particular model to be included under its "old" rules/points would open the door to arguments that other models should be used at different point values due to similar CA errors ("GW meant bullgryns not ogryns when they increased their points . . ."; "I'm using the Gallant model from the AdMech codex instead of the Knights codex since it costs less . . ."; etc.).
There is only one solution: GW needs to publish an errata correcting the numerous issues with CA2019. Hence, this thread. Sadly, GW is likely considering what new book/product they can sell with the correct values instead of simply publishing and regularly updating the complete points lists for all armies online, as should have been done in the first place. This practice of publishing points updates on a yearly basis as a cash grab insults the community that has to wait months for obvious issues to be corrected. It is the 21st century now and about time GW gets with the times.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?
Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?
Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.
You shouldn't trust the ca, especially not the fw Part of it.
Which is preciscly the issue, the book was done carelessly, and now it is us that have to fix it up.
For a product with a pricetag.
BaconCatBug wrote: How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.
Why are my examples invalid and his valid?
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.
So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?
Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.
The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.
Octopoid wrote: The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.
Why bother having rules then if we have to just make up half the rules anyway?
Octopoid wrote: The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.
Why bother having rules then if we have to just make up half the rules anyway?
As said above, because they give us context and a place to start. They're better (arguably) than making up one's own system from the ground up (which, I'll note, a lot of people already do!). They are a ladder to help reach that high shelf, but if you don't like the ladder, that's fine! Use stilts, or a pogo stick, or a hot air balloon. Whatever floats your boat - just remember that, if you want to play the game, you and your opponent have to get to the same shelf the same way. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
'Every book ever written' has not forced me to constantly ask 'was this a deliberate balance change, or a version control failure?'. Pre-CA19 my group could use the printed points values as given. We might have had some balance complaints, but we at least trusted that the numbers that were there were supposed to be there.
You're dismissing the most blatant example of why this is a problem by saying 'use common sense'. Cool. How many times do I need to chant 'common sense' into a mirror before Jervis Johnson shows up to tell our currently-arguing SM and CSM players whether Cultists are actually supposed to be 4pts again? What does common sense tell us about the Ogryn changes? I don't have any clue.
RAW may not always be perfect, but when we can discern RAI we can work around it. Here? I have no idea what the RAI is for most of these changes. We're firmly in the realm of essentially house-ruling our own fancomp, and I think it's disingenuous to describe that as 'just use common sense'.
'Every book ever written' has not forced me to constantly ask 'was this a deliberate balance change, or a version control failure?'. Pre-CA19 my group could use the printed points values as given. We might have had some balance complaints, but we at least trusted that the numbers that were there were supposed to be there.
You're dismissing the most blatant example of why this is a problem by saying 'use common sense'. Cool. How many times do I need to chant 'common sense' into a mirror before Jervis Johnson shows up to tell our currently-arguing SM and CSM players whether Cultists are actually supposed to be 4pts again? What does common sense tell us about the Ogryn changes? I don't have any clue.
RAW may not always be perfect, but when we can discern RAI we can work around it. Here? I have no idea what the RAI is for most of these changes. We're firmly in the realm of essentially house-ruling our own fancomp, and I think it's disingenuous to describe that as 'just use common sense'.
But it's not, though? I mean, what's your alternative?
EDIT: And why do you let Jervis Johnson have so much control over your fun? Whether he shows up or not, you should be able to come to an agreement with your gaming partner about what rules to use, so you can both have fun. Don't leave that in Jervis' hands. Even if you did pay money for rules - feel free to complain to Mr. Johnson, and see if it helps! But in the meantime, use that ever-elusive common sense and come to a middle ground!
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.
Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.
You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?
Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.
If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.
By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored.
Their increase is less than 1000%, therefore I made absolutely no statement about them. Stop misrepresenting my argument to further your agenda.
So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.
An increase of 1000% or more without any further change to a units' rules is considered worthy to ignore.
Answer this instead: Do you believe that 55 points is the correct points value for an acolyte? You must answer with yes or no, and you must provide a reasoning for your answer that cannot be that you blindly following anything printed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: How is it a straw man. Thunder hammer point goes up in points, but only for characters, and not even all space marines characters, and stays the same for non marines. Why couldn't someone think it is a type of some sort, specialy when the point rise was huge comparing to the initial cost. And there were no signs from GW that they want to rethink the cost of Thunder Hammers.
Because BCB actually doesn't give a damn about Thunder Hammers but tries to use a completely unrelated point increase as an argument to justify blindly following obvious errors. That's a strawman.
Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
And more power to you. I think it's admirable that you practice what you preach, even if what you preach seems insane. Good on you. Just... it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone else to "live up" to your unreasonable standards.
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
And more power to you. I think it's admirable that you practice what you preach, even if what you preach seems insane. Good on you. Just... it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone else to "live up" to your unreasonable standards.
I don't think that following the rules is unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to ask your opponent to roll to hit for their Tactical Squad Bolters? Those are the exact same thing to me.
It's why my next game I am going to foolishly try a mechanised SOB army using Argent Shroud so I can advance my Immolators and still shoot their tasty Cannons even though Valorous Heart would be more suitable.
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
And more power to you. I think it's admirable that you practice what you preach, even if what you preach seems insane. Good on you. Just... it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone else to "live up" to your unreasonable standards.
I don't think that following the rules is unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to ask your opponent to roll to hit for their Tactical Squad Bolters? Those are the exact same thing to me.
I know they are, to you. They're not the same, as has been explained numerous times, but feel free to die on that hill.
EDIT: Let me try again. The difference is in the results the two rules produce, and again, this comes down to two people agreeing. If both people agree that Assault weapons should work just fine, and cultists should be 5 ppm, and CA is correct as-is, then more power to them. If those same two people decide that Tacticals shouldn't have to roll to hit, great! Let them play their game! But if either one wants the rules to be different, for whatever reason, then you have to have <gasp> a discussion, where you come to common ground or choose not to play with your toys.
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.
Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.
You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?
Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.
If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.
By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored. So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.
Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.
Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.
Much as I'm not keen on defending some of BCB's antics, how was his first paragraph not answering your question?
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.
Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.
You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?
Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.
If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.
By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored. So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.
That's not logic, that's a syllogism.
Syllogisms are logic. I'll go with any increase to a unit's overall cost above 100% (from 100 to 201 for example) I'd ignore until GW lets me know it's intended, I think considering the cost of a thunderhammer to have gone up by 100% doesn't make much sense, it has to be taken in context of the Smash Captain it's on, so it's more like 10-20% overall. SM would immediately be the worst faction in the game if you increased their pts by 20%, I don't think people get how delicate balance is.
Maybe one of us should email the list of issues to the 40kfaq team?
Incidentally has anyone noticed how White Dwarf keeps joking about Robin Cruddace, who I believe heads 40k in some way, is no where to be found and use that joke to explain why they keep having guest columnists in his place?
Jidmah wrote: Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?
I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.
Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.
Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.
Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.
Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?
I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?
As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
Jidmah wrote: Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.
Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.
I assumed the answer would be sufficient for both questions, but since you insist.
Jidmah wrote: Answer this instead: Do you believe that 55 points is the correct points value for an acolyte? You must answer with yes or no, and you must provide a reasoning for your answer that cannot be that you blindly following anything printed.
Yes, it is the correct points value for the acolyte because the rules say it is. This isn't "blindly" following the rules, it's following the rules. It's that simple. Do I think it's a fair cost? No, but the rules don't care or change depending on what I think is fair. If you won't accept "it's the rules" as an answer, then the answer is because The Emperor told me in a vision that it is true.
I'm still waiting for your limit of when points increases can and cannot be ignored, however.
Also, I love your attempt to imply that I can't say "Because the rules say it is" when you ask a rules question. What next? "Do you think a Space Marine has a BS of 3+ and you can't say "Because the datasheet says it has a BS of 3+"."?
JohnnyHell wrote: Can everyone stop feeding the t... BCB and discuss something else?
.
Indeed.
Getting back to the actual topic, I do wonder if, given that we're well past the usual 2-week FAQ/Errata schedule now, even allowing for the holiday period, they're doing something more extensive than usual? Were there any actual issues with CA, or is it all just MFM points/unit size stuff?
Getting back to the actual topic, I do wonder if, given that we're well past the usual 2-week FAQ/Errata schedule now, even allowing for the holiday period, they're doing something more extensive than usual? Were there any actual issues with CA, or is it all just MFM points/unit size stuff?
I'm not aware of any issues with CA itself, though the Matched Play content in there was just the 12 missions and the new Maelstrom rules I think.
I hope the delay means they're going over every single entry to double-check it and make sure they don't have any other errors. If I was asked to do the errata for a document with the sort of fundamental errors the MFM has I'd start from page 1 and go through everything because I'd have no confidence in any of the entries given the volume and nature of the mistakes noticed so far.
Ginjitzu wrote: Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?
I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?
I understand what you are saying, but there is a huge difference between a slightly less obvious printing error and a blatantly obvious printing error.
For example, if you are driving down a road with 70 mp/h and suddenly see a speed limit of 5 mp/h, that is pretty likely to be an error and should be 50. It might also not be an error because there is a ravine up ahead (I actually came across this situation once).
However, when you see a traffic sign telling you to turn left, when left is nothing but a wall, that is a blatantly obvious error and you have no reason to assume that driving into a wall is the correct course of action.
I see no reason to follow blatantly obvious errors.
As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.
They also need to create some datasheets the accidentally invented...
I'm also pretty sure that FAQs get more quality assurance than the original document.
I mean, BCB is actually right. The rules currently say they are 55ppm. Whether or not we think that's fair, by GW's own admission the most current points take precedence, so they are 55ppm. That's his entire argument. It's 100% correct, even if it's almost 100% a typo. Per GW's own statements until it's changed the "official" points cost is 55ppm, like it or not. That specific point ("the current official points cost is 55ppm") cannot be disputed, only debated whether or not it's a mistake (which it clearly has to be)
People are saying to apply intent, which yes I agree should happen, but RAI vs. RAW is also one of the biggest problems in 40k because it happens so frequently. So first of all, applying intent is already a slippery slope since you shouldn't have to apply intent and should be able to follow what the rules say.
Second, pointing out that well this is OBVIOUSLY a mistake, but this other thing which may or may not be a mistake is more of a gray area so we can't be certain is proving the entire reason why we need an FAQ yesterday, so we know exactly what "might be a typo" things are a typo, and which are intended (or, more likely, which ones they forgot to address and stuck with what they printed)
I really hope that GW prints "BCB has to punch himself in the face and upload a video of it to youtube" into one of their books and one point. According to him he would have to do it.
Jidmah wrote: Refusing to use your brain is never right..
Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.
Jidmah wrote: Refusing to use your brain is never right.
I really hope that GW prints "BCB has to punch himself in the face and upload a video of it to youtube" into one of their books and one point. According to him he would have to do it.
Again, nobody argues that, but let me give an exemple out of the list i allready have compiled, see link.
R&H chaos spawn, a unit virtually the same as normal chaos spawn, did never get changed, neither in CA 18 (down to 25 Pts for Chaos spawn, r&H remain 33) and CA 19 ( down to 20 for chaos spawn)
R&H cultists, still stuck with 10-30, dropped down to 4 pts, like regular cultists, went up to 5 like regular cultists, and whilest regular cultists now are back down to 4 R&H ones are still 5 pts.
Militia never seemed to be looked at.
Then there is the recent change to CSM sorcerers and MoP:
from 90 --> 80. I mean whilest i can understand it in the case of the rather hamstrung and less usefull MoP due to it's nieche use the regular sorcerer also dropped the same amount?
Talons dropped all the same, 2 times now,Raptors, even though beeing worse in many regards did never recive a drop. If we are to argue intent, and the intent is to make options viable then i do wonder why we never saw something in that regard for them aswell?(especially since the main body of the raptor, beeing the csm profile, dropped also quite heavily again recently)
then we have the astropath, an allready dropped unit, which was quite decent at it's 26 price point, should now drop to 15?
Then there is the curious case of the ogryns, the regular ones, the ones that generally are not picked due to bullgryns existing, getting a hike upwards again to codex level after beeing dropped down in CA 18? Is it possible that bullgryns were meant instead for the hike?
The issue is, that the intent, is seemingly not clearly understandable.
Unless it's an obvious mistake, like an arrow directing you to drive into a wall.
Unlike in every single one of your examples, there is no reason to believe that 55 point acolytes are intended over 5 points acolytes.
This is exactly the same kind of idiocy as "assault weapons don't work".
Oh, and as a general note to everyone - stop bringing up examples which might or might not be wrong.
BCB's stance is that you should follow things that are obviously and without doubt mistakes, cases where there is 0% reason to believe that the game should work that way.
Jidmah wrote: Refusing to use your brain is never right..
Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.
So, by that logic you should never shoot assault weapons after advancing, right?
Jidmah wrote: Unless it's an obvious mistake, like an arrow directing you to drive into a wall.
Unlike in every single one of your examples, there is no reason to believe that 55 point acolytes are intended over 5 points acolytes.
This is exactly the same kind of idiocy as "assault weapons don't work".
Oh, and as a general note to everyone - stop bringing up examples which might or might not be wrong.
BCB's stance is that you should follow things that are obviously and without doubt mistakes, cases where there is 0% reason to believe that the game should work that way.
Jidmah wrote: Refusing to use your brain is never right..
Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.
So, by that logic you should never shoot assault weapons after advancing, right?
so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.
I mean I get his argument. I even agree to a point (I'd never try to enforce the ridiculous can't shoot assault weapons after advancing thing). But there needs to be consistency. It shouldn't be looking at each potential thing on its own.
Not Online!!! wrote: so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.
Not really. The entire argument against just ignoring the obvious accidental duplication of a character (a common mistake when pasting into excel tables btw) is "55 points for acolyte might be the correct value because we don't know what the correct value for Thunderhammers/Ogryns/Poxwalker/Chaos Spawn is" and the weird believe that all errors must be handled in the exact same way, no matter their magnitude and the availability of a solution.
I agree that this dumb typo and other obvious errors unnecessarily makes us question all other reverts to previous values and other unexpected changes.
But that is no excuse to not to just fix obvious errors with obvious solutions. Just like we assume that assault weapons implicitly have the permission to shoot after advancing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I mean I get his argument. I even agree to a point (I'd never try to enforce the ridiculous can't shoot assault weapons after advancing thing). But there needs to be consistency. It shouldn't be looking at each potential thing on its own.
Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
Not Online!!! wrote: so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.
Not really. The entire argument against just ignoring the obvious accidental duplication of a character (a common mistake when pasting into excel tables btw) is "55 points for acolyte might be the correct value because we don't know what the correct value for Thunderhammers/Ogryns/Poxwalker/Chaos Spawn is" and the weird believe that all errors must be handled in the exact same way, no matter their magnitude and the availability of a solution.
I agree that this dumb typo and other obvious errors unnecessarily makes us question all other reverts to previous values and other unexpected changes.
But that is no excuse to not to just fix obvious errors with obvious solutions. Just like we assume that assault weapons implicitly have the permission to shoot after advancing.
This argument was enjoyable until it went down to the level of calling people stupid.
Honestly, everyone is right here. It's correct to say you must use the latest points values, it's also correct to point out an obvious typo. The only point at which you differ on is what to do about it, and the point is moot since none of you will ever play each other.
When the new CSM Codex came out, it had Obliterators listed at the old price. Everyone knew this was a typo, it was eventually FAQed, the solution was to simply wait for clarification. Until that happens, it does not matter whether you choose to use the new points or the old points. Arguing about it before that happens doesn't solve the problem.
I feel like Dakka owes me back the time spent reading this thread. Nothing was gained but an appreciation for how obstinate people can be pursuing pointlessness.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?
I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?
I understand what you are saying, but there is a huge difference between a slightly less obvious printing error and a blatantly obvious printing error.
For example, if you are driving down a road with 70 mp/h and suddenly see a speed limit of 5 mp/h, that is pretty likely to be an error and should be 50. It might also not be an error because there is a ravine up ahead (I actually came across this situation once).
However, when you see a traffic sign telling you to turn left, when left is nothing but a wall, that is a blatantly obvious error and you have no reason to assume that driving into a wall is the correct course of action.
I see no reason to follow blatantly obvious errors.
As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.
They also need to create some datasheets the accidentally invented...
I'm also pretty sure that FAQs get more quality assurance than the original document.
I get what you're saying, but the size of the problem is really a personal perspective. Like, I have and play Ogryns, those lost points matter to me a good deal. I don't play with or against GSC so their more obvious error means nothing to me personally. I'm just saying, I'd not question the point hike, if all seemed to be on the up and up other than feeling they are idiots who don't play their own game to understand units cost. That obvious error that means nothing to me, and others, does however lower my confidence that some of those questionable point changes aren't just more poor copy paste errors.
I'd hope there would be more quality checking with an errata, but this very document was an errata so I'm still not very sure of their assurance of quality.
Edit: That said, please we can be civil with each other over this. I don't blame anyone here for this, instead I wish they'd check twice and print once before releasing these products and causing these discussions in the first place. It's completely unreal for a company this size to make errors like this so regularly we come to just accept them as fact of every new release. It's sad.
Lord Damocles wrote: Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:
'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*
So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.
*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18
Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!
So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?
I will agree that 55ppm is their current price.
Wether or not it's their correct price, or a fair price, is debatable.
And if it turns out to be what GW intended? Then I'd LOVE to hear the reasoning behind it.
Ginjitzu wrote: Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.
oni wrote: I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...
I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.
The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.
To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.
But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.
Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.
I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.
The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.
Wake up people.
ya know, you'd have a point if they did not literally lower the points back down again... to the same point level again.
Get your facts straight. The adjustments went as follows:
65 in C:CSM 115 in Shadowspear
65 in C:CSM v2.0 (this was an error)
115 in C:CSMFAQ 95 in CA:2019
Wayniac wrote: Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
Wayniac wrote: Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.
This makes you a liar, doesn't it?
Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.
And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.
Wayniac wrote: Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.
This makes you a liar, doesn't it?
Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.
And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.
No, he didn't mistype. That's exactly what it says in the post. How can you prove my opinion wrong?
Wayniac wrote: Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.
This makes you a liar, doesn't it?
Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.
And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.
No, he didn't mistype. That's exactly what it says in the post. How can you prove my opinion wrong?
Those who live in glass houses...
How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.
JNAProductions wrote: How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.
I know BCB didn't pay for it. How do I know anyone paid for it? Clearly they didn't look at it, so that seems quite likely.
How much are customers paying you for your work? Can we view your work so we can sit here in our arm-chairs and analyze it and then pontificate about how we can't be rational human beings "because we just really don't know"?
JNAProductions wrote: How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.
I know BCB didn't pay for it. How do I know anyone paid for it? Clearly they didn't look at it, so that seems quite likely.
How much are customers paying you for your work? Can we view your work so we can sit here in our arm-chairs and analyze it and then pontificate about how we can't be rational human beings "because we just really don't know"?
Holy hell, man. While the Neophytes are certainly the most egregious example, what about Ogryns? R&H Spawn? How many errors (or PRESUMED errors-again, GW has a completely opaque design process, so for all we know, the Ogryn change IS what they meant!) are acceptable?
And how many points is a Neophyte worth? I agree it's not 55, but is it 5? 6? 4? We don't know. We don't know what GW intended-we can agree that 55 is a typo, but it's so far off that we can't tell what the ACTUAL supposed points value is supposed to be. And GW has had AMPLE TIME to fix this, but they have not.
GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.
So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"
If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.
The egregious errors just show there's no proofreading, or what proofreading there is is woefully inadequate.
Yes, sure, there could easily be more. There's real people behind those errors and everyone makes mistakes. I'm certain anyone can improve a process given proper resources and good leadership, but I don't know what their situation is nor can I divine one.
So, at the end of the day I know they'll fix it and I know how to treat other players suffering from errors equitably.
Ultimately, if punishment is what the situation requires then don't buy the book or future books and send them a message telling them why.
The egregious errors just show there's no proofreading, or what proofreading there is is woefully inadequate.
Yes, sure, there could easily be more. There's real people behind those errors and everyone makes mistakes. I'm certain anyone can improve a process given proper resources and good leadership, but I don't know what their situation is nor can I divine one.
So, at the end of the day I know they'll fix it and I know how to treat other players suffering from errors equitably.
Ultimately, if punishment is what the situation requires then don't buy the book or future books and send them a message telling them why.
Mistakes happen. But the egregious ones should be caught before it ever goes to print, such as 55 point Neophytes.
And again, where is the line drawn? Neophytes are OBVIOUSLY a mistake, so make them 5 points-unless, what if they're too good at 5? Would 6 be better? What about Ogryns? That's pretty clearly a mistake, but what's their ACTUAL points value supposed to be? Or what's fair? And why is it that Thunder Hammers are clearly NOT a mistake? Should the R&H player get CSM prices for Spawn? Or should they be cheaper, because they synergize less, or more expensive, because they synergize more?
Daedalus81 wrote: GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.
So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"
If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.
i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.
_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?
Ginjitzu wrote: Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.
Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.
Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.
oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.
Daedalus81 wrote: GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.
So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"
If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.
i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.
_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?
Ginjitzu wrote: Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.
Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.
Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.
oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.
All hellforged units are overcosted compared to loyalists due to the errated wording of machine malifica not allowing them to regain wounds in any way other than machine malifica. This affects shooty units like daredeos and sicarans the most.
Of course you know my biggest complaint. The arbitrarily high points increase hellforged/relic super heavys got in the last ca compared to other low which wasn't fixed in this ca.
PM is just under the "videos and podcast" part.
alternatively in each message to the blog you can pick the poster and get access to their profile on which the "PM" stands for Private message
Also will add to the issues department the hellforged part and point out the invalidation of repairss and lifegain for these as an issue.
Daedalus81 wrote: GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.
So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"
If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.
i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.
_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?
Ginjitzu wrote: Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.
i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.
Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.
Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.
oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.
All hellforged units are overcosted compared to loyalists due to the errated wording of machine malifica not allowing them to regain wounds in any way other than machine malifica. This affects shooty units like daredeos and sicarans the most.
Of course you know my biggest complaint. The arbitrarily high points increase hellforged/relic super heavys got in the last ca compared to other low which wasn't fixed in this ca.
Sorry haven't figured out how to pm yet.
Loyalist Relic options require a tax of one non relic option in a detatchment per relic option used. Hellforged options don't, and are such much more points effective even with their higher base costs.
I may never wrap my mind around those who take insult on the behalf of paid professionals working for a very large and very profitable company. I've seen minimum wage employees raked over the coals for errors much less than this being paid peanuts for their work. Yet, we must defend this poor, innocent company that is about as highly known for its amazingly high level of errors and poor quality in writing as it is fine models.
If they were an up and coming company, people would be calling them incompetent, a waste of money, a joke. Yet GW do it on the regular and its " They doin their best, they're learning " If they don't know how to proof read by now I doubt they ever will.
They will fix it, mostly, but now I have to question each thing they put out wondering what is and is not true. While their models are quality, their writing is not so. You can dislike hearing the complaints, that's fine, then don't respond. Some do want to complain about it because we're on a forum and such is us venting how we feel and why.
There exist plenty of echo chambers to think nothing but happy happy thoughts of GW, this however is an error on their part and one they are taking a lot of time to fix, who knows, maybe they won't ever fix it and say " They'll figure it out " at this point I'd not be surprised.
It's about as helpful to complain here as it is to send them a million angry messages. The sad fact is, they have a monopoly with their games as they are the most widely known, highest player base group of games. That means an awful lot and gives them incredible leeway with some people with how much they will tolerate from them. In some areas this is the only game in town or by far the largest, and that does factor in. As at the end of the day, where you going to go ? Many have friends in the scene who won't do other stuff so where will you go ? No where you'll just take it as you want to play and they know this. It limits their care and accountability for quality.
Despite my anger, I'm not going to run away from the game, I have loved it more than I've hated it. The moment I play it and really feel bad is the time I think of putting it down. That doesn't mean me or anyone else should not voice out over issues. You know, I don't respond in every single " I love GW ! " thread because I'd add nothing worth while. Why does everyone defending such a gak ridden practice as their writing rules demand so often love it or leave it ?
I'll make a deal, not to tell anyone they should hate it, or be angry at them, I'll just be good an angry by myself and with those like minded. You can feel free then to not tell me why I should sound off that I love the typos, errors and lack of proof reading or balance. Sounds like a good even steven to me.
I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(
edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.
Gnarlly wrote: I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(
edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.
I'm more of the idea that they have been holding the FAQ until the LVO results, for both 40K and killteam. I would expect the FAQs next week.
Gnarlly wrote: I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(
edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.
It is pretty sad that they don't seem to update some master list when they do an errata, so a reprint/consolidation/next version has a good chance of reversing the errata because it's a copy/paste from the original without paying attention to the fact something was changed.
Wayniac wrote: It is pretty sad that they don't seem to update some master list when they do an errata, so a reprint/consolidation/next version has a good chance of reversing the errata because it's a copy/paste from the original without paying attention to the fact something was changed.
Yup, CA has demonstrated that GW has no concept of even the most basic of version control techniques.
This goes beyond their shoddy rules writing. It's a failure at the most fundamental level of publishing books.
It has been way too long for this to be a simple FAQ. GW has to know that there are at least typos in the CA 2019 they could fix with a simple PDF on the community page.
I'm guessing that GW is struggling with having to change books so quickly after release and making customers feel like they are buying a sub-standard product (we are). The SM supplements are going to get a lot of changes (hopefully), if pages of the CA 2019 go out the window as well I think GW is worried about feels bad for people that shelled out significant dough for their product. Combined with the general feels bad for playing any army that isn't codex space marines it has to be a reason why they are dragging their feet on this one.
Vacation is over, they know of the issue, it's a relatively easy fix (pdf of the "right" numbers) what other reason could they have for fixing it?
Wayniac wrote: It is pretty sad that they don't seem to update some master list when they do an errata, so a reprint/consolidation/next version has a good chance of reversing the errata because it's a copy/paste from the original without paying attention to the fact something was changed.
Yup, CA has demonstrated that GW has no concept of even the most basic of version control techniques.
This goes beyond their shoddy rules writing. It's a failure at the most fundamental level of publishing books.
bUt tHeY aReN't a pUblIshInG cOmPaNy
I've actually seen people use that to defend this gak. "They aren't a publishing company" so mistakes on this level are okay and no big deal.
I'm kind of curious as to what reasons people think there is for the delay? I seriously doubt they've forgotten, and they've released FAQs and errata for products that needed it much less than this year's Chapter Approved. Maybe they're unsure on how to rule something? Just a guess.
Vacation is over, they know of the issue, it's a relatively easy fix (pdf of the "right" numbers) what other reason could they have for fixing it?
It is almost guaranteed that they're holding on to it to make more extensive changes to large balance issues. I can't conceive of any other purpose for the delay.
Darsath wrote: I'm kind of curious as to what reasons people think there is for the delay? I seriously doubt they've forgotten, and they've released FAQs and errata for products that needed it much less than this year's Chapter Approved. Maybe they're unsure on how to rule something? Just a guess.
It could just be that the list of points costs is so broken that GW fears that a sufficiently large errata for the errata book would either disuade people from buying the book in the first place, or would mean that they are required to effectively give the content 90% of people would buy the book for out for free.
Vacation is over, they know of the issue, it's a relatively easy fix (pdf of the "right" numbers) what other reason could they have for fixing it?
It is almost guaranteed that they're holding on to it to make more extensive changes to large balance issues. I can't conceive of any other purpose for the delay.
I'm pretty sure this is it. Same reason the Iron Hands FAQ was delayed, then had two different versions released on the same day.
Maybe its so large they are waiting ntil the Big FAQ to address it. But really, I think as usual the lack of communication is what has most people pissed off. If they just came out and said we're aware of issues with CA19, we're working fixing this etc. etc. it'd help smooth things over.
Instead, it's silence and they release other things, basically acting like "CA19FAQ? What CA19FAQ?"
I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.
I assume that they're also doing a deep dive on legal ramifications for immediately having to invalidate a paid for 'system update' publication. There may be some precedent where if enough willing people form a class GW will have to compensate for monetary damages. Though I highly doubt this would ever be a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah, they very well could be intentionally ignoring it until April. At that point they can call it a 're-balance' instead of an 'error correction' to skirt around potential legal issues.
oni wrote: I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.
Hasn't given them pause with any other publication...
oni wrote: I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.
Everything GW releases makes them look like incompetent fools. No FAQ has ever made anything "perfectly accurate".
If even Activision-"We sold our souls to China and laughed all the way to the bank"-Blizzard are willing to (somewhat saltily) give refunds when they release an unfinished and not fit for purpose product, GW can.
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though - - It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of - Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short - It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
It certainly would garner an absolute fork-ton of good will if they said something like "Sorry about the CA2019 book(s), we've reprinted it with all the numbers and stuff correct, bring yours in or mail it to us and we'll replace it for no charge."
Kcalehc wrote: It certainly would garner an absolute fork-ton of good will if they said something like "Sorry about the CA2019 book(s), we've reprinted it with all the numbers and stuff correct, bring yours in or mail it to us and we'll replace it for no charge."
Not going to happen of course, but one can dream.
At this point I would settle just for them apologizing for the delay in the FAQ and saying they're working on it, even if it's a bald-faced lie. It's the silence which makes you wonder if they are just not saying anything or if they forgot about it or if they plan on reprinting and charging you again, or what. Anything other than radio silence.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.
You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.
You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.
That's the whole point - you got to change your cards but now you only have 4 cards so you're at a disadvantage (only for one turn though). It's a penalty for changing your cards.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.
You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.
It's pretty clear.
USING YOUR OBJECTIVE DECK
At the start of the first battle round, each player shuffles their Objective deck and draws 5 Tactical Objective cards. If either player is not happy with the initial cards (referring to the 5 cards) that they have drawn, they can choose to place them (the 5 cards) at the bottom of their Objective deck, in any order, and draw 4 new Tactical Objective cards.
Huh, fair enough. It was the 4 cards that threw me off, because I was expecting a complete redo. But if its intended as a drawback then that makes sense.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.
Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.
So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.
You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.
You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.
What's unclear, exactly? I thought it was fairly obvious you lose 5 and pick up 4.
You get less cards to compensate for taking the Mulligan. Pretty standard stuff.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Huh, fair enough. It was the 4 cards that threw me off, because I was expecting a complete redo. But if its intended as a drawback then that makes sense.
I think this is how the mulligan works in Magic, and other CCGs that use it - it's possible the wording could've been a little clearer, though.
You get seven cards.
First mulligan is free.
Second mulligan, draw seven-then place one card on the bottom of your deck.
Third mulligan, two cards on the bottom.
So on and so forth.
I guess its something I'm not familiar with. I don't know the term mulligan and I don't play magic. The only card games I'm really familiar with are the poker varieties. I think the last time I played Uno was like a decade ago.
You get seven cards.
First mulligan is free.
Second mulligan, draw seven-then place one card on the bottom of your deck.
Third mulligan, two cards on the bottom.
So on and so forth.
They've tweaked it a little since I last played, then - when I was last playing it was draw 7, then 6, then 5, etc.
I just read this entire thread from start to finish. I was hoping we'd have some news on an FAQ for CA2019. What I instead found was mind-bloggling. And whilst I don't want to get too meta-commentary on Dakka, this thread is simply amazing. The amount of people who clearly don't understand what "trolling" or "strawman" arguments are is staggering.
I totally get why BCB rubs people the wrong way (I personally find him quite entertaining - he's the most mauleed Dakkanaut to have existed since the days of mauleed, and he garnered much the same response from people who didn't understand him), but come on folks:
His basic point is 100% correct.
We do not get to decide what rules are correct and which ones are wrong.
We do not get to decide which rules to include and which rules to ignore.
We do not get to decide what rules are typos and which are not.
The 55-point Acolyte is a wonderful example because it is so absurd, so obviously incorrect, so clearly a mistake and yet, it is the printed rules. It doesn't matter if everyone on Earth agreed it was incorrect, because that's what printed, and until it is unprinted it will remain that way, no matter how dumb you or I think it is.
And his further points just emphasise that. If the 55-point Acolyte is incorrect, what's to say that the Thunderhammer price increase is wrong? No one's been able to answer that question beyond "But 55 points is obviously wrong!" which doesn't actually answer the point BCB was making.
How much of a % increase is "obviously" a mistake?
How many extra points should something be before it is "clearly" an error?
More than that, the most frustrating thing about this thread is how everyone seems more interested in screaming at BCB because of how he's saying what he's saying than discussing what he's actually saying. The link to the 8th Ed errors in BCB is fascinating not because he's telling you how to play the game, but because he's pointing out the frustrating and obvious rules issues that GW has always had. I remember from years ago when it was technically possible to join Commissars to enemy units and execute their leaders when they failed Morale checks. Did anyone play that way? Of course they didn't. But they could have if they wanted to, and BCB's big list of 8th Ed's failings are very akin to that kind of murky ill-defined and clearly-not-intended rules that GW has always been (in)famous for.
All he does is argue RAW. People seem to take massive amounts of offence at that, and that's just silly. The rules say what the rules say, even if what they say is stupid. BCB isn't advocating that you must play them that way - I doubt he'd actually insist that his opponent cannot fire assault weapons after advancing - he's simply stating that they are the way that they are and yelling at him (of all people) for pointing out what the rules say is beyond stupid.
On your on-topic essay, let’s pull apart your Three Rules For Rules:
We do not get to decide what rules are correct and which ones are wrong.
Wrong... you literally can, if applying a semblance of critical judgement allows you to spot obvious snafus. The 55pt Cult guys is such a one, blatantly. Others may be in doubt so go as written. Being absolutist helps no one. A basic squad shouldn’t shoot up 50pts per guy for T3 squishy dudes. Fairly easy to weed that one out, unless you’re just posturing for internet points.
We do not get to decide which rules to include and which rules to ignore.
Wrong... in fact you must do that for every game you play. There default state for 40K used in most pickup games follow optional terrain and force composition rules.
We do not get to decide what rules are typos and which are not.
This is the same as your first point. You probably should attempt to ignore obvious typos. Blindly following an obvious typo doesn’t give you any kind of intellectual high ground, quite the opposite in fact.
The GSC seems obvious as all hell. The others aren’t obviously wrong, so follow them unless told otherwise. Not hard to do. A T3 dude doesn’t go up 50pts. Everyone needs to stop being silly about that particular example.
Why can’t you draw a line? Not everything is a slippery slope to madnesssss. It’s possible to say “Neophytes going from 5 to 55pts is silly, the designer clearly hit the 5 key twice and no one spotted it” without throwing your arms up in the air and going “well how do I know if they aren’t ALL typos where do I draw the liiiiinnnne?” and collapsing into an existential mess.
Why are Neophytes obvious, but thunder hammers or Ogryns aren’t?
Cue the core issue.
There are a bunch of obvious typos in there, like the 55pts Hybrids.
There are also choices in there that are not making sense,cue MoP and sorcerer drop.
There are Units in there not changed even though they should've been in all the ca's cue Chaos spawn r&h variety.
JohnnyHell wrote: Wrong... you literally can, if applying a semblance of critical judgement allows you to spot obvious snafus. The 55pt Cult guys is such a one, blatantly. Others may be in doubt so go as written. Being absolutist helps no one. A basic squad shouldn’t shoot up 50pts per guy for T3 squishy dudes. Fairly easy to weed that one out, unless you’re just posturing for internet points.
You again miss his point.
Of course 55 point Acolytes is wrong, but that doesn't matter. It's the printed rules and until it is changed it remains the printed rules. You and I don't get to decide what's not the rules and what is the rules. How much clearer can we make this?
JohnnyHell wrote: Wrong... in fact you must do that for every game you play. There default state for 40K used in most pickup games follow optional terrain and force composition rules.
Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Of course there are elements of the rules that you don't use all the time (you don't use points values in a Narrative Play game where the players have agreed to use Power Levels, for example) but that is not what I was talking about (and I suspect you knew that).
I'm not going to restate my point, lest you start calling me a troll...
JohnnyHell wrote: This is the same as your first point. You probably should attempt to ignore obvious typos. Blindly following an obvious typo doesn’t give you any kind of intellectual high ground, quite the opposite in fact.
What's an obvious typo? And as BCB said, it's not blindly following the rules. It's just following the rules.
JNAProductions wrote: But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!
If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.
Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?
Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.
And that is a problem.
Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.
Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.
MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.
JNAProductions wrote: But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!
If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.
Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?
Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.
And that is a problem.
Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.
Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.
MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.
The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?
JNAProductions wrote: But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!
If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.
Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?
Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.
Thats what I'm saying Ogryns were still not good compared to bullgryns yet they go up the same amount of points they'd gone down last year ? For what reason ? For what point ? The obvious errors give you pause to think there may be other ones especially when they seem to come without any kind of logical reasoning. Then they just decide to never fix any of them. I mean are they still on vacation at this point ? If it was just the couple of obvious errors, why take this long ? I thought the way they set up the new CA was good, but I'm very happy I didn't buy it with how fubar the offerings ended up.
JNAProductions wrote: But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!
If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.
Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?
Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.
And that is a problem.
Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.
Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.
MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.
The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?
And yet i'd Change not away from the csm discipline, conparatively to any sm discipline.
JohnnyHell wrote: Wrong... you literally can, if applying a semblance of critical judgement allows you to spot obvious snafus. The 55pt Cult guys is such a one, blatantly. Others may be in doubt so go as written. Being absolutist helps no one. A basic squad shouldn’t shoot up 50pts per guy for T3 squishy dudes. Fairly easy to weed that one out, unless you’re just posturing for internet points.
You again miss his point.
Of course 55 point Acolytes is wrong, but that doesn't matter. It's the printed rules and until it is changed it remains the printed rules. You and I don't get to decide what's not the rules and what is the rules. How much clearer can we make this?
JohnnyHell wrote: Wrong... in fact you must do that for every game you play. There default state for 40K used in most pickup games follow optional terrain and force composition rules.
Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Of course there are elements of the rules that you don't use all the time (you don't use points values in a Narrative Play game where the players have agreed to use Power Levels, for example) but that is not what I was talking about (and I suspect you knew that).
I'm not going to restate my point, lest you start calling me a troll...
JohnnyHell wrote: This is the same as your first point. You probably should attempt to ignore obvious typos. Blindly following an obvious typo doesn’t give you any kind of intellectual high ground, quite the opposite in fact.
What's an obvious typo? And as BCB said, it's not blindly following the rules. It's just following the rules.
Oh do stop. The subject of the thread isn’t BCB’s preferences, and backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1. Stay on topic, stay polite, do relax a little. It’s a chat about toy soldiers.
I’m not missing any points (I understand BCB’s ethos better than you do it seems) or being ‘intellectually dishonest’ on your second statement. You literally must decide what rules you’re using in every game. There is no default ruleset. Given this, your slippery slope fallacy falls apart like a wet cake. If it’s possible to decide that X terrain rule would be unfun to use then it’s possible to exclude an obvious outlier points typo and revert to the more likely and previously-published 5pts. Because piss and moan as much as you like in pursuit of a point, but that 55pts is a typo that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t just posturing. I’m sorry, but it is. I can’t speak to other potential errors but this one isn’t even in doubt.
Following a rule that screams typo (and that the community has generally deduced to be a blatant typo) *is* blindly following the rules, sorry bud. The aim of the game is to compete and have fun. Following the rules isn’t necessarily in itself fun or the object of 40K. Again, an absolutist stance doesn’t work for 40K, and claiming fixing one typo leads to anarchy or is verboten is just silly, frankly. And once again, seems to be an Internet-only problem.
JohnnyHell wrote: Wrong... you literally can, if applying a semblance of critical judgement allows you to spot obvious snafus. The 55pt Cult guys is such a one, blatantly. Others may be in doubt so go as written. Being absolutist helps no one. A basic squad shouldn’t shoot up 50pts per guy for T3 squishy dudes. Fairly easy to weed that one out, unless you’re just posturing for internet points.
You again miss his point.
The rules only matter if you let them matter, you play by the rules you want to play by. When you play 40k you don't care about Warmahordes rules, you cannot know the actual intention behind every single rule so you have to come to an agreement with your opponent as to which rules you want to follow.
It absolutely is blindly following the rules, if you lived in a country that forced you to cannibalize your firstborn sibling at the age of 13 you wouldn't do that either, you would come to an agreement with your sibling that you're either supposed to give them a gift or take them to the carnival or just do nothing, because cannibalizing your siblings is insane, even if the government's official stance is that you should do it. I am not exaggerating here, 55 pt Acolytes is as insane as cannibalizing your siblings. Or you could consider the formal government rules which mandated racism in some countries, even in times and places where it was mandated some still chose not to follow these inane rules. GW is not even my government or my religion, I can house rule as much as I want as long as my opponent agrees. There is a difference between the government mandating you not cross a red light at 90 miles an hour and the government mandating you become a racist or a cannibal. Watch The Wave (Die Welle), you're a sheep. Oooor a troll.
It doesn't even matter if it was a typo, whether someone at GW thought it'd be funny to see people arguing around like a bunch of headless cats or if it was a typo, it's wrong and you should not play with it.
I find it hard to believe that they intended Neophytes to be 5 pts. Why would they retype the same pts cost? Wouldn't they just copy-paste the old value? Do you mean to tell me they don't have a spreadsheet with these numbers and instead they literally have someone with a printout of the old pts values typing it in by hand? Sorry, but I don't believe it - no one is that incompetent.
Obviously they intended to increase the pts cost for Neophytes in anticipation of the awesome new Prepared Ambush stratagem. No other unit in the game can fire their autoguns as Assault 2 and Neophytes pts cost should reflect this.
Now clearly 55 pts is a wee bit steep even taking into account the fantastic new utility of the unit, and therefore more than likely a typo. Common sense should tell us that they obviously intended to type 11 pts but hit the 5 key twice rather than the 1 key twice. So because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you, my opponent, field them as 11 pts until the errata is released. You're welcome.
Are neophytes 55 points now? I thought acolytes were, which are not neophytes.
Not that I think acolytes should be 55 points; I'm not too familiar with their statline, but the models don't look like 55 point models.
JohnnyHell wrote: The subject of the thread isn’t BCB’s preferences, and backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1. Stay on topic, stay polite, do relax a little. It’s a chat about toy soldiers.
Big words given everything you've been throwing out at him (in a most backhanded way, I might add ):
Spoiler:
JohnnyHell wrote: If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.
JohnnyHell wrote: You don’t even play 40K so have absolutely zero right to try and ruin someone’s livelihood. Source: yourself. Just can it.
And yet you're still arguing against 55 point Acolytes when 55 point Acolytes aren't the point, they're just the example. An extreme one, to be sure, but an example nonetheless, one indicative of the issue at hand: Typo or not, they're the written rules as they are. To say they are a mistake is callous because it is essentially you deciding it is a mistake, rather than the rules doing so.
Again, I could decide that GW clearly didn't meant to make Thunder Hammers 444% more expensive than 9 point power fists, right? I mean that's just silly. It has to be a typo, right? And it wouldn't matter if it is or if it isn't. It's what the rules say. There is no distinction between "blindly" following the rules, and following the rules. That's what you need to understand.
JohnnyHell wrote: You literally must decide what rules you’re using in every game. There is no default ruleset. Given this, your slippery slope fallacy falls apart like a wet cake.
Ignoring the mixed metaphor, I don't think you know what a slippery slope argument is. And your dishonest (or just disingenuous - you pick!) example doesn't work.
This isn't about the framework of the game (are we narrative, matched, etc.), what type of game we're playing (Spearhead, ITC, whatever), or the nitty gritty of armies (X PL, Y points, etc.). You don't get to ignore the shooting phase, for example. You don't get to ignore the rules for Smite. You don't get to choose whether you follow or ignore the rules for transports. If you're playing a matched play game that involves points you do not get to choose the points. GW has done that for you. And you don't get to decide what's a typo and what isn't, no matter how frickin' stupid that typo may be. If you are making that up, then you have ceased playing 40K as it exists in GW's rules (a bit like ITC), and whilst that's perfectly fine, it doesn't change that BCB or anyone else arguing RAW is right.
So take 5 point Acolytes. Take 10 points Acolytes. Take fething free Acolytes for all I care. Whatever you chose, you're not following the rules as written. That is the point.
JohnnyHell wrote: Because piss and moan as much as you like in pursuit of a point, but that 55pts is a typo that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t just posturing.
Of course it's a typo... but that's not the point. How many times must it stated. You're fixated on this ultimately meaningless 55 point cost. It's not about the cost of Acolytes. The cost of Acolytes is immaterial to the conversation at hand.
1. You don't get to decide what the rules are. You and your friends are more than welcome to come up with your own rules, ignore bits of the rules and do whatever you want with them, but you can't them come along and tell us that your version of the rules would be as valid or correct as what GW has written because it's their game, not yours. Our group abandoned 40K and did our own version for years and years - but we never pretended that our version was just as valid as GW's.
2. You don't get to decide what's a mistake and what's not, for the reasons already stated. Neither do I, mind. This applies to all of us equally, not just you. And it doesn't matter how obvious the mistake is. Up until last week (or whenever it was) Mortifiers could come in units of 6, or 4, depending on which page of the book you looked at. 4 made more sense given Pengine units, but which one was the typo? I don't think GW meant for Thunder Hammers to be over 400% more than Power Fists. But it doesn't matter if I think that (I don't actually, much like I don't think Acolytes are meant to be 55). But it's what's there.
And I'm not even going to dignify that "baby eating" post below yours with a response. I mean Jesus Christ...
[opinion]
BCB is a treasure, and this community would be worse off in his absence. He's almost 100% right on his assessment of Games Workshop's publications. I say almost, because sometimes he uses hyperbole to suggest that the books are completely worthless, but that's not true. Even the most error ridden books have some value, and a good game can generally be got by just working around these issues with your gaming buddy.
On the other hand, the issues mentioned are definitely and undeniably there, and the thing that I'm entirely onside with BCB on is that these books, with their many issues absolutely are not worth their premium cost, and therein lies the issue. Games Workshop charges a premium cost for what is essentially, a fairly crappy product. Not total garbage, but fairly crappy, and definitely not worth the premium.
In other words, he's correct when he says the books are not worth the money, but he's wrong when he says the game is unplayable because of it.
I don't think there's anything really controversial in any of this. My suspicion is that the controversy arises from BCB's penchant for hyperbole and talking in absolutes, but it seems to me that this is just the passion of someone who really does love the game no matter what he says, and we should consider this before judging him too harshly.
[/opinion]
JNAProductions wrote: But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!
If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.
Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?
Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.
And that is a problem.
Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.
Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.
MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.
The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?
And yet i'd Change not away from the csm discipline, conparatively to any sm discipline.
Yes but if gw insists on pricing similar units for loyalists and heretics the same I say take the good with the bad. Remember ALL their units get doctrines, super doctrines, access to more strategems, atsknf, and on and on. If they get all of that while paying the same price for similar units as csm then it's perfectly reasonable our psykers cost the same even with their superior discipline.
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.
Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.
YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.
And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?
Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.
Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.
YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.
Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have followed have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.
Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?
probably realising that they should do a propper CA / balance sheet / doccument they can adapt on the fly.
And or the intern is responsible is drunk again.
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have followed have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.
Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?
probably realising that they should do a propper CA / balance sheet / doccument they can adapt on the fly.
And or the intern is responsible is drunk again.
Probably option number 2 as option 1 would have to involve making it free online and that doesn't fit the typical gw business model. Gw is to money as orks are to dakka. Never enough.
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.
Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?
It may be combined into the Spring FAQ. Already more than 1/2 the way there from when CA came out.
Particularly if a balance patch for Space Marines is in the works, it might make sense to them to wait and do both at once.
You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?
The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information. It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.
And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.
Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?
It may be combined into the Spring FAQ. Already more than 1/2 the way there from when CA came out.
Particularly if a balance patch for Space Marines is in the works, it might make sense to them to wait and do both at once.
Well if that's it then that's bullgak seeing as people have already paid $30 for ca. It should be corrected now. That's just bad business.
I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?
Darsath wrote: I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?
Yes. They could at least explain some of the thinking on their decisions.
JohnnyHell wrote: Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?)
I don't think that's baiting. He's calling out the hypocrisy of the most consistently snide, passive-aggressive poster in this thread telling him to stay polite. I'm not sure I've seen a single post from you that isn't dripping with condescension.
JohnnyHell wrote:backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1.
JohnnyHell wrote:Can everyone stop feeding the t... BCB and discuss something else?
BaconCatBug wrote: And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?
Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.
Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.
YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.
BaconCatBug wrote: And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?
Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.
Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.
YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.
Ding ding ding we have a winner!
As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.
Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.
Darsath wrote: I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?
Yes, GW should have said something by now. Either that no Faq is needed (which would be weird with some very obvious errors like 55 pt Neophytes) or that they are working on something big that will take longer and for everyone to be patient.
But the pessimist in my thinks that upper management has stopped such a statement from being made because it would crash SM sales as people wait for an expected nerf, rather then buy in to the OP faction.
Blood Hawk wrote: As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.
Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.
And this is how you identify who hasn't taken the effort to read the whole thread.
No-one thinks Neophytes should be 55ppm. I don't think Neophytes should be 55ppm. What I think doesn't matter a single jot, because what GW says is what matters, and GW says they are 55ppm. End of discussion. GW can easily errata it, but have refused to do so. Until they do, they are 55ppm.
The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?
The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?
I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.
Blood Hawk wrote: As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.
Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.
And this is how you identify who hasn't taken the effort to read the whole thread.
No-one thinks Neophytes should be 55ppm. I don't think Neophytes should be 55ppm. What I think doesn't matter a single jot, because what GW says is what matters, and GW says they are 55ppm. End of discussion. GW can easily errata it, but have refused to do so. Until they do, they are 55ppm.
The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?
Oh I read the thread. Holding people to 55pts Neophytes until FAQ drops is stupid. It is a obvious error. If you want to ignore common sense be my guest. Just realize people will think less of you for it.
Edit:. There is a difference between obvious errors and potential errors. 55pt Neophytes is a obvious error. Just blindly following RAW in cases like that is foolish.
Edit 2: To be clear, when I said "should" in my first post I didn't mean your personal opinion about Neophytes should cost but what pt value you would actually use when playing 40k with GSC.
1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad
2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.
I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.
The standards of actual legal systems arent sufficient for the raw diehards. Hilarious. Legislators do this kind of crap all the time. Absurd results arent enforced generally.
Wayniac wrote: I think there's a divide here between people who:
1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad
2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.
I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.
Honestly, I'm coming around to the 'it's a tactical RPG' way of thought. Narrative, fluffy games just sound better every day. Fielding something pretty sounds more fun than the idiotic meta chase (which seems to boil down to 'Why you no Imperial nub?!') GW has created at this point.
The painters have won! God is dead! Have you seen the new contrast colors?!
The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?
I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.
BTW, how have major tournaments handled this?
To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?
The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?
I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.
BTW, how have major tournaments handled this?
To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?
well, from my experience...nobody will ever play you.
Problem solved. The group goes on.
The fact that you see these 55 point neophytes as some kind of glaring, massive problem and even the most hardcore, legalistic competitive gaming groups in the world pretty much all laughed it off and fixed it with an immediate house ruling just speaks to how extremely basic the social solution to this problem is.
"wwell what if someone thinks ogryns are a typo too? huh? HUH?"
Then I'd just let them play Ogryns at the cost they think is more correct.
We have people come by all the time who aren't super into the online loop who've got handwritten lists built from the backs of their codexes, which are almost always super out of date at this point. It's basically never an issue. There's folks that play armies and don't use all the universal army-wide rules they're entitled to based on current GW rules release products, because they think those rules are bs and produce bad games. There are also people who grant armies that don't have those rules access to them because they think it's bs they don't have them yet - I just watched a game last week where Ultramarines played vs Space Wolves and the first thing the former said to the latter was "hey, so am I playing without Doctrines or do you want to play with them?"
BaconCatBug wrote: To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?
Most people will not agree with you.
Ultimately it is about how an overwhelming majority of players perceive it, and I think overwhelming majority would agree that the neophyte thing is an obvious typo, but no such consensus would form on the other examples. Granted, it is still stupid that they have not fixed it or even somehow acknowledged the mistake.
BaconCatBug wrote: To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?
Most people will not agree with you.
Ultimately it is about how an overwhelming majority of players perceive it, and I think overwhelming majority would agree that the neophyte thing is an obvious typo, but no such consensus would form on the other examples. Granted, it is still stupid that they have not fixed it or even somehow acknowledged the mistake.
The rules are not a democracy. The rules are the rules. I know some people think my position "extreme", but I simply cannot understand how you can justify breaking one rule and not breaking another. There is no middle ground.
The rules are the rules. I know some people think my position "extreme", but I simply cannot understand how you can justify breaking one rule and not breaking another. There is no middle ground.
Yes, we all know you cannot understand, but we normal people understand it just fine.
Wayniac wrote: I think there's a divide here between people who:
1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad
2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.
I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.
The first is based on an indefensible slippery slope fallacy and a specious assertion that the procedure would be willy nilly.
But let's play it out. How would you go about determining the issue?
- I can look at other S3 T3 autogun infantry and see there is an issue.
- I can do some mathhammer and determine the problem as well.
- I have a previous value that makes more sense.
- An increase of 1100% seems very wrong
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (no they won't)
What about the Thunder Hammer?
- I can see it is very popular and effective in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
Meanwhile - "nope no way to know what is real or not!"
This is the problem with discussions (and society) today. Someone tosses crap on the wall and it takes pages and pages of discussion to peel down a single point. What if the Neo issue did not exist? How would you go about trusting anythingGW has published? What if GW published a perfect CA next time - how do you go about determining your trust in it? We may as well just say it is all wrong and stop playing the game, because we're terminally confused about how to be rational human beings.
Wayniac wrote: I think there's a divide here between people who:
1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad
2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.
I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.
The first is based on an indefensible slippery slope fallacy and a specious assertion that the procedure would be willy nilly.
But let's play it out. How would you go about determining the issue?
- I can look at other S3 T3 autogun infantry and see there is an issue.
- I can do some mathhammer and determine the problem as well.
- I have a previous value that makes more sense.
- An increase of 1100% seems very wrong
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (no they won't)
What about the Thunder Hammer?
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
Meanwhile - "nope no way to know what is real or not!"
This is the problem with discussions (and society) today. Someone tosses crap on the wall and it takes pages and pages of discussion to peel down a single point. What if the Neo issue did not exist? How would you go about trusting anythingGW has published? What if GW published a perfect CA next time - how do you go about determining your trust in it? We may as well just say it is all wrong and stop playing the game, because we're terminally confused about how to be rational human beings.
And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.
BaconCatBug wrote: And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.
See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.
BaconCatBug wrote: And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.
See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.
And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character? How do you know Ogryns are worth the price bump?
BaconCatBug wrote: And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.
See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.
And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character? How do you know Ogryns are worth the price bump?
Were TH previously effective? Yes - hence a cost increase of some kind is warranted.
Are TH still being used? Yes - therefore the cost is not prohibitive except to those wishing to run multiple smash captains
Do Ogryns get used? No.
Are Ogryns better than Bullgryns to a point where it warrants a point increase? No - therefore it is a mistake.
You and everyone else knew Ogryns were off by the very fact that they don't get used and Bullgryns exist, but somehow you cannot deduce if it is a typo or not. Curious.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
Since this thread is way, waaay off the rails anyway.
The reason that some people can handle taking some rules as "obviously incorrect" while others insist "Rules are rules, and the only consistency is perfect consistency" comes down to...
Pragmatism vs Dogmatism.
Pragmatism is a set of ideals that values a heuristic approach to life. It may be inefficient to determine the *best possible* approach, but spending a "reasonable effort" to determine a *very good* approach is worthwhile.
Dogmatism is a set of ideals that determines a *best possible* approach, without regard to cost / time frame. If it is more efficient to build a stone bridge that will last for centuries, before building the town (the town will need the bridge) then the bridge is built first, before the first shovel hits dirt to build the town.
Where as a Pragmatic approach might be to build a wooden bridge first, so people can begin building their homes (and thus have places to sleep) and then go back and revisit the bridge at a later time. It is less efficient, but is a *very good* solution that allows another, more immediately pressing concern to be addressed (building houses).
I myself am an unrelenting Pragmatist. And as such, value that and often deride Dogmatists even though my wife is an *utterly unrelenting* Dogmatist. I have lots of experience in this conflict.
I can't present the Dogmatic approach in as positive a light as Pragmatism, because it is antithetical to my personality. I can see the value in it (rarely ) but I find it to generally be detracting. However. When it comes to games with rules, I can appreciate the Dogmatic approach, even if I wouldn't agree with it.
Though, as a Pragmatist that does not wish to run afoul of a Dogmatist, my solution would simply be not to play units that have "obvious" mis-costs. I mean, I wasn't rocking Ogryn anyway.
Honestly for me it is a combination of multiple things that irk me.
One,i am a casual (ish) player, a well balanced ruleset especially codex internally allows for me for more thematic armies to work decently enough due to lower spread of power,leading to a broader spectrum of possible matches that are fun (not decided by faction choices from the get go)
Two, the crux is however that ca (especially the points) are in essence nothing more then a balance patch,arbtrarily gated behind a paywall.
Three, due to it beeing paywalled i'd expect better then such obvious typos as the Neophyten or the ogryns/bullgryns confusion.
Fourth, i'd also expect overall that all parts of the content in it would get looked at ....
And lastly, if i need to first go over with my partner on what maybee a fault,etc that is inconvenient and also taking up time.
Time some Off us don't have.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly for me it is a combination of multiple things that irk me.
One,i am a casual (ish) player, a well balanced ruleset especially codex internally allows for me for more thematic armies to work decently enough due to lower spread of power,leading to a broader spectrum of possible matches that are fun (not decided by faction choices from the get go)
Two, the crux is however that ca (especially the points) are in essence nothing more then a balance patch,arbtrarily gated behind a paywall.
Three, due to it beeing paywalled i'd expect better then such obvious typos as the Neophyten or the ogryns/bullgryns confusion.
Fourth, i'd also expect overall that all parts of the content in it would get looked at ....
Yes to all of this. We need good internal balance in all codexes. And ca should address ALL units. We paid gw money for all our armies/units and the least they can do is make them USABLE. Not op. Just usable. Selling a product then not supporting it is bad business.
The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
Yes?
And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
...but... that would mean that GWknew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
...but... that would mean that GWknew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.
Is that intended as a defence?!
Exactly. The pa books were already written and probably printed when ca released. Same goes for the "balancing " they intend to do with fw. So why haven't the discrepancies been addressed?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
Yes?
And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...
Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...
Considering some of gw's previous decisions anything is conceivable. Seriously who would have thought they would price anything the completely asinine way that they did the mega daemons?
Karol wrote: Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?
Drops also.
Cue sorcerer and MoP,one makes undeniable sense the other,erm well less so.
Of course Units that are shared Like cultists Turn heads easily aswell.
Karol wrote: Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?
Maybe not 50%, but early in 8th they did have an incident where Purestrain Genestealers were 20% cheaper than Hive Fleet 'stealers and they fixed it in an FAQ a couple days later.
Could we agree that the current price for a Neophyte is probably an anomaly given their battlefield role and stats but for now that is what the rules say they cost? I don't see why this need be a point of contention and I'm a bit unsure as to why the cost being thought of as suspect is considered an issue.
Also as to why the price hike for Neophytes specifically seems suspect, it locks them out of the game. A minimum squad consumes more than half of the points available to a player in a typical game and it is impossible to take a second squad (or a full squad) and still field a legal battle forged army at their current points bracket. Again though, the price is what it is and I don't dispute the idea that that is what one has to pay to use them. I do think though that of the examples listed none have such a disproportionate effect on the item in question though.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
Yes?
And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
...but... that would mean that GWknew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.
Is that intended as a defence?!
No, I don't think it means that GW knew and intended for the points in CA to be wrong. Do you know the lead time on the Greater Good book? The points correction may be in an errata/day 1 FAQ (ala Space Wolves WL traits) to the Greater Good book.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
Yes?
And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
...but... that would mean that GWknew and intended for the points in Chapter Approved to be wrong, given the lead time on The Greater Good.
Is that intended as a defence?!
No, I don't think it means that GW knew and intended for the points in CA to be wrong. Do you know the lead time on the Greater Good book? The points correction may be in an errata/day 1 FAQ (ala Space Wolves WL traits) to the Greater Good book.
No, not irrelevant, it's at the core of this issue discussed in this thread.
Karol wrote: Is the reverse true too. So if a unit suddenly drops like 50% in price it is considered a possible error too? or is it just point hikes that are considered an anomaly?
Maybe not 50%, but early in 8th they did have an incident where Purestrain Genestealers were 20% cheaper than Hive Fleet 'stealers and they fixed it in an FAQ a couple days later.
Could we agree that the current price for a Neophyte is probably an anomaly given their battlefield role and stats but for now that is what the rules say they cost? I don't see why this need be a point of contention and I'm a bit unsure as to why the cost being thought of as suspect is considered an issue.
Also as to why the price hike for Neophytes specifically seems suspect, it locks them out of the game. A minimum squad consumes more than half of the points available to a player in a typical game and it is impossible to take a second squad (or a full squad) and still field a legal battle forged army at their current points bracket. Again though, the price is what it is and I don't dispute the idea that that is what one has to pay to use them. I do think though that of the examples listed none have such a disproportionate effect on the item in question though.
The problem is that the neophyte's cost, at least, could have been addressed in a day one faq. Ignoring all the other questionable stuff they could have done that. But over two months later they haven't uttered a peep. One simple one sentence long faq would cut down all this speculation and complaining tremendously yet they refuse to address the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW didn't get the points values in CA intentionally wrong because of an upcoming PA book.
Hanlon's Razor cuts right through that, folks.
Yes exactly! When the simplest explanation is ignorance assume ignorance.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The FAQ/Errata for CA has probably not released yet because GW intend to wrap the correct points for Neophytes/Ogryns/Bullgryns in the upcoming PA book.
What about the other glaring mistakes? Do we have to wait for deathwatch's pa to find out how many of each unit can be included per squad?
Yes?
And you Find that, acceptable for something you paid for?
Irrelevant.
No, not irrelevant, it's at the core of this issue discussed in this thread.
No, it really isn't relevant at all. The OP is asking if there's any news/speculation on when we can expect an errata to CA mistakes. I have provided my guess.
But if you want my opinion on the value of CA generally; if you think I'm going to pay for rules updates that are at least 6 months out of date, you have another thing coming. I will tell GW this every chance I get. CA is worthless, as far as I'm concerned.
So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?
Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?
Karol wrote: Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.
Easy Way to Find out ,compare to other Tech marines, did they drop aswell,are they about the Same ballpark?
I am dubious about the sorcerer because i know how he performs comparatively even to sm librarians.
its is hard to compare, because ours has different gear and lack of access to stuff other techmarines have plus his codex cost was like 90pts for a guy 24pts for two servo arms, and then he also got an ax and a flamer, and other gear. Plus he can cast powers and that always costs points.
vipoid wrote: So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?
Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?
How about we meet in the middle of previous & current & see how that plays?
Karol wrote: Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.
Which is entirely inline with other techmarine drops and he's even 10 points more to account for casting ability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?
Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?
That's a discussion for whomever you're playing with. In my opinion the fair choice with no risk of balance issues is to use the old cost.
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...
There is a subjective gradient. You may not feel like a 40 point TH is fair, but then your opinion could be based on the fact that you might like using smash captains. I could otherwise disagree, because I might be sick of getting smacked by multiple smash captains. Neither of those ends are particularly relevant if people are still taking them in lists.
You could say that some people don't have a relic TH so it isn't worth it, but that really doesn't matter either, because not all armies need all tools to be hyper-efficient. Could GW price TH differently for each chapter? Sure, but then you're opening a whole other can of balancing worms. Relics should perhaps cost points, but we're not there yet.
Now, at least, power fists are a (slightly more) viable option in comparison.
See how the TH is STILL more efficient? You might balk at the difference between the TH and PF, but when you take into effect REAL costs the flat 3 damage weights heavily in favor of the TH.
nareik wrote: Honestly this is all just making me want to revert to playing PL.
If I can, I only use PL now. My FLGS is running an escalation legue using points, it's been a while since I've used them, and the CA drops for my Necrons have really added up!
Does Power Level not often result in dramatic imbalance? I'm very much a narrative player myself, but I don't think I've ever played a game without points that wasn't a tutorial of some sort.
Ginjitzu wrote: Does Power Level not often result in dramatic imbalance? I'm very much a narrative player myself, but I don't think I've ever played a game without points that wasn't a tutorial of some sort.
Not really. At least not more than the point system does.
It makes some units weaker, other stronger. But it's not creating imbalances worse than exist in the base game between, dunno, mono Khorne Daemons and Iron Hands, or internal-balance wise a Kroot-based Tau army vs a Trip-Tide & millions of Drones Tau army, etc..
Ginjitzu wrote: Does Power Level not often result in dramatic imbalance? I'm very much a narrative player myself, but I don't think I've ever played a game without points that wasn't a tutorial of some sort.
Not really. At least not more than the point system does.
It makes some units weaker, other stronger. But it's not creating imbalances worse than exist in the base game between, dunno, mono Khorne Daemons and Iron Hands, or internal-balance wise a Kroot-based Tau army vs a Trip-Tide & millions of Drones Tau army, etc..
Mostly it's a wash.
This. I'd just suggest enforcing WYSIWYG because for our group some people weren't fans of models having "all the gear!" despite being modeled with nothing but bolters.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
So to determine whether the pts cost for a given unit or option is correct all we have to do is some initial mathematical analysis coupled with feedback from playtesters and also maybe accounting for perceived popularity based on tournament results? What a brilliant idea! Maybe the results of this analysis could even be compiled in a single document for ease of reference. The document could then be updated periodically, like maybe annually? The Chapters of this document would then serve as the Approved source for all the most up-to-date pts cost of every unit and option in the game!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
So to determine whether the pts cost for a given unit or option is correct all we have to do is some initial mathematical analysis coupled with feedback from playtesters and also maybe accounting for perceived popularity based on tournament results? What a brilliant idea! Maybe the results of this analysis could even be compiled in a single document for ease of reference. The document could then be updated periodically, like maybe annually? The Chapters of this document would then serve as the Approved source for all the most up-to-date pts cost of every unit and option in the game!
Karol wrote: Damn, because our techmarine had like a 50% point drop.
Which is entirely inline with other techmarine drops and he's even 10 points more to account for casting ability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: So here's a question, if we assume that the CA Neophyte cost is an obvious mistake, how do you determine what the correct cost is?
Do you just use the old one and assume that it wasn't meant to be changed at all? Do you just make one up and claim that it's correct are closer to the mark?
That's a discussion for whomever you're playing with. In my opinion the fair choice with no risk of balance issues is to use the old cost.
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
How can you determine that? Would Wraithknights going 300 to 480 last edition have been "reasonable"? Obviously not...
There is a subjective gradient. You may not feel like a 40 point TH is fair, but then your opinion could be based on the fact that you might like using smash captains. I could otherwise disagree, because I might be sick of getting smacked by multiple smash captains. Neither of those ends are particularly relevant if people are still taking them in lists.
You could say that some people don't have a relic TH so it isn't worth it, but that really doesn't matter either, because not all armies need all tools to be hyper-efficient. Could GW price TH differently for each chapter? Sure, but then you're opening a whole other can of balancing worms. Relics should perhaps cost points, but we're not there yet.
Now, at least, power fists are a (slightly more) viable option in comparison.
See how the TH is STILL more efficient? You might balk at the difference between the TH and PF, but when you take into effect REAL costs the flat 3 damage weights heavily in favor of the TH.
Still more efficient against WHAT though? You completely forgot to make mention of that didn't you?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?
He did:
- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF - I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)
So to determine whether the pts cost for a given unit or option is correct all we have to do is some initial mathematical analysis coupled with feedback from playtesters and also maybe accounting for perceived popularity based on tournament results? What a brilliant idea! Maybe the results of this analysis could even be compiled in a single document for ease of reference. The document could then be updated periodically, like maybe annually? The Chapters of this document would then serve as the Approved source for all the most up-to-date pts cost of every unit and option in the game!
Somebody should really look into doing that.
I'm unsure what the purpose of this remark is?
The process you describe for ascertaining whether a given pts cost is correct or a typo is basically the process one would follow to determine the pts cost period. So if we need to do this ourselves what's the purpose of GW's gakky book? Is CA a compilation of official pts cost or just a set of suggested pts cost for us to use as a starting point for our own game-balancing exercise?
Still more efficient against WHAT though? You completely forgot to make mention of that didn't you?
You can clearly see they're applied in a like for like scenario. They're literally the same weapon except one is D3 damage and the other is flat 3 damage.
Unless you intend to construct an absurd scenario for a use the TH isn't built for to make a strawman.
The process you describe for ascertaining whether a given pts cost is correct or a typo is basically the process one would follow to determine the pts cost period. So if we need to do this ourselves what's the purpose of GW's gakky book? Is CA a compilation of official pts cost or just a set of suggested pts cost for us to use as a starting point for our own game-balancing exercise?
You've gone way off in left field.
People here have, in bad faith, made themselves confused about what points are correct, because of some typos. Typos of which there are likely two - Neos and Ogryns. Things like R&H very evidently fall under a scenario where they didn't review FW points, because of new books coming.
Then we have thunderhammers, which people can't get their heads around, because they mentally disagree with the visual of the number, but don't bother to think about it any more than that. They already knew Smash Captains were popular and effective, but for some reason a point increase on the weapon is too much to handle and it gets washed up in a strawman about how to approach the book.
There are more than two typos in the book. The entire space wolf fast attack section is a reprint of the INDEX and the deatwatch section has issues as well.
I want clarity on the SW fast attack because it seems that thunder wolf cavalry need a points reduction that they didn't get and proper SW fast attack points values/unit sizes would clear that up (finally crush my dreams of playing TWC in a competitive army).
bananathug wrote: There are more than two typos in the book. The entire space wolf fast attack section is a reprint of the INDEX and the deatwatch section has issues as well.
I want clarity on the SW fast attack because it seems that thunder wolf cavalry need a points reduction that they didn't get and proper SW fast attack points values/unit sizes would clear that up (finally crush my dreams of playing TWC in a competitive army).
Ok, fair enough - I forget about SW as most people should (just kidding, but Magnus did nothing wrong). That doesn't prevent us from being objective about the rest. It's also a kind of typo that is... less about decision making or an errant key press.
The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
I somehow doubt it would destroy society to fix a printing error.
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
Which ones are wrong? Why are those ones you choose to be wrong are wrong but the ones I choose to be wrong are actually correct?
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
It's almost like the whole thing was just smoke and mirrors to sucker in bittervets back to 8th, grab their cash then start producing toys instead of miniatures. Now that the shine has worn off they can go back to business as usual by writing overpowered rules to shift models like they did with the introduction of flyers and knights. The difference is now they've taken a page out of Riot's playbook and nerd the op thing after the fact to get people to buy the newest op thing.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I agree the radio silence is BS. I have sent weekly emails to them imploring them to release some kind of statement.
The hold back is more than just fixing tiny errors in my estimation - it is possibly an attempt to them to tone down bigger issues like the efficiency of TFCs after having collected LVO results. If that is the case I'd expect them to release something within a week or two from now.
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
I somehow doubt it would destroy society to fix a printing error.
Personally, I think a simple post to fix the GSC issue like "use the points printed in the Codex and not in Chapter Approved" would be at least a decent hold-over for the real FAQ. That is assuming that the FAQ has a legitimate and reasonable explanation for its delay and for the radio silence.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I agree the radio silence is BS. I have sent weekly emails to them imploring them to release some kind of statement.
The hold back is more than just fixing tiny errors in my estimation - it is possibly an attempt to them to tone down bigger issues like the efficiency of TFCs after having collected LVO results. If that is the case I'd expect them to release something within a week or two from now.
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
I somehow doubt it would destroy society to fix a printing error.
I was being facetious.
It's been "in just a week or two " for over two months now. Why can't gw just release a statement saying they know there's problems and that they are working on addressing them? They've been keeping with the normal faq schedule for every other release in this time.
Darsath wrote: Personally, I think a simple post to fix the GSC issue like "use the points printed in the Codex and not in Chapter Approved" would be at least a decent hold-over for the real FAQ. That is assuming that the FAQ has a legitimate and reasonable explanation for its delay and for the radio silence.
It may just be that they have a hard and fast policy that CA is the vehicle for all pts updates, not FAQs. In which case the pts will all be corrected (hopefully) when CA 2020 is released. Just gotta sit tight til then!
It's been "in just a week or two " for over two months now. Why can't gw just release a statement saying they know there's problems and that they are working on addressing them? They've been keeping with the normal faq schedule for every other release in this time.
I honestly don't know why they won't. Hubris? Shame? Some notion that the community will take the statement the wrong way?
Darsath wrote: The correct points are the ones that Games Workshop printed in Chapter Approved. If they made a mistake, they would have FAQ'd it or commented on it to some capacity.
Yes, sure. And there are "official" points that are clearly wrong that we can address individually without destroying society as we know it.
Which ones are wrong? Why are those ones you choose to be wrong are wrong but the ones I choose to be wrong are actually correct?
Why do you keep repeating the same inane question over and over again? Why do you refuse to accept the explanations people have provided?
You're quite at liberty to insist on the Neophyte cost of 55 points if you want. Everyone else is quite at liberty to refuse to play against you with their GSC armies too. So then you can sit back and bask in your righteous superiority while everyone else gets on with actually playing the game. Seems pretty self-defeating to me but to each their own I guess.
Likewise, someone is free to suggest they think the updated TH points are also a typo. If they can persuade their opponent of that fact they can play with whatever points cost they see fit, otherwise the default is the points in CA19. I'd much prefer GW didn't keep screwing up their releases so this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion but that's not the world we live in. Sitting there and repeating "but how do we know for sure?" over every points change ultimately accomplishes very little. Given that pretty much the entire 40k playing community has decided that the 55-point Neophyte is a typo I'd say GSC players are safe in assuming their opponents wouldn't hold them to that points cost in their games. Moan all you want about officialdom and RAW and trot out your tired slippery slope fallacies and false equivalencies all you want, the reality is nobody is actually playing with 55-point Neophytes and the game doesn't seem to have collapsed in on itself as a result.
Likewise, someone is free to suggest they think the updated TH points are also a typo. If they can persuade their opponent of that fact they can play with whatever points cost they see fit, otherwise the default is the points in CA19.
So if we were to be about to play each other, neither of us would actually know how many points our lists were, until we had debated (every?) points cost to see if we can agree that they are correct or not?
If I have a unit of Ogryns, how many points is that going to be? I think that the points cost in CA19 is an error on GW's part.
You have a unit of Neophytes. How many points are they? If they're not 55 points each, then how many points are they? If I don't agree with the cost you think they should be.. then..? If you can't convince me that they should be, say, 5 points each, then we default to the cost in CA19 anyway?
Likewise, someone is free to suggest they think the updated TH points are also a typo. If they can persuade their opponent of that fact they can play with whatever points cost they see fit, otherwise the default is the points in CA19.
So if we were to be about to play each other, neither of us would actually know how many points our lists were, until we had debated (every?) points cost to see if we can agree that they are correct or not?
If I have a unit of Ogryns, how many points is that going to be? I think that the points cost in CA19 is an error on GW's part.
You have a unit of Neophytes. How many points are they? If they're not 55 points each, then how many points are they? If I don't agree with the cost you think they should be.. then..? If you can't convince me that they should be, say, 5 points each, then we default to the cost in CA19 anyway?
In practice, in a real life game (so, the only thing that actually matters rather than pointless online posturing) in the overwhelming majority of cases people are going to use the CA19 costs for everything bar Neophytes. If we can't agree on the cost of Neophytes we don't play. If I were to suggest 5 and you demanded 55, or 10, or 15 we wouldn't play. That's not an opponent I'm interested in spending any time with frankly.
It's telling that these "problems" only seem to exist online. I know dozens of 40k players, either directly or indirectly, and I know of precisely zero situations where anyone has demanded people play with Neophytes at 55 points, or to adjust the cost of Ogryns from CA19. That's not to say the Ogryns won't be adjusted if GW ever bother to release an errata for the book, it's simply the case that literally everyone I've ever encountered or heard about in real life doesn't find this to be an unsolvable problem.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.
40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500
I emailed them about a week ago, specifically calling out the Neophytes and the Deathwatch unit sizes, and pointing out that there were units such as Ogryns whose points costs had yo-yo'd around between CA18 and CA19.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.
40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500
I have. And I asked about the stompa as well as the hellforged/relic super heavys. I got the standard response. (And yes I was being a smart with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out imo).
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: It may just be that they have a hard and fast policy that CA is the vehicle for all pts updates, not FAQs. In which case the pts will all be corrected (hopefully) when CA 2020 is released. Just gotta sit tight til then!
We know that's not the case. GW has made points changes in both Errata and the Big FAQ when necessary. My guess is there were a lot of changes needed, and by the time the document was ready, LVO was coming up, and they decided to wait and see what changes needed to be made based on the results. Their biggest mistake is not communicating. I'm not sure why gaming companies still haven't figured out that radio silence is almost always bad.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
It's almost like the whole thing was just smoke and mirrors to sucker in bittervets back to 8th, grab their cash then start producing toys instead of miniatures. Now that the shine has worn off they can go back to business as usual by writing overpowered rules to shift models like they did with the introduction of flyers and knights. The difference is now they've taken a page out of Riot's playbook and nerd the op thing after the fact to get people to buy the newest op thing.
There's so much wrong with this post its hard to know where to start.
Likewise, someone is free to suggest they think the updated TH points are also a typo. If they can persuade their opponent of that fact they can play with whatever points cost they see fit, otherwise the default is the points in CA19.
So if we were to be about to play each other, neither of us would actually know how many points our lists were, until we had debated (every?) points cost to see if we can agree that they are correct or not?
If I have a unit of Ogryns, how many points is that going to be? I think that the points cost in CA19 is an error on GW's part.
You have a unit of Neophytes. How many points are they? If they're not 55 points each, then how many points are they? If I don't agree with the cost you think they should be.. then..? If you can't convince me that they should be, say, 5 points each, then we default to the cost in CA19 anyway?
In practice, in a real life game (so, the only thing that actually matters rather than pointless online posturing) in the overwhelming majority of cases people are going to use the CA19 costs for everything bar Neophytes. If we can't agree on the cost of Neophytes we don't play. If I were to suggest 5 and you demanded 55, or 10, or 15 we wouldn't play. That's not an opponent I'm interested in spending any time with frankly.
It's telling that these "problems" only seem to exist online. I know dozens of 40k players, either directly or indirectly, and I know of precisely zero situations where anyone has demanded people play with Neophytes at 55 points, or to adjust the cost of Ogryns from CA19. That's not to say the Ogryns won't be adjusted if GW ever bother to release an errata for the book, it's simply the case that literally everyone I've ever encountered or heard about in real life doesn't find this to be an unsolvable problem.
It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.
You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.
If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)
It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.
You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.
If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)
Neo cost isn't being "plucked". You use the previous cost. Ogryn's aren't being plucked, either - use the previous cost. Game on.
What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.
Ogryns don't have an extreme cut-off so we think about it a little. Were people complaining about Ogryns previously? No? Then reverse the cost until we know more and be assured there is no risk in doing so. PA might somehow make them "worth" 30, but that book isn't out yet.
Slipspace wrote: Why do you refuse to accept the explanations people have provided?
Because "Because I say so" isn't a valid explanation and no one has provided anything other than that.
That isn't true at all.
But since we're here - please provide the rationale as to why 40 points for a Thunderhammer is questionable.
It's not. My entire point is that either both the Thunder Hammer and Acolyte points costs need to be respected, or neither of them do. There is no in between. If you assert the Acolyte is incorrectly priced, it is just as valid for me to assert the Thunder Hammer is incorrectly priced and no logically sound argument exists that allows one but not the other.
So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's not. My entire point is that either both the Thunder Hammer and Acolyte points costs need to be respected, or neither of them do. There is no in between. If you assert the Acolyte is incorrectly priced, it is just as valid for me to assert the Thunder Hammer is incorrectly priced and no logically sound argument exists that allows one but not the other.
So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.
And that's where society implodes, because that isn't how people work in real life.
You've also arbitrarily decided the TH is "incorrect" to create this paper tiger. You didn't base it on any logic other than the points increased.
^ Dogmatic approach. Incompatible with Pragmatic approach.
Different value structures will result in different conclusions.
If one party believes that the solution only has *absolute* answers, and can't accept that a Pragmatist could, for the benefit of a more evenly matched game, show restraint and *NOT* just willy-nilly change points... just adjust what they think is fair.
So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped. You don't have to blindly accept both sets of points costs and not accepting one doesn't mean you don't accept others. The world isn't black and white and even apparently inviolate printed rules can be called into question if they fail the reasonableness test. If it's good enough for the legal system it should be good enough for wargaming. You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either one or the other - nuance can be applied, and is.
The issue I think people have with you is not that you're wrong, it's that you're constantly presenting scenarios that don't happen in the real world and acting as though you're some great rules crusader come to save us all from our own folly, shouting at the sky, while everyone else in the real world shrugs their shoulders and gets on with playing the actual game. We can all read, we all accept the Neophyte cost is printed as 55. What we don't accept is that this is the correct value because it is so ridiculously out of line with every other similar unit in the game. For the good of the game we make a decision not to use that cost and default back to the old one (while muttering under our breath at how bad GW are at their jobs). Why don't we do the same for every other points cost? Two reasons. Firstly, life's too short. Secondly, there's a line where adjustments cross over from weird to ridiculous and beyond that line is where people start making their own adjustments. No, I don't know where that line is and I can't codify it for you. All I know is it exists and it's less than or equal to a rise of 1100%. You may not like that, you may keep shouting "but why?" as much as you want, but that's the reality.
The (painful) part of Dogmatism is that it has an internal logic that is sound.
Externally, it encounters a similar problem to the internal logic of pacifism. It only works if every member of a group agrees to it.
And, if you’re both a pragmatist and a nihilist, then everything is absurd. It is pragmatic to accept the absurdity, to facilitate the development of the self’s desires and objectives.
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.
40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500
I have. And I asked about the stompa as well as the hellforged/relic super heavys. I got the standard response. (And yes I was being a smart with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out imo).
By "standard response", do you mean the auto-response, or did you get an actual reply?
Slipspace wrote: Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.
So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.
What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?
You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.
Slipspace wrote: Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.
So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.
What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?
But such person doesn't exist, so this is not an actual problem.
Slipspace wrote: Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.
So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.
I really couldn't care less how you want to characterise my way of playing the game. If my house rules are the way literally everybody else I know of plays the game it's good enough for me.
Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth...
Let's not. There's no need for hypotheticals here. I deal with what happens in the real world. Your hypothetical situation simply doesn't occur so I don't need to worry about it.
Slipspace wrote: Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.
So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.
What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?
You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.
Well, VealGoldfishMoth, you're wrong about Thunderhammers.
*pulls out irrefutable napkin math*
And if you're wrong about this simple thing then you're most definitely wrong about "Acolytes" (actually Neophytes).
Slipspace wrote: Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.
So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.
What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?
You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.
Well, VealGoldfishMoth, you're wrong about Thunderhammers.
*pulls out irrefutable napkin math*
And if you're wrong about this simple thing then you're most definitely wrong about "Acolytes" (actually Neophytes).
The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules. House rules are, by definition, purely subjective. The only objective measure is to play the game RaW. Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.
I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?
If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?
Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.
The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.
I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.
40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500
I have. And I asked about the stompa as well as the hellforged/relic super heavys. I got the standard response. (And yes I was being a smart with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out imo).
By "standard response", do you mean the auto-response, or did you get an actual reply?
Auto-response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?
That's my theory. There's our FAQ everybody. Thanks for watching the show!
Crimson wrote:But such person doesn't exist, so this is not an actual problem.
Slipspace wrote:Let's not. There's no need for hypotheticals here. I deal with what happens in the real world.
I actually know a guy who swears up and down that Ogryns are underpriced, and he's probably going to have a problem if I want to ignore the Ogryn nerf as an obvious typo.
It's really not a hypothetical issue. People with nutty ideas about balance exist. Have you really never played against an opponent whose comments on balance made you glad they're not writing CA?
Well now with a rousing game of Is It A Typo?, you too can experience the frustration of trying to convince fellow amateur hour game developers of your interpretation of what was intended and what wasn't. Start every pick-up game at the hobby store with a negotiation over points values, bathe in the amicable glow of 'Sure, you can have those 20pts back, if I can take an extra squad to compensate', wonder in bewilderment if this guy actually plays the game if he thinks Impaler Cannons needed a points drop, and add a wholly unnecessary tinge of resentment to the gaming experience before any models even hit the table. Buy your copy today!
An Actual Englishman wrote: I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?
Also what about the other errors like Space Wolves FA page or people who aren't interested in buying yet another book to play an army? Did we just get paywalled from receiving the correct points for another product we bought? Is it only the one unit that is wrong or what else needs to be corrected if it is a full page?
I am not passing judgment on a single page listing, simply asking some what ifs, but if they ask player to pay for a second product to update an incorrect first product I think the internet would break.
It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.
You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.
If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)
Neo cost isn't being "plucked". You use the previous cost. Ogryn's aren't being plucked, either - use the previous cost. Game on.
What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.
Ogryns don't have an extreme cut-off so we think about it a little. Were people complaining about Ogryns previously? No? Then reverse the cost until we know more and be assured there is no risk in doing so. PA might somehow make them "worth" 30, but that book isn't out yet.
This is exactly what any reasonable person should do. However, they really should have had the fix out for this already so we don't even have to go through that whole chart just to decide what the cost of the units really are. It's absolutely lazy they haven't seen to this issue yet and makes me wonder exactly how much of the costs are wrong. Is it so vast an issue they need to take such time to get it fixed ? Can they just not be bothered now that they have sold the product to us ? Neither answer really feels very good. I do say as well not every player is reasonable which makes being reasonable a problem. If we all dealt with reason, we wouldn't have rules lawyers saying somehow an em scrambler prevents you from disembarking from a vehicle too close to a unit. This is all GW problems they need to fix and you can't just always assume the other guy is going to be reasonable.
Well it'll be good for someone to be right, but it sets a sad precedent to wait for additional releases for erratas like that.
Makes me wonder what the heck we even have the errata/faq pages for if they'll link them just to book drops ? Kinda defeats the purpose of their " living " rules and quick fixes to issues.
Yeah what's the point of ca if they don't even correct the issues it has? Having to buy supplements to get new rules is one thing but having to buy them to correct the mistakes they made in previous books? That's straight up bullgak.
But the errata page may be something completely different. We'll know soon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: More and more posts of people being completely incapable of answering BCB's core point. You don't get to decide what's a mistake and what isn't.
And really, you think GW follows a flow-chart like that? AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Anyway, the new Psychic Awakening book as an Errata section. 55 point Acolytes are about to go away. Personally I hope they go to 44 points each.
Whether or not GW follows a flow chart is not germane nor is something so simple proper for broad balance decisions. BCB doesn't have a core point that exists in reality as much as you want to pretend like acting as though the options are binary is wise.
BaconCatBug wrote: The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules. House rules are, by definition, purely subjective. The only objective measure is to play the game RaW. Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.
Like this.
What is this standard?
The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules.
Says who? By which governing body?
House rules are, by definition, purely subjective.
Right. I guess nothing matters, because ITC is popular. As is ETC. GW has house rules in their tournaments. Why...that's abject madness according to your standards!
Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.
Except the stats about the TH are using the RAW value. You just can't stand that your strawman doesn't stand up to scrutiny so you made this "rule".
greatbigtree wrote: The (painful) part of Dogmatism is that it has an internal logic that is sound. .
No it doesn't. It simply appears coherent and consistent to the adherent, largely by way of wishing it were so. No logic need apply, let alone need to be sound.
People are capable of amazing feats of cognitive dissonance and kept plenty of internally inconsistent 'facts' in their heads. Its a very consistent output of psychological studies.
Daedalus81 dude, let it go. BCB has stopped for now and he'll never concede the point no matter how good an argument anyone makes.
Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
I have two decades of a deep, maddening, loving relationship with my wife. For her, I can observe an internal logic to her opinions, convictions, preferences, and general point of view.
It is a different way of prioritizing values. To me, it often creates false binary options which is relevant to the point of view expressed by the Dogmatic view of, “You either follow all the rules, or the rules don’t matter so you’re not playing 40k.”
Different views will disagree on whether or not that is *important*. From a pure logic view, it is accurate to state that if you do not adhere to (all) the rules, you can not make a perfectly consistent judgement of the state of the game.
Is that important? To myself, as a pragmatist, it is not. Because I look at the issue of game balance as being heuristic. It may never be perfect, but if I perceive something as being egregiously incorrect I can deal with it in a few pragmatically effective means.
1: Ask my opponent for permission to adjust the rules (points) for the units or models I wish to use. Pragmatically, if we both agree that we will have a better game for changing the value of the units, then we will do that in this instance and have a better game for it.
2: Avoid the issue, by not taking that unit. I already don’t take models I like because they’re inefficient / not worth it, so if my opponent doesn’t want to agree to points / rule changes I’ll default to the RAW and just not use it.
3: Do I actually want to play this person? Playing against Dogmatists can really sharpen your game for tournament prep where RAW carries the day. But, it could also be unfun if I’m in a more casual state of mind. So make that call at that point.
4: Be a douche and just play with the points I think are fair. In early 8th, I gave myself a 10% penalty on points, in order to create closer, more interesting games. My opponents and I had better games, so that’s what I did behind the scenes to have better games.
In the end, one person asserting that the rest of the world is “doing it wrong” (one of my wife’s favourites ) is just one person. You needn’t change their mind, and it’s unlikely you will due to a differing value structure.
I find, pragmatically speaking, it is usually more efficient to understand Dogmatism so that you can argue in their “language”.
In this case, at the table, negotiate. If you can’t come to an agreement, you don’t play. This is dealing in the absolute that a Dogmatist understands. If you want a game, these are the conditions. You can even call it a win for yourself if I “win”, because I wasn’t playing by the rules.
Then have your game, or don’t. Simple problem, simple solution.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 dude, let it go. BCB has stopped for now and he'll never concede the point no matter how good an argument anyone makes.
Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: It may just be that they have a hard and fast policy that CA is the vehicle for all pts updates, not FAQs. In which case the pts will all be corrected (hopefully) when CA 2020 is released. Just gotta sit tight til then!
We know that's not the case. GW has made points changes in both Errata and the Big FAQ when necessary. My guess is there were a lot of changes needed, and by the time the document was ready, LVO was coming up, and they decided to wait and see what changes needed to be made based on the results. Their biggest mistake is not communicating. I'm not sure why gaming companies still haven't figured out that radio silence is almost always bad.
Or they compiled a list of corrections but it was so extensive that someone higher up the chain balked at releasing that many rules for "free" and hit the breaks. Now they're either going back through to determine which corrections are most needed so they can release a shorter list or they've given up on the exercise entirely and will just fix it in CA 2020. Afterall, the product lines they're trying to push (*cough*primaris*cough*) are all costed correctly and who's buying Ogryn in 2020 anyway amirite?
I'll just note that it's possible for 2 different people to go through your flowchart and wind up in different boxes.
I'll further note that even if they arrive in the same box and conclude that there was a typo, it still doesn't answer the question of what the correct pts cost is supposed to be.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 dude, let it go. BCB has stopped for now and he'll never concede the point no matter how good an argument anyone makes.
Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "
Hey you just stole my line!
Ok I should have said "a lot of people" instead of "everyone". Still the preface to the Munitorum Field Manual says:
"This book is the result of the most comprehensive review of points values for Warhammer 40k to date, incorporating all the feedback we've received from players across the world. "
I call bullgak. Nobody in this comprehensive review complained about fw points costs?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 dude, let it go. BCB has stopped for now and he'll never concede the point no matter how good an argument anyone makes.
Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "
Hey you just stole my line!
Ok I should have said "a lot of people" instead of "everyone". Still the preface to the Munitorum Field Manual says:
"This book is the result of the most comprehensive review of points values for Warhammer 40k to date, incorporating all the feedback we've received from players across the world. "
I call bullgak. Nobody in this comprehensive review complained about fw points costs?
I agree, that piece of munitorum field manual word vomit was completely false. I mean, the fact that I'm pretty sure no one believes they even take in and process " Feedback from players across the world " especially in regards to point costs or that it is very " comprehensive " is pretty telling in our trust of the company at large. So I'd say, I'm sure some did believe that but I'll end in saying we learned to be hyperbolic from GW, we learned it from watching them.
They just wanted to sell more over priced books just for a point cost, for which they deserve the Bullgak medal of distinction.
Slipspace wrote: Why do you refuse to accept the explanations people have provided?
Because "Because I say so" isn't a valid explanation and no one has provided anything other than that.
That isn't true at all.
But since we're here - please provide the rationale as to why 40 points for a Thunderhammer is questionable.
Because typos happen.
How do I know that that 40 pt TH shouldn't actually be a 30 pt TH? All it takes to get either result is hitting the wrong key one way or another.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
Regarding the FW books specifically, if all they end up doing with them is fixing the points costs, then I doubt people will be OK with them. However, it is known that when the Imperial Armour books were written for 8th they:
A, Were written by the FW rules people, rather than the 40k rules team, which causes some people to have issues with them (as if the 40k team never write anything that's broken... *cough*IronHands*cough*)
B, Were written in a very short timeframe, allegedly due to poor internal communication
C, May have been disrupted by the death of Alan Bligh (though I'm less sure on the timetable there)
D, Haven't been patched (that often) to take into account changes to factions as part of their Codex releases, which can lead to some... odd interactions.
If these new Imperial Armour books mean that the units within can be reviewed, possibly rewritten, be updated in line with the Codex/PA rules, and possibly fix FW factions which don't work at the minute (looking at Corsairs and R&H specifically, with DKOK and Elysians close behind), then it is a win for the game overall.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?
Regarding the FW books specifically, if all they end up doing with them is fixing the points costs, then I doubt people will be OK with them. However, it is known that when the Imperial Armour books were written for 8th they:
A, Were written by the FW rules people, rather than the 40k rules team, which causes some people to have issues with them (as if the 40k team never write anything that's broken... *cough*IronHands*cough*)
B, Were written in a very short timeframe, allegedly due to poor internal communication
C, May have been disrupted by the death of Alan Bligh (though I'm less sure on the timetable there)
D, Haven't been patched (that often) to take into account changes to factions as part of their Codex releases, which can lead to some... odd interactions.
If these new Imperial Armour books mean that the units within can be reviewed, possibly rewritten, be updated in line with the Codex/PA rules, and possibly fix FW factions which don't work at the minute (looking at Corsairs and R&H specifically, with DKOK and Elysians close behind), then it is a win for the game overall.
Agreed on all counts. But ca is supposed to balance all units with the rules they have at the time of its publication. So was a fellblade worth 740 points base without wargear when ca2019 was published? And don't even get me started on the stupidity of the mega daemons points....
Frankly it's absurd that we as a community have this discussion.
It was gw that screwed up majorly, not us, gw should've fixed this mess Long ago. They didn't.
The sad truth is, regardless were you stand, the ca points are too innacurate for the pricetag, See the list i postest some pages back, it took me 1h for x ammounts of entries and it was done moreso out of curiosity.
And whilest bcb is nothing less then a dogmatist, he atleast applies his Standard consistently, that'd be more then gw's handling of keywords, which is sad in itself, that one of the most absurd dakkanauts is more consistent then a company selling rules and models.....
It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.
You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.
If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)
Neo cost isn't being "plucked". You use the previous cost. Ogryn's aren't being plucked, either - use the previous cost. Game on.
How do you know that the previous cost is the correct cost though? That's just an assumption you've made. Somebody else could equally assume that Neophytes are a bit too good at 5 points and so were supposed to be changed to 6 points; or are inferior to Brood Brothers so should be 4 points. Why is your assumption any better/more reasonable than theirs?
How do we know that GW doesn't actually intend for Ogryns to be their CA19 cost? - it's not as though they haven't had tismy takes on point costs in the past...
Even if we could all follow the flowchart and all agree on every step, that still doesn't actually provide a solution which we can be sure is correct.
Daedalus81 wrote: What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.
Ogryns or Swift Claws aren't 1100% changes - so again, what is the cut-off point?
What if points went down? Why would we assume that GW only mistakenly increases points?
Daedalus81 wrote: Ogryns don't have an extreme cut-off so we think about it a little. Were people complaining about Ogryns previously? No? Then reverse the cost until we know more and be assured there is no risk in doing so. PA might somehow make them "worth" 30, but that book isn't out yet.
So should we revert all of the increased costs in the book so long as there wasn't widespread complaining about the unit/wargear? If not, why the different standard for some entries?
What if any specific opponant was complaining about Ogryns before CA19? Just screw them? Or don't revert the cost in that specific case? - at which point you can't know the cost of your own unit until you've discussed your opponant's views on their past balance...
Were people actually complaining about Thunder Hammers as opposed to Smash Captains? So revert those too?
If the Ogryn cost in CA19 was intended because PA is going to improve them, then we'd all actually be using the wrong cost by assuming that CA19 is in error - in which case we've actually made the situation worse!
Well error or no error, in the case of Neophytes, for sure GW ment to change their point cost in some way, they would not have listed them in the CA, if they did not envision any changes. And I doubt anyone, aside for maybe the head designer at GW responsible for CA changes, knows what the point costs was suppose to be.
By the way, if the changes are so abovious to people,as they seem to be in the case of the GSC unit or the Ogryns, why doesn't GW just put fix on their face book or their community page. It would take them like 10 min to say, sorry guys we made an error, unit X should cost Y points, we will fix it durning the CAFAQ or spring FAQ, till then play it at Y points.
Karol wrote: Well error or no error, in the case of Neophytes, for sure GW ment to change their point cost in some way, they would not have listed them in the CA, if they did not envision any changes.
That's not true though, as they have finally moved into a format where the pamphlet with points includes every model in the game at the time of publication, changes to codex or not.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Apparently the GSC errata section is about their army ambush ability, not fixing their points costs.
55 point Acolytes remain!
So back to the waiting game. Honestly I wish they'd just go ahead and release the fething faq so they can just address the most glaringly obvious mistakes and I can quit hoping that the reason for the delay is that they're actually going to do what ca is supposed to do and actually give balanced points to all the available units in the game.
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general. And the crappy rules.
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
No, most of its not too hard to beat.
You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.
I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
No, most of its not too hard to beat.
You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.
I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.
He has no answer and further will say they should remove blood angels. Just wait and see.
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
No, most of its not too hard to beat.
You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.
I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.
I think GW should have killed off BA with the Nids. They missed a grand opportunity to actually make a meaningful change to the setting.
I got off to a bad start with FW in 5th, and this gak with the chappy dreads and leviathan dreads are a like a flash back. Marines don't need 83 dreads.
What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.
Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?
No, just sick of their units in general.
Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?
And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?
No, most of its not too hard to beat.
You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.
I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.
He has no answer and further will say they should remove blood angels. Just wait and see.
Why yes. The game needs fewer choices imo. Would help a lot with balance.
but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.
(infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, 
):
with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out 
