Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's basically rewriting. It's always connected to an ambiguity, but there are so many of those because legislatures are terrible at their jobs. And the number one trigger is an absurd result.

Martel732 wrote:
It's basically rewriting...

If you're taking a course on law or judicial history you should be aware that you're operating in a world in which words have very specific technical definitions, and "rewriting" the law is very much not something any court (in the U.S.) is allowed to do, even if you happen to ascribe to a definition of what they're doing that can be described in plain English as "basically rewriting".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
...Unless you're in legal. Then there is no such thing as an absurd result, only exploitable loopholes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Well, the prof used the term "rewrite", as in, they had to cross out two words and put in four new ones for the law to function. So yes, they do this from time to time. This usually happens in the case of a) absurd result or b) its so bad they can't even interpret. In those cases, literal rewriting is allowed. It's actually necessary, because trying to get legislatures to revisit topics is almost impossible. So the judge has no choice in these cases. "Allow" isn't even an consideration.

Martel732 wrote:
They absolutely do rewrite laws. I just had a whole course about it.

I had a big spiel about jurisprudence and the difference between changing the letter of the law without legislative cooperation and just setting the precident of a narrower application than what the exact text of a law would allow, but it's been a while since my last college level civics class. And I occasional have to remind myself that the actual process of political sausage-making seldom stays inside the nice clean lines of how things are supposed to work.

Especially when legislatures refuse to do their jobs. The buck stops with the judiciary, because they can't refuse to make a ruling. It's a power that the legislature has de facto surrendered.

So back to the original point, i say all absurd readings of rules are ignored/adjudicated by TOs.

So, how about those infiltrators? Just a tad over priced huh

They can be good, but you are playing with beta rules in effect.

They are in the same position as the Primaris in Dark Imperium were before a codex release.

I think the Vanguard captain is a decent gunline babysitter. He denies deep strike and can have the +1 to hit for a nearby unit warlord trait.

Other than that, they're underwhelming in the extreme.

 Ishagu wrote:
They can be good, but you are playing with beta rules in effect.

They are in the same position as the Primaris in Dark Imperium were before a codex release.

True. If the 5 year lead time is true than infiltrators should be 19, 2pts more than intercessors since they were originally 20.

Martel732 wrote:
It's basically rewriting. It's always connected to an ambiguity, but there are so many of those because legislatures are terrible at their jobs. And the number one trigger is an absurd result.

Your technically incorrect which is the best kind of incorrect, lol. I agree with you to a point. Judges cannot literally change what a law says which is what rewriting a law would be. They can change how the words the legislature choose mean. Having both a law degree and having taken a few classes in legislative writing there are multiple reasons that legislation has to be vague. One is that they can't foresee every scenario or interaction with other laws. So they write laws in general sense and let the courts figure it out. Whether this is good or bad can and has filled endless books but it's the system we have.

This related back to 40k is were GW often get themselves in trouble. To many mechanics over various editions are fine in a bubble but when combined with others create all kind of problems. The opposite is also true. GW some times seems to make some bad assumptions about certain combos always being taken when pricing units.

They might not be able to, but they have.

Martel732 wrote:
They might not be able to, but they have.

Our system has a cure for that though, which is not all that different that GW's CA, FAQs, and Errata. If the legislature/GW thinks that the Tournament scene, players at large/ courts are really getting it wrong you pass/ release additional changes and clarification. There are numerous examples of a court deciding something one way and a legislative body deciding to move to show that's not what we intended so lets change that.

Over all I can't comment on writing rules for a game (no experience in that ) but I have helped form both model and real life legislation and it's not easy. Every word is a potential pitfall and for every person you have in the room (assuming they have generally the same agenda, god help you when they don't ) there are another 10,000 ready to pick it apart. GW could be far better at writing it's core rules but it is nice for once they are sorta trying to fix things more than one time after a codex is released and then hope for better next edition.

Martel732 wrote:

Breton wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Pretty obvious that the innate FLY ability overrides the Ultramarines -1, but hey, cry RAW and play fun police if you like.

No, sorry. Specific chapter tactic overrides general FLY rule.

I suppose you are also claiming you don't shoot assault weapons after advancing and claim to play 100% RAW despite that being provenly impossible.

If the Codex specific chapter tactic overrides the general FLY rule, it also overrides the general modifiers stack rule and it's a straight -1 for the tactic, without a -1 for moving, or a -1 for shooting at Ravenguard, Darkshrouds and so on and so on. Can't have it both ways, if the codex overrides the BRB, and you do exactly what it says and no more, no less...

Disagree. Absurd results should be discarded just like in real life.

oh I agree forcing Ultramarine flyers into a -1 because they’re Ultramrines using an ability they already had as a flyer etc is ridiculous. But if that’s the way an opponent wants to go, there isn’t a shortage of ways to apply this logic of theirs against their favor ergo if the codex trumps the brb and ultra flyers have an additional -1 even using the fly rule instead of the trait, then the codex trumps the brb and the ONLY have the -1. It’s the same reasoning on the same rule.

I'd appeal to TO, or insist on 4+ at minimum.

 fraser1191 wrote:
So, how about those infiltrators? Just a tad over priced huh

I actually don’t know if they are overpriced. They’re a little more expensive, but that doesn’t mean overpriced. They are statistically the same as intercessors. On the guns -1 AP and 6’s auto wound feels like a close to a wash on value. I suspect the AP results in a few more casualties per 100 games but not enough to measure. The apothecary, the infiltration setup, and the deep strike area denial have to cost something. The difference between a fully loaded Intercessor and Infiltrator squad is about 60 points. An apothecary is about 70 points. The Helix adept is not an apothecary. But he’s at least part of one, plus they can infiltrate, plus they have that LandSpeeder Storm? deep strike denial. 6 points a model for all that doesn’t feel THAT much more expensive.

I’m not sure any of the units in Shadowspear are overpriced, but they have issues. Lieutenants Suppressors and Eliminators all need help - and if they don’t get it then the Librarian needs help on the Phobos only powers.

Shadowspear/Vanguard Marines feels like an attempt to create a Death/Raven/whatever Wing thematic army - in this case more of an insurgent special forces that would be at home in an Alpha Legion, Raven Guard, etc. army. But there aren’t enough Phobos options to cover all the roles necessary to pull it off, and some of the options they do have are bad compared even to non Phobos primaris options.

Yeah, they're 19 points tops. More like 18 or 17. They're overpriced.

The capt is seriously a 60 pt model. He sucks.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, they're 19 points tops. More like 18 or 17. They're overpriced.

The capt is seriously a 60 pt model. He sucks.

The captain is indeed less than impressive. He and the LT are also locked into their loadout and the loadout is kinda bad, which is why - no option and an option that isn’t that impressive makes for a total sum of more suckage than a bad option you’re not forced to take.

Intercessors are 17. You didn’t call them overpriced, yet this unit that does everything they do, plus two pretty cool things should be the same price? It’s a difference of 5 points per model for the two abilities and 10 points per 10 man unit for a portable bandaid dispenser. 2 cool abilities for 5 points doesn’t feel that bad, and 10 points for the bandaid seems cheap.

I get it, I’d like to take more of them too, and some of the sacrificises for them aren’t easy decisions, but that really just reinforces the idea that they’re pretty accurately priced.

Those abilities aren't THAT significant to justify 5 ppm. That's more than a guardsmen. More like 2 ppm. They still die like chumps to damage 2.

Martel732 wrote:
Those abilities aren't THAT significant to justify 5 ppm. That's more than a guardsmen. More like 2 ppm. They still die like chumps to damage 2.

I wouldn't get hung up too much at this point. The units will have point adjustments and additional options once the next codex and the full kits and released.

These units are basically in Beta. Play with them if you like them, ignore them if you don't.

Doing the math on it Infiltrators wind up performing between an Intercessor and a regular Tac Marine on most targets. Since the BS is the same across the board you can just do the numbers on 100 hits:

Vs MEQ
Intercessors put 50 wounds out, 25 failed saves.
Infiltrators put 58 wounds out, 19 failed saves.
Tac Marines put 50 wounds out, 17 failed saves.

On a GEQ those numbers are 55, 48, 44.
On a Land Raided its 5, 5, 2.
On a Russ it's 8, 10, 5

Intercessors are better against everything except T8 3+, so if anything the base price for Infiltrators should actually be cheaper than Intercessors. DS denial and Advanced Deploy are definitely worth something, no argument there, but 6+ points seems too high.

Why does GW overshoot on the high side for EVERY marine unit?

Martel732 wrote:
Why does GW overshoot on the high side for EVERY marine unit?

We'll know if this is still the case following the next codex. It's obvious all Astartes books were written around the same time and all suffer from the same problems.

The releases are coming thick and fast, I expect the next codex in September.

They could have fixed it in CA. They didn't. They make no sense at all. When writing Xenos, it's Vegas party time, but with marines, we gotta be careful with those S4 AP 0 guns or someone might be hurt. Then they publish power fantasy bolter porn. Maybe they are trying to thin out their own customers through fatal cases of blue balls.

Like I've said, stats and points aren't the main problem. It's the lack of stratagems, good relics, warlord traits, competitive psychic powers and chapter tactics on vehicles.

Orks had a point increase in the new codex but their new clan rules, stratagems and abilities made them highly competitive.
Knights were't changed much, but their relics, warlord traits and stratagems put then into most armies.

These kind of changes only come with a new codex. Chapter approved only adjusts points here and there and adds a few additions, it does not re-write rules across an entire codex, it does not re-write stratagems, psychic powers or relics. You have to temper your CA expectations. I saw many people were disappointed last time around and it's because of what they themselves set up in their minds.

Take the humble Repulsor for example. If you had a stratagem to teleport it in and make it shoot twice, suddenly it becomes the most incredible unit.
Take the humble Redemptor Dreadnought and give it the ability to deploy from reserves with the addition of +2 to it's charge. Suddenly Black Templar Redeptors become must use units.

This is what a new codex can do, and changing points has nothing to do with it.

Points are everything. They can make up for poor strats, traits, etc.

Being over costed by even 10% gives you only 90% of the firepower and 90% of the bodies you are supposed to have. It eats away on both ends of the battle. It goes down hill VERY quickly. Most marine units are more than 10% overcosted, too.

In fact, I'd say that at the current costing, GW can't write strats or powers that will fix them given their writing paradigms. There is simply no way to make a tac marine 13 pts in 8th edition. There have been threads dozens of pages long. All failures.

I really don't think you are as experiences in 40k as your boast you are when you dismiss something which is obviously true and significant. Points are something, yes, but stratagems can boost the output or use of something significantly.

A unit can be overpriced by 10%, but if I can make it shoot twice I'm getting double the output for no additional cost.

The best armies have the best stratagem, faction rules, relics and psyhics powers. This is not an opinion, this is a Fact. Your hyperbolic comment and absolutes give you away as an inexperienced, sensationalist player who's lacking real experience in the game. How many armies do you have, and how many times a month do you play? From the way you talk and dismiss opinions you'd have us believe you've won The LVO. I play regularly in organised and casual events and have recently played against team USA champions, the top British ITC player and the Throne of Skulls champion. You don't see me making hyperbolic statements that outright dismiss anything the way you do.


Edit: Typos fixed

Strats help, obviously. I was on the wrong side of shoot twice loota bomb many times. But just having endless cacaphony does not make csm properly costed, as only one squad can use it per turn.

Winning lists usually involve strats going off on undercosted units. The more general the strat, the better. I can't of many overcosted units saved by strats. Thats the game BA are trying to play, in fact.

On the contrary, some units are only popular due to the strats, relics, warlord traits or faction rules available to them.

Such as? Most of the popular units i see are good before that stuff is piled on.

I guess theres the infamous slam capt.

The Knight Castellan only rose to dominance because of strats, relics and Warlord traits. It has sunk again now that Rotate Ion Shields can't elevate the invul to a 3++

Are you for real?
You actually don't know anything about the game.