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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why does it matter for the game if someone took 3 Wraithknights for fluff purposes or for their game strength?

Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

Traditio wrote:

Seriously. Read what you previous said in answer to my claim. Then read what I actually claimed. At this point, you're just making yourself look silly. "If someone does x because y, then z." "But you don't know why he does x!!!" Uh...great. So, there's this thing called a dictionary, and I'm pretty sure that the word "because" is in there. Check it out.

My point is that a) you don't know until stated, and b) even if you do know, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

I'll apologize for the confusion, but really, it doesn't matter why someone takes something, and judging them for their army list remains a childish thing to do.

Hopefully that makes it abundantly clear for you.

Blacksails wrote:My point is that a) you don't know until stated...

Which is completely irrelevent to the point that I actually made. Congrats!

Traditio wrote:


Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

In what way?

Because you said so? As the ultimate judge of what is right in wrong in the game?

You have the unjust character of judging people based on their army list.

Traditio wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why does it matter for the game if someone took 3 Wraithknights for fluff purposes or for their game strength?

Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

There is nothing naive about Wraithknights in the fluff. They are very much there.

There is also nothing unjust about the character of someone who builds a strong list.

Either way, no matter their purpose, the results in the game will be no different, no?

Traditio wrote:


Which is completely irrelevent to the point that I actually made. Congrats!

Which I cleared up and apologized for the confusion.

Care to address the rest of my point?

Ashiraya wrote:There is nothing naive about Wraithknights in the fluff. They are very much there.

You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

There is also nothing unjust about the character of someone who builds a strong list.

I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

Either way, no matter their purpose, the results in the game will be no different, no?

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

Either way, I would totally be willing to play against that guy.

Traditio wrote:


You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

Or more like

'Yeah, I know Wraithknights are strong, but they are a key part of my army's background.'

Traditio wrote:
I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

So, where do you draw the line for where something is unfair?

Even some underpowered units are unfair against the worst units.

Who is judging exactly how many 'compensation points' WKs are worth? You?

How do you manage that in pick-up games?

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

Either way, I would totally be willing to play against that guy.

He would question why you would get 200 points more without him getting 200 too.

Troop choices don't matter. Many of the strongest units in the game are troop choices.

Wave serpents were troop choices.
Wraith guard were troop choices.
Aren't scat bikes troop choices?
Rhinos with basic troops inside used to be quite strong way back when.

That is not a basic principle. Troops aren't even balanced between codexes. Tac marines are awful, plague marines are mediocre, necrons warriors are quite good.



Necrons are quite strong, which was my point. I would need a different army list against necrons, chaos marines, and let's say tau. My Wk could essentially cost 3 different point values, that seems odd.



I still don't see how a 55 point adjustment on a single Wk counters anything I said. Are you implying if he takes more than one, he needs to up the cost of each even more?

My point is, you'd need a single price adjustment to have any hope of telling someone you want to weaken a choice of theirs. You can't come up with 3 different numbers at a single club. I can't even get cryx players to admit they have an advantage against skorne, or that the wave serpent is still a good tank, or that noise marines aren't that great.

In this thread alone, you thought defilers were good. There is a consensus that they are bad. You can tell there is such a consensus, because people popped in to say as much without needing prompting.

Ashiraya wrote:

Or more like

'Yeah, I know Wraithknights are strong, but they are a key part of my army's background. Nothing you won't be able to handle, yes?'

You see the massive amount of naivety here, yes?

So, where do you draw the line for where something is unfair?

Even some underpowered units are unfair against the worst units.

If people commonly complain that something is undercosted, overcosted, overpowered, underpowered or broken, then chances are, it's unfair.

He would question why you would get 200 points more without him getting 200 too.

The goals are different. One guy wants to field 3 godzilla elf monsters. If the godzilla elf monsters were not brokenly good and undercosted, he'd still be using them. The other guy doesn't really care what he's using. He's just using the most broken thing so that he can win.

Traditio wrote:
You see the massive amount of naivety here, yes?

Not at all.

If people commonly complain that something is undercosted, overcosted, overpowered, underpowered or broken, then chances are, it's unfair.

Must be annoying to run a comprehensive census each time you want to find out how good a unit or list is.

The goals are different. One guy wants to field 3 godzilla elf monsters. If the godzilla elf monsters were not brokenly good and undercosted, he'd still be using them. The other guy doesn't really care what he's using. He's just using the most broken thing so that he can win.

Because one player seeks victory first, and the other seeks fluff first and victory second.

Neither of them are TFG. People in tournaments put victory first (except for obvious stuff like behaving well). Are they all TFG?

Akiasura wrote:
Troop choices don't matter. Many of the strongest units in the game are troop choices.

Wave serpents were troop choices

False. Wave serpents were dedicated transports. Dedicated transports don't fill an FOC slot.

Wraith guard were troop choices.

If you took a spirit seer.

Aren't scat bikes troop choices?
Rhinos with basic troops inside used to be quite strong way back when.

I didn't say it's the only rule. I just said it's the number one rule. "Thou shalt not spam," etc.

Necrons are quite strong, which was my point. I would need a different army list against necrons, chaos marines, and let's say tau. My Wk could essentially cost 3 different point values, that seems odd.

You're basically saying: "Yes, the wraithknight is undercosted by at least 50 points. But if I take that into account in my list, my wraithknight will be overcosted in relationship to all of those undercosted units that my opponent won't be taking into account when he writes his list."

Do you see why this isn't a good argument?

I still don't see how a 55 point adjustment on a single Wk counters anything I said. Are you implying if he takes more than one, he needs to up the cost of each even more?

No. If he runs 3 wraithknights, then 1050 points. That may or may be not be fair, but it's more fair than 885 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:Must be annoying to run a comprehensive census each time you want to find out how good a unit or list is.

Oh, yes. Of course. Because people never discuss such things, on...say...the internet...on...I don't know...you know...websites like dakka forums. And warhammer players most certainly never read such discussions. Right?

Because one player seeks victory first, and the other seeks fluff first and victory second.

Then the latter probably won't mind his wraithknight being reasonably nerfed.

Neither of them are TFG. People in tournaments put victory first (except for obvious stuff like behaving well). Are they all TFG?

I have my suspicions.

The link that Kabob had for "Scrubs" leads to good game theory.
I swear they are talking about 40k and his focus is more Street fighter games.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness
Play to win, fairness or not is poor game design not poor player manners.

Traditio wrote:
I have my suspicions.

Yeah, no.

Regardless, waveserpents could be taken as a troop choice. You had to take them with dire avengers, which they were often taken with (and called a tax), but they still required a troop choice to be taken. It's not false.

Same with wraithguard. You have to take certain lists to make cult troops troop choices in chaos armies. This is so commonly done they the Lord is considered a tax and included in their point cost during list building. You yourself said the wraithguard with spirit seer was commonly taken as a troop choice.


For a number one rule, it was pretty easy to punch holes in it.


You're assuming I know my opponents list and can adjust accordingly. I find this is rarely the case. If I don't know, we have to adjust everything to this balance that you had in mind when we adjusted the WK. You are the only one suggesting a point increase.


Honestly couldn't tell if you meant the point cost for each should go up for each one the more you take. You mentioned one WK.

Akiasura wrote:Honestly couldn't tell if you meant the point cost for each should go up for each one the more you take. You mentioned one WK.

I'm recommending a base model cost of 350x, where x equals the total number of wraithknights.

Traditio, they dont understand that it doesnt matter WHY you (the player) are taking the unit. It doesnt matter if it is for the cool model factor or the OP rules factor, the end result is that you get the same benefit in game.

Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.
The OP of this thread is giving one single option that can be used in certain situations to allow for a fun game. The OP is not saying you HAVE to follow that in those particular situations, only that you CAN. The issue is that his opinion or way of dealing with it in those particular situations is being totally discounted as meaningless in ANY situation.
I feel the OP is being overly naive in thinking it could be expanded to cover all situations, but I still support his right to have his opinion and that his right to his opinion is valid.

 EVIL INC wrote:


Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.

Do you mean GW as a hobby or table top wargamming?
Because WMH is as much a table top war game as 40k. (modeling, converting and scenery making all included.)
I'm genuinely confused. Could you explain more clearly?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Traditio, they dont understand that it doesnt matter WHY you (the player) are taking the unit. It doesnt matter if it is for the cool model factor or the OP rules factor, the end result is that you get the same benefit in game.

Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.
The OP of this thread is giving one single option that can be used in certain situations to allow for a fun game. The OP is not saying you HAVE to follow that in those particular situations, only that you CAN. The issue is that his opinion or way of dealing with it in those particular situations is being totally discounted as meaningless in ANY situation.
I feel the OP is being overly naive in thinking it could be expanded to cover all situations, but I still support his right to have his opinion and that his right to his opinion is valid.

Oh boy, GW is the hobby? I guess you're that unicorn ideal GW customer. The hobby is tabletop wargaming. GW is a part of that hobby. They used to be the majority of the hobby, now, not so much. They continually lose ground to companies that know how to balance the game.

it may be that I have missed something. is the topic about what makes up a hobby or it it about the idea that there are situations where 2 or more players could be able to communicate among themselves to come up with a agreement on what is or is not reasonable to take to a purely "friendly game" (with the full knowledge that this would only be possible in a specific set of situations and that it would be only a thumb in the dike solution to cover broken rules)?

 EVIL INC wrote:
it may be that I have missed something. is the topic about what makes up a hobby or it it about the idea that there are situations where 2 or more players could be able to communicate among themselves to come up with a agreement on what is or is not reasonable to take to a purely "friendly game" (with the full knowledge that this would only be possible in a specific set of situations and that it would be only a thumb in the dike solution to cover broken rules)?

Then don't say incredibly ignorant statements and then refuse to support them.

One side, be aware of what you are saying, you aren't that close to the line but never hurts. The other side, just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean it breaks the rules of the site. Consider that before spamming the ever living daylights out of the report function. Maybe if you're getting that incensed, step away from the thread for a little while.

Sorry, double post

 EVIL INC wrote:
I dont believe that the OP is ignorent in his thoughts that 2 or more players can communicate among themselves to come to an agreement about what they feel is reasonable to take to a friendly game in specific situations is all that ignorent. A little naive in my opinion in that I think he wants to expect it in outside situations but even so, i would only say that he is a little too trusting rather than calling him ignorant.

That wasn't was I was referring to. If you wish to know more, ask me in PM.

I ill be more aware of what i am saying to ensure i dont come close to the line.
I am honestly not trying to insult you when i say that I agree with the OP. At least to the degree that it is possible to do as he suggests in at least a specific set of circumstances. My apologies that you take offence about that. No offence was intended.games that make it up has issues. Regardless of that, we as players should be able to get along and discuss the game

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

That's the site that I had in mind.

Traditio wrote:
You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

Well yes, we've already established that you have a hard time understanding perspectives that aren't your own. Perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone who doesn't build their armies the way you do is a WAAC TFG you could consider giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

And I've already addressed this: there is nothing unjust at all about using the most powerful options. The only possible injustice is if you take advantage of a community's unwritten rules about army construction not being explicit enough and bring a list that is well beyond the power level that the group agreed on. But that isn't a fairness issue because you're using a powerful list, it's a fairness issue because you're breaking the implied contract you agreed to when you joined the group.

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

So let me get this straight: you think it's reasonable to ask for extra points if your opponent brings something you've decided is overpowered, and you think that any "decent" player would allow you to have them? Are you serious?

Peregrine wrote:Well yes, we've already established that you have a hard time understanding perspectives that aren't your own. Perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone who doesn't build their armies the way you do is a WAAC TFG you could consider giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Do you think it's particularly likely?

And I've already addressed this: there is nothing unjust at all about using the most powerful options. The only possible injustice is if you take advantage of a community's unwritten rules about army construction not being explicit enough and bring a list that is well beyond the power level that the group agreed on. But that isn't a fairness issue because you're using a powerful list, it's a fairness issue because you're breaking the implied contract you agreed to when you joined the group.

And you can say that until your face turns blue. That doesn't address the arguments that I've presented. You literally have the following options:

1. There are no unfair rules in warhammer.
2. It is not unjust to take advantage of unfair rules.
3. There are unjust/unfair ways of playing warhammer (even independently of social convention).

Those are the only three options. You've carefully avoided denying 1, refuse to admit 3, and yet, every time you try to assert 2, you insist on changing the wording from "unfair" to "powerful." Probably because you realize that it's a flat contradiction to assert that it's not unjust (and thus unfair) to take advantage of unfair rules. So, you are stuck between:

1. A proposition which is obviously false.
2. A proposition which is a self-contradiction.
3. My conclusion.

So let me get this straight: you think it's reasonable to ask for extra points if your opponent brings something you've decided is overpowered, and you think that any "decent" player would allow you to have them? Are you serious?

If you grant alternative 3 of the alternatives above, then this necessarily follows. If it is unfair for you to play a wraithknight at 295 points (even though the rules permit it), namely, because the wraithknight is 50 points undercosted, then, if you play a wraithknight, what is fair is for you to play at 50 points less than me. This follows necessarily (presupposing that I don't use any undercosted units myself).

Traditio wrote:
Do you think it's particularly likely?

Yes, I do. Because, unlike you, I can understand that not everyone builds their armies the way I do and give them the benefit of the doubt.

And you can say that until your face turns blue. That doesn't address the arguments that I've presented. You literally have the following options:

1. There are no unfair rules in warhammer.
2. It is not unjust to take advantage of unfair rules.
3. There are unjust/unfair ways of playing warhammer.

Those are the only three options. You've carefully avoided denying 1, refuse to admit 3, and yet, every time you try to assert 2, you insist on changing the wording from "unfair" to "powerful."

Yes, because I object to your ridiculous bait and switch. You talk about how everyone agrees that their are "unfair" rules as defined by "rules that don't have the appropriate point cost", but then once you get that agreement you start talking about "rules that should not be used". So instead of letting you get away with switching definitions of "unfair" I'm going to call unbalanced rules "powerful", not "unfair".

If you grant alternative 3 of the alternatives above, then this necessarily follows. If it is unfair for you to play a wraithknight at 295 points (even though the rules permit it), namely, because the wraithknight is 50 points undercosted, then, if you play a wraithknight, what is fair is either for you to play at 50 points less than me. This follows necessarily.

And I disagree with your premise that it's unfair to play a 295 point wraithknight. I also disagree with your premise that a game where I have a lower point total than you is "fair". A fair game is one where we both have the same resources. So if we agree to play a 1500 point game we both get to take 1500 points worth of models. The fact that you choose to make a badly designed army list and take units that are not as point-efficient as mine does not mean that you're entitled to spend extra points to make up for your strategic mistakes.