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.

Peregrine wrote:Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.

I believe that SemperMortis is effectively saying what I've been saying:

All armies, reasonably constructed (and this, in the broadest, most common sense understanding, not in the way that you understand it), should be equally good, independently of player skill.

I understand that players of the higher tier codices who've opted to spam the most broken options in those codices, and most especially the WAAC types, won't like this. They've got a lot invested in making sure that their army has an unfair advantage.

But ultimately, I don't sympathize with such people.

And apparently, neither do the respondents to this poll.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.

I believe that SemperMortis is effectively saying what I've been saying:

All armies, reasonably constructed (and this, in the broadest, most common sense understanding, not in the way that you understand it), should be equally good, independently of player skill.

I understand that players of the higher tier codices who've opted to spam the most broken options in those codices, and most especially the WAAC types, won't like this. They've got a lot invested in making sure that their army has an unfair advantage.

But ultimately, I don't sympathize with such people.

And apparently, neither do the respondents to this poll.

There should always be races and units which are better than others at specializing in a battlefield role. the races of 40k should never be equally as good. There should not however be armies which are auto win.

WK are still only a very small part of the problem.

All armies should be equal in regards to capability of destroying units. They should however have different weaknesses that are core to their overall feel and should have different tools for the destruction of said units.

L2P stands for "learn to pay" not "learn to play" in this case.

No thanks, it's not that important.

So 13% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 13% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?

It's their opinion, but I think it's objectively wrong. There are plenty of units not named WK that are much more debatable to me.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So 20% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 20% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?

Currently, it's 13 percent, not 20 percent.

Traditio wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So 20% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 20% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?

Currently, it's 13 percent, not 20 percent.

Derp. Corrected.

So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

 Galef wrote:
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

I'll take it over the current incarnation for sure. We can use ITC invisibility to make invis cent star vulnerable to D-scythes.

 Galef wrote:
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:

400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).

This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.

Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:

400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current status. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).

You don't at all. The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600. It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.

That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it. Like Gladius "free but not free" transports.

Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).

This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.

No, it didn't. They supported a 100 point price hike.

Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).

At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:

400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).

Oh, but then Wraithknights are underpowered because those points aren't JUST for the Wraithknight. You have to pay for all other units in order to take one - I mean, isn't that your justification as to why free transports are okay? devils advocate/

This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.

Untrue.

pm713 wrote:You don't at all.

44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.

Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.

When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.

The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.

In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).

It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.

Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."

That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.

You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.

Traditio wrote:

The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.

In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy). The other thread is irrelevant to this one. Stop trying to use unrelated evidence.

It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.

Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split." He's not referring to that.

That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.

You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry. The oh-so sanctimonious "public opinion" in this thread is by no means comprehensive, nor is it particularly accurate. Not to mention that people may support a price increase, but not alongside the other gamut of changes you've made. In order to test that, you'd need another poll - and that wasn't an invitation to do so.

Points in red.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:You don't at all.

44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.

Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.

When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.

56% of the poll does not. The public opinion is not on your side.

The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.

In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).

This is not that poll. If you were going to add restrictions like that you should have asked first.

It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.

Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."

That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.

You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.

That is not a good counter argument. The public majority can be wrong. And you don't know why the voted the way they did or what their complete opinion is.

TheCustomLime wrote:56% of the poll does not. The public opinion is not on your side.

Did you add the percentages together?

26 + 44 = 70%. And if we add in the other 10 percent who voted "300-350," that's an 80% consensus that the wraithknight needs to cost more.

Of that 80%, more than half thinks that it needs to be more than 400 points.

This is not that poll.

So what? The fact remains that public opinion is on my side in my demand.

Woah woah woah. If you get to claim 38% is a strong minority where therected are only 2 options, do I get to claim 13% is a strong minority here?.

Also by your logic, 59% want it to cost LESS than 400pts. You're still a minority.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:You don't at all.

44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.

Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.

When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.

The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.

In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).

It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.

Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."

That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.

You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.

1. No you're twisting data to force your opinion down our throats again.
2. That poll actually shows that most people do NOT want superheavies banned. This certainly doesn't support your point and implies that most people disagree with it.
3. 58% "demand" that it be less than 400 therefore you are incorrect. That's your logic here or will you admit I'm right?
4. That made me laugh. You almost never have public support and that never impedes you. It simply applies your own logic so you have 2 options: Admit I am right and you are wrong or admit you are wrong about the Gladius Transports.

Isn't it funny how 2 other people brought up similar if not identical issues to the ones I did? Almost as if one poster here is wrong...

Traditio wrote:
You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.

Nor do you. You currently (as of typing this) have the support of 63 people who think it should be 400+ points, 120 people who think the cost should be more.

Out of what? How many thousands of people play? How many people who read these threads and don't vote, because they don't care?

 Wolfblade wrote:
Woah woah woah. If you get to claim 38% is a strong minority where therected are only 2 options, do I get to claim 13% is a strong minority here?.

Also by your logic, 59% want it to cost LESS than 400pts. You're still a minority.

1. Your math is wrong. 100-44 = 56, not 59.

2. We need not quibble over the numbers. A 395 point wraightknight (easily supported by the poll numbers) is not substantially different from a 400 point one.

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:56% of the poll does not. The public opinion is not on your side.

Did you add the percentages together?

26 + 44 = 70%. And if we add in the other 10 percent who voted "300-350," that's an 80% consensus that the wraithknight needs to cost more.

Of that 80%, more than half thinks that it needs to be more than 400 points.

Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.

This is not that poll.

So what? The fact remains that public opinion is on my side in my demand.

No it is not. Public majority opinion is a) Superheavies shouldn't be banned and b) That Wraithknights should cost more. That's it.

TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.

It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.

So, think of it this way:

Should the wraithknight cost more? Roughly 80 percent say yes.

How much more? Of those who think it should cost more, more than half say "at least 400 points."

No it is not.

Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?

Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?

Traditio wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Woah woah woah. If you get to claim 38% is a strong minority where therected are only 2 options, do I get to claim 13% is a strong minority here?.

Also by your logic, 59% want it to cost LESS than 400pts. You're still a minority.

1. Your math is wrong. 100-44 = 56, not 59.

2. We need not quibble over the numbers. A 395 point wraightknight (easily supported by the poll numbers) is not substantially different from a 400 point one.

1. Fair enough, we all am keeping mistakes.
2. Can I claim that 13% strong minority now?

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:

No it is not.

Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?

Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?

The public opinion is that they should not be based on the poll.

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.

It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.

So, think of it this way:

Should the wraithknight cost more? Roughly 80 percent say yes.

How much more? Of those who think it should cost more, more than half say "at least 400 points."

But your original opinion was still unsupported by public majority. So by your logic you were wrong. And you can't discount those votes. If we are just going to arbitrarily exclude votes, I'm going to say the people who supported a price hike are trolls and their votes are not valid. Wow, 100% support for me! I'm so right Tradito you don't know even know.

No it is not.

Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?

Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?

The results of the poll indicated that superheavies and gmcs should not be banned.

What's the point of this thread again?

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.

It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.

IOW - "If you ignore the results, I'm right!"

No it is not.

Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?

Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?

No.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
What's the point of this thread again?

Somebody wants validation/the ability to pretend data backing them up makes them right.