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.

TheCustomLime wrote: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.

Ok. Let's entertain this for a moment.

What points cost does the poll support?

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

"Is it the case that this apple is either blue or red?"

"Apples are not blue!!!"

I'm sorry, but what you wrote is a non-answer to what I asked.

Traditio wrote:


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

Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.

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

Page 1:

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.

No you don't. You want a number that you can cite to support your claims that Wraithknights should be more expensive. Or, if the result of the poll is that Wraithknights should be less than 295 points (the option that is currently winning) will you concede defeat on the issue and lobby for its cost to be reduced to match public opinion? Will you go from arguing that Eldar players are WAAC TFGs if they exploit this undercosted unit to praising Eldar players that take such an awesome model despite it having a point cost that is generally agreed to be too high?

 BossJakadakk wrote:

Traditio wrote:


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

Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.

There are three options:

1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.

The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).

You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote: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.

Ok. Let's entertain this for a moment.

What points cost does the poll support?

If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.

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

"Is it the case that this apple is either blue or red?"

"Apples are not blue!!!"

I'm sorry, but what you wrote is a non-answer to what I asked.

Wraithknights are GMCs. People in that thread mostly voted in favor of GMCs/SHs to be included. Some requested restrictions for Lords of War in general including things like the Baneblade and Malcador whether it be a percentage restrictions or minimum points requirement.

Traditio wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:

Traditio wrote:


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

Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.

There are three options:

1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.

The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).

You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.

Oh look someone changed their standards!

Any claim that people think they should be restricted currently lacks any support. The available data shows that the majority have no desire to ban superheavies. That is all. No significant support for your point at all. Come back when you have support.

TheCustomLime wrote:If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.

And with that, I'll simply ignore your further postings.

Good day.

Traditio wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:

Traditio wrote:


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

Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.

There are three options:

1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.

The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).

You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.

Incorrect again.

It's a binary poll - The only options are "To ban, or not to ban."
I guess that's what happens when you use a blanket ruling.
I fail to see how you can pull any kind of statistics on this, and YOUR view, as you stated, was to ban ALL SHV/GMC - including the Malcador, before people called you out on it - is still the minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.

And with that, I'll simply ignore your further postings.

Good day.

Why? On what grounds is Custom incorrect?

After all, you made the reverse point - I fail to see the issue.

Traditio wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.

And with that, I'll simply ignore your further postings.

Good day.

But Tradito, you said:

Tradito wrote: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.

How is that any different than what I said?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why? On what grounds is Custom incorrect?

I'm not wasting my time on responses which are self-evidently trollish in nature.

Again, I bid you good day.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why? On what grounds is Custom incorrect?

I'm not wasting my time on responses which are self-evidently trollish in nature.

Again, I bid you good day.

I don't see how that's trollish. Please elaborate.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Why? On what grounds is Custom incorrect?

I'm not wasting my time on responses which are self-evidently trollish in nature.

Again, I bid you good day.

You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?

Traditio wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:

Traditio wrote:


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

Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.

There are three options:

1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.

The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).

You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.

But those who voted for Not-1, regardless of being 2 or 3, are still in the minority. It's a poll with two options. There's really no way to tell how that 35% of Not-1 breaks down between 2 and 3. Regardless of how it breaks down, though, both 2 and 3 combined make up 35%, a minority, compared to 65% of respondents being fine with SH as they are.

Strong support within a minority is still only a majority of a minority. Let's say 20% of people want them in with restrictions, that leaves 15% of people wanting them banned outright. Suddenly, the people who agree with you about banning SH is even lower, in fact I would argue you no longer have strong support. But I can't say that, because we don't know how it actually breaks down.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?

1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."

2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.

But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:

80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.

When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?

The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.

Even so, the opinion that the wraithknight needs a points increase is in the overwhelming majority (80%).

How, then, should we calculate the appropriate price increase? By attending to the majority opinion among those who recognize a points increase in the first place.

If you doubt that this line of reasoning has any validity, and if you are willing to give ear to the arguments of Custom, then simply consider this fact:

When I asked him what points increase the poll actually supports, he responded, not with an analysis of the poll results on its own merits, but with a response designed to troll, not only me, but all of us, I say, who consider the wraithknight unfair.

And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.

Ponder that, and the motivations of the objectors immediately becomes obvious.

Traditio wrote:

And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.

So if the poll regarding SHV/GMC hits a 80/20 ratio, you'll drop your campaign to use "public opinion" as proof they need to go away?

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?

1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."

2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.

How telling that Tradito considers his own logic as trolling when it's used against him.

But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:

80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.

When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?

The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.

But this isn't about sales. This about how much a Wraithknight should cost. And if you're going to make assertions of how many people want a price hike and how much you should consider negative votes. Otherwise the poll is disingenuous at best. I mean, c'mon, you really can't see how your arbitrary your lines in the sand are?

[

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?

1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."

I'm not saying it was a troll. I'm saying you disregarded a part of your study, and they when someone else does so, you chastise them. Why the double standard?

Also, IOW: "It's trolling unless I do it."

2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.

You got any evidence for that? As far as any right minded observer would see (to use your own style of description) Custom was asking a valid question - why can you ignore parts of data and they can't?
Is it because it affects your result? If not, why omit it?

But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:

80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.

When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?

Absolutely. If you want to foster an atmosphere of hospitality and support, discuss with the less-than group about why they think so on an equal field. Then you can challenge their views in a fair and equal manner. After all, their right to free speech should be upheld and supported.

The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.

Except this analogy falls flat, as the people who do not buy TV sets are not affected - people in 40k always have the risk of running into a Wraithknight, assuming the conditions for the right criteria are met (points, army, houserules)

Even so, the opinion that the wraithknight needs a points increase is in the overwhelming majority (80%).

How, then, should we calculate the appropriate price increase? By attending to the majority opinion among those who recognize a points increase in the first place.

If you doubt that this line of reasoning has any validity, and if you are willing to give ear to the arguments of Custom, then simply consider this fact:

When I asked him what points increase the poll actually supports, he responded, not with an analysis of the poll results on its own merits, but with a response designed to troll, not only me, but all of us, I say, who consider the wraithknight unfair.

He gave back a quote which reversed your own statement, which failed to accommodate for the ACTUAL result of the study. You showed extreme investigator bias, and therefore Custom's remark is valid.

And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.

Ponder that, and the motivations of the objectors immediately becomes obvious.

I see that you are desperate to spin the results of any poll you are in to support your statement, and claim a moral high ground each time.

I cannot support your viewpoint when you move the goalposts in such a gross manner.

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.

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.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth, let me rephrase what my point is to see if you can understand it better, and tradito came close to understanding it.

1: Every Army SHOULD be different, each army should excel at some aspects and not at others
2: Every army SHOULD be competitive against one another, otherwise you don't have competitive play you have Rock Paper Scissors.
3: Every Army should be balanced internally AND externaly.

At the moment their are 3 Codex's that are winning everything in ITC (Eldar SM and KDK) with Tau and Necron falling just short, every other codex can't even come close to placing next to those beasts.

Of the 3 best codex's at the moment, Eldar are head and shoulders above everyone else. They are not competitive, they are broken.

When I say competitive, I mean I would like my army to have a fair chance of playing against every other army out there. Just because I chose Orks doesn't mean I should be relegated to the "Non-competitive" table for fun/fluffy lists.

Is this a straight knock at Eldar? no, they didn't get to choose the incompetent moron who wrote their codex so badly that it has more units that are broken then are ok. What it is though is an attempt to get people to understand that since everyone who plays the game is paying money to this company the least they can do is come out with content that is balanced against one another and not completely slanted in a couple factions favor.

In any game there are always going to be broken units to an extent, the problem is that GW seems to think only 2-3 factions should be worth a damn and everyone else should just suck it up.

I spend money on a game just as you do, I should have the same opportunity to win as you, maybe not the same out come but we should at least start on equal footing.

I would love to play Eldar, but I'm afraid I'd be seen as a TFG for doing so. One of the big reasons behind that is the Wraithknight. It's a cool unit to me. Iconic even. But as it stands right now it's undercosted, and one of the reasons why there is so much hate towards Eldar (and by extension, some of their players). I think 100 or so points should be added onto it. Maybe that would go a ways towards reducing some of the hate that they get, as it would (hopefully) bring the codex a tad more back in line.

So, things we have learned today:

When a poll vote is 80/20 in favor of Traditio's side it's an "overwhelming majority" and the opinion of anyone who voted for the minority can be ignored.

When a poll is 66/33 against Traditio's side it's a "significant minority" on his side that needs to be considered, and really it should be even more because most of the people who voted against him at least partially agree with him (because reasons).

It's amazing what a difference of only 13% can mean in interpreting a poll.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, things we have learned today:

When a poll vote is 80/20 in favor of Traditio's side it's an "overwhelming majority" and the opinion of anyone who voted for the minority can be ignored.

When a poll is 66/33 against Traditio's side it's a "significant minority" on his side that needs to be considered, and really it should be even more because most of the people who voted against him at least partially agree with him (because reasons).

It's amazing what a difference of only 13% can mean in interpreting a poll.

No no, it's not because they're the minortiy.
They can just be ignored because they're trolls or something, and the actual result is 100% agree with Traditio (even if they voted more than 400, which wasn't what his suggestion/opinion was in the first place).

 War Kitten wrote:
I would love to play Eldar, but I'm afraid I'd be seen as a TFG for doing so.

I'd try proxying an army that isn't scatterbikes to see what people think.

No one has referred to me as TFG for playing Eldar. But I don't use a Wraithknight, nor do I spam Warp Spiders and Scat bikes.

Oddly nobody has complained about my Spiders. It seems to help that there's only 5 and there's no BLOS terrain.

 War Kitten wrote:
I would love to play Eldar, but I'm afraid I'd be seen as a TFG for doing so. One of the big reasons behind that is the Wraithknight. It's a cool unit to me. Iconic even. But as it stands right now it's undercosted, and one of the reasons why there is so much hate towards Eldar (and by extension, some of their players). I think 100 or so points should be added onto it. Maybe that would go a ways towards reducing some of the hate that they get, as it would (hopefully) bring the codex a tad more back in line.

If you play Eldar like TFG, then, yeah, you'll be seen as TFG. If you're cool, then you're cool.

If you like the Wraithknight, get the Wraithknight.

If you believe it's undercosted, play fewer points. Or play overcosted units to balance.

Or just play against people who are cool.

I have ZERO problems with super heavies in the game. I DO have a problem with certain super heavies that are seriously out of balance and need adjustments and the inequity between GMC and SHV. I actually think when looking at the balance of super heavies one should compare them to the Imperial Knights. They have proven themselves to be fairly well balanced IMO. Some of you people need to stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths so to speak. It doesn't help you argument and makes you look like a tool.

On a side note this game has a LOT of balancing issues. It is alright for some armies to be a little stronger and others a little weaker, but the current disparity is way too much. I will admit as being a former Marines player (Could no longer stomach the serious BS that was done to my Iron Hands) most of the various marine factions can be OP (with a few exceptions due to seriously bad chapter tactics). However, imo, the Space Marines are hardly the worst offender though they suffer from the OP or crap syndrome.