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.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.

As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?

I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue

 streetsamurai wrote:

yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models

It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.

Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.

Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).

Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.

FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins who hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.

 insaniak wrote:

Characters
Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?

I can't think of an instance in AoS where I've had "just one" model survive a shooting phase and the Battleshock phase to follow.

Eyjio wrote:
You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form! This method is literally 90% the same as it used to be, other than not getting unitwide buffs which were the entire problem to begin with. You still get units as ablative wounds. You still pass on effects, sometimes, now, in a more logical aura too, as opposed to only buffing 1 unit. The only real change is that this prevents deathstars and makes positioning more important.

Not allowing characters to join units doesn't prevent deathstars if you replace the benefit of joining a unit with a ranged aura...

It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.

 Alpharius wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?

Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.

Moving on...

So here we have here is a mod breaking rule #1 to defend people breaking rule #1in their attacks on anyone saying anything negative about the new edition. Yep this definitely help make the quality of discussion increase.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.

As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.

That doesn't make any senses. There is already some kind of USR based on keywords (such as infantry benefiting more than vehicule from cover)

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?

I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue

You want to bloat the core rules tomprevent a one-off rule on a single theoretical model. Who is really the bloater here?

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models

It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.

Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.

Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).

Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.

FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.

Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds makes a model targetable has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.

As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

A keyword to specifically negate a generic rule is better that a special rule that has to be manually inserted into a whole slew of models.
You want a USR in a system that is moving away from USRs. Kind of funny actually.

That doesn't make any senses. There is already some kind of USR based on keywords (such as infantry benefiting more than vehicule from cover)

A single bespoke rule on a single model is better than a USR to cover the "everything else".

Space marine characters are going to look stupid now going into battle without a helmet when their brothers see them fall to sniper rifles right in front of them (or I guess right behind them).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?

I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue

You want to bloat the core rules tomprevent a one-off rule on a single theoretical model. Who is really the bloater here?

Saying a model is only targetable if he has the targetable keyword, doesnt introduce more bloat than saying only model with more than 11 wounds are targetable

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?

I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue

No one has yet to provide a reason why this arbitrary character should not be targetable at 11 wounds. Or why a 15 wound character should not be. All you say is they can't make one. Why should we care?

You do realize there are other ways to impart durability outside of wounds and far more ways to make varied characters, yes?

Tip tap tippity tap tap!

Tresson wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

As for your first phrase, don't you know that for a few posters on Dakka, anything else than unbridled enthusiasm and praise is considered as an insulting criticism?

Yes, indeed, Dakka Dakka is not a Hive Mind but is in fact a community of diverse individuals that have a lot of differing opinions.

Moving on...

So here we have here is a mod breaking rule #1 to defend people breaking rule #1in their attacks on anyone saying anything negative about the new edition. Yep this definitely help make the quality of discussion increase.

I think that calling this breaking rule nb 1 is a bit of a stretch


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

What point that doesn'ty exist? That the current rules make it impossible to create a character that has more than 11 wounds or vice versa without introducing a bespoken rule (hence more bloat)?

I guess you,ll keep dancing around the issue

No one has yet to provide a reason why this arbitrary character should not be targetable at 11 wounds. Or why a 15 wound character should not be. All you say is they can't make one. Why should we care?

You do realize there are other ways to impart durability outside of wounds and far more ways to make varied characters, yes?


Tip tap tippity tap tap!

A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?

Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Characters
Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?

Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?


And for the record, the fact that you can move your units to a spot where Guilliman is closer is a large part of what I dislike about these rules. Based on the last time we had similar rules, the restriction on targeting doesn't save characters from being shot, it just forces players to game the system with unit placement in order to make the character the closest visible model.

When it's so easy to make the character a target anyway, the restriction just seems even more absurd in examples like the above.

It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.

That would have been the case if they had implemented the Keyword system while still allowing ICs to join.

In other words, it's not the inability to join units that kills off deathstars, it's (potentially) the fact that the rules on how ICs pass on their special rules has changed... although we won't know if that has actually killed off deathstars until we see more rules.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same as using a keyword

So quick question to those involved, Gulliman the freaking primarch of all people has 9 wounds, what independent character who isn't already a monstrous creature does anyone think is going to have more wounds? I'm not coming up with anyone off the top of my head and that is making this look like a lot of fuss over quite possibly nothing.

Care to play king of the hill?




Edit: I spy, with my little eye, something that starts with 'C'!

Character?

To late! He's dead.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The only "new" units for the Guard of late have been the two Taurox variants as far as I recall. Most of the rest has been split offs(Bullgryn from Ogryn, Armored Sentinels from the general Sentinel profile, etc), dredging stuff up from Epic(Deathstrikes), or renames(Scions).

I feel like your criteria for what counts as a "new" unit is a bit selective. Is the Wyvern a new unit, or just a Chimera chassis variant in your book?

In any case, a lot of that has come around with updating older units to plastic multibuild kits, and I don't see what Rough Riders have to do with them.

Like I said; think of Jokaero and the randomized buffs they give out.

Ratlings aren't "just" snipers. They effectively become a kind of regimental mascot/"alternative procurement specialists".

Big to that idea.

Which is, to an extent, why I think it needs to go as a name. Elysia isn't raising Rough Rider Squads for their armies. Cadia isn't doing that. Vitria isn't doing that. Harakoni, Catachan, Valhalla, etc etc.

It's always been that specific kinds of world were generally talked about raising Rough Riders(feudal worlds, feral/death worlds, or for whatever reason...Krieg?). By doing a "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" that opens the door for expanding it a bit more later on.

Start with Feral World Cavalry ala Attilla's horse troops then build up to things like the ornithids that got mentioned in "Straight Silver"(a kind of velociraptor chicken mount native to a basically World War One tech level planet) or even stuff like the xenos mounts we saw in WD back in the day.

Again, I don't know why we have to drop the name Rough Riders for that, but agree to disagree, I suppose.

I kind of feel that calling Rough Riders a "classic unit" is a bit overselling it. It's a unit that's been around for awhile.
Same with "invalidating armies". Have we ever been able to take a purely Cavalry mounted army? HWTs, SWS, Ratlings, Stormtroopers, yadda yadda yadda?

I'd say if your army includes a particular unit, and they get rid of that unit, your army's been invalidated.

One of the reasons I like the idea of RR platoons is that it opens the door to all-cavalry armies, which is a pretty cool idea in my book.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models

It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.

Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.

Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).

Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.

FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.

Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword

Yes, and "agains" building a chart that the game designers can use that incorporates a significant value jump between 11 and 10 is easier than having to account for a binary element in a regression that can be affected by a whole boatload of other regression models too (the other USR's). Building values based on arithmetic means that at most they need to hire a mathmatician once to build good models... Keeping USR's as a design element means that they need to hire a math nerd full time to run models in R.

Further, it creates a conflict... They've obviously decided that direction for the design studio is less USR's... Taking one on here goes against their design philosophy. If everyone on the team did that whenever they thought some was better, the whole work would be a mess on the backend quickly; this is the reason programing studios tend to do all their work in a specific language, rather than cobbling things together from whatever bits and pieces they happen to think is best.

And again, I'm taking you less and less seriously every time you reply. I laid things out, provide reasons, followed up on criticism and all you can manage is "I have a diploma, and you're wrong by the way." followed up with "But you're still wrong, so there".

You're just fishing for a fight, and have decided that the "GW can do no wrong" people are worth your afternoon. GW can do plenty wrong, Try playing orks for nearly 6 years then tell me you've got a bigger complaint against the company than I do.

 streetsamurai wrote:


A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?

Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design

But you won't find an 11 wound character the same size as an 8 wound one. You'll find an 11 wound character that was reduced by 3 wounds and then given an additional save.

You're far to hung up on wounds as a measure of a model.

The point is, hiding should be based on the size of the model and not how many Wounds it has... You're telling me if you had a super skinny tyranid, as tall as a knight, but only 10 Wounds, it could hide, but if you found a super bug that had 11 wounds but was the size of a Tyrant Guard, it couldn't? Wounds shouldn't have any say in how a model hides. There's literally no connection between them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Characters
Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?

Because it's a single Guardsman, and there are better targets for the rest of your shooting?


And for the record, the fact that you can move your units to a spot where Guilliman is closer is a large part of what I dislike about these rules. Based on the last time we had similar rules, the restriction on targeting doesn't save characters from being shot, it just forces players to game the system with unit placement in order to make the character the closest visible model.

When it's so easy to make the character a target anyway, the restriction just seems even more absurd in examples like the above.

I mean, if you were so worried about Guilliman to begin with...why wouldn't you try to isolate him or set up the best shooting possible?

It does if those units can't benefit from a ranged aura because they lack the keywords necessary.

That would have been the case if they had implemented the Keyword system while still allowing ICs to join.

In other words, it's not the inability to join units that kills off deathstars, it's (potentially) the fact that the rules on how ICs pass on their special rules has changed... although we won't know if that has actually killed off deathstars until we see more rules.

That's assuming that ICs will have rules that could justifiably be passed on.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's

These rules most likely kill off shooting army viability as well. Also have you seen me complain about every other rule prevfiew? No I've been on board with almost all of them. Stop acting like I hate everything they've done. I hate this rule because it is undercutting a lot of the work they've done to this point to make the game more balanced. All they needed to do was make it a penalty to hit special characters who were not the closest target. Instead they make them invincible and this will be abused.

Let's wait and see how much sniper power Tau have before we declare IC invincible.

 Galas wrote:
Gamgee, I'm a Tau player too, but God. You are more apropiate in a Apocalyptic cult, stop being so dramatic.
No, not every new rule in 8th is designed to destroy Tau's

 Yodhrin wrote:

Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.

You have a point. But before, "good customer service" was basically saying that the customer is always right. We live in the age of internet, in the age of people over exagerating things and making campaings for whatever reason they feel like. The internet has given people a platform to give away their opinions, and in general that as caused people to be even more convinced that other people should pay attention to their opinions.
A little of snark to people that just don't know how to properly give away critizism don't hurt anybody. Obviously, if it degenerates in what are you saying, to be honest, it will be a problem? Bad PR cause companies loses of money. Companies don't want to lose money, so is in their interest to don't gain bad PR.

EDIT: This had better meaning in my head, I have failed to translate it to english in a clear way, sorry.

But that was exactly my point - it's not bad PR if most of the responses are people blurting out "lurve the snark" and "ermahgerd queen slay". Lets be real, the vast majority of people, in relation to any given company or product, aren't going to need good customer service because they won't get a defective product or poor provision - the whole "customer is always right" thing, while sometimes garbage when dealing with TFG(and don't kid yourself on, the only thing that's changed with the internet is how many people can see the interactions between TFG and the company, I've worked a lot of "customer facing" jobs over the years and there weren't any fewer gits before social media) was a response by companies to the possibility that the unaffected majority would express solidarity with the small minority who could be affected by bad products and services, thus cut into their profits.

Corporations may not be people, but they're definitely animals - condition them to expect most people will respond well to witty put-downs of customers with issues, and that will become their default response whether the issues are valid, invented, or just a bit overblown. As I said, while sarcy in tone, the point raised by that guy was perfectly valid and deserved to be addressed, but evidently plenty of folk are fine with PR deflection if it lets them have a giggle at another's expense.

 kronk wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

Lurve the snark!

I'd "lurve" it a lot more if they weren't deploying it against perfectly valid comments.

Assuming, as seems safe, that the controlling player will decide which models are casualties, you'd have to throw half an army's worth of shooting into that Guard unit if it's a blobsquad before you can "worry" Girlyman. And that is BS when three Guardsmen would have to stand one atop another to even tickle Rowboat's chin.

Also, this new trend to praise companies for what used to be called "bad customer service" seems really wierd to me - is it a "I got mine, Jack" situation where the praisers just genuinely think they're never going to be on the recieving end? Because that's silly - show companies they can deflect criticism with a sufficiently witty put-down and it won't be long before they're using it to deflect all criticism, valid or otherwise.

Because it's fething funny. It's a game company. I play games to have fun. These are the designers answering questions about a game. Some of us are kids at heart.

And some of us are not.

Spoiler:

In that case, I sincerely look forward to the day when you have some kind of issue or or valid question and GW's response is a sarcastic put-down, so I can rise to your sparkling level of debate and post a Nelson-HAHA gif

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively complex mathematical models

It was plenty valid, and I've got enough experience with multiple linear regression in R to not need to wave diplomas around to try and dismiss an argument like you did.

Balancing a game where the rules you can give to models are measurable against a chart is massively easier than having to take into account the interaction of an entire array of USR's.

Building those charts even using sophisticated modeling methods is easier when you don't have to account for the interaction between the model you're currently running and models that you've previously run (and that's assuming they even do use any kind of statistics to build their balance; because if they don't then keywords lose immediately).

Handing out keywords to design your game means that if one model down the line has a broken interaction with the keyword, then adjusting it will affect upon all the other elements of your design that fall under that keyword too, and you're probably gonna break some of them.

FINALLY is pathetic to try and dismiss me with a suggestion that you have some kind of degree in a field. I've interacted with people whose input I value less than potato skins hold degrees. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong show me, don't handwave a diploma across a forum post and tell me I haven't done any math; it just makes you an donkey-cave who can't stand to be wrong.

Which agains doesnt make any sense, since the fact that passing from 10 to 11 wounds has to be accounted in the model for it to have any value, and the way to implement it would be the same (in fact, might even be more complicated) as using a keyword

Yes, and "agains" building a chart that the game designers can use that incorporates a significant value jump between 11 and 10 is easier than having to account for a binary element in a regression that can be affected by a whole boatload of other regression models too (the other USR's). Building values based on arithmetic means that at most they need to hire a mathmatician once to build good models... Keeping USR's as a design element means that they need to hire a math nerd full time to run models in R.

Further, it creates a conflict... They've obviously decided that direction for the design studio is less USR's... Taking one on here goes against their design philosophy. If everyone on the team did that whenever they thought some was better, the whole work would be a mess on the backend quickly; this is the reason programing studios tend to do all their work in a specific language, rather than cobbling things together from whatever bits and pieces they happen to think is best.

And again, I'm taking you less and less seriously every time you reply. I laid things out, provide reasons, followed up on criticism and all you can manage is "I have a diploma, and you're wrong by the way." followed up with "But you're still wrong, so there".

You're just fishing for a fight, and have decided that the "GW can do no wrong" people are worth your afternoon. GW can do plenty wrong, Try playing orks for nearly 6 years then tell me you've got a bigger complaint against the company than I do.

Either you are really confused or I'm misinterpreting your argument


Let's take a simplified regression that would be used to determinate the point of a model by only taking into account its wounds

Point Cost= B + XWounds

Such a regression would be seriously flawed, since it does not take into account the rule shift when you pass from 10 to 11 wounds. So to correct it, you would have either to create an interaction variable (which would be more complicated), or a binary variable (which would make it the same as the key word system).

Hence, to be usefull, both models would use a formula that look like this

Point cost = B + XWounds + Ytargetable

Where X is a continuous value, while Y is a binary one.

Wait, so did this new rule about using your Independent Characters thinking about how the units of your enemy are placed and how they can move and shoot the next turn, add tactical deept to the game?
Or is just game-y?

I have seen many people that want things that are totally contradictory, like wanting characters that aren't inmortal, can't be snipped, and can be targeted all the time without rules to protect them when near allies. All of that at the same time.

 En Excelsis wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...

A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.

Spoiler:

Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.


Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.


Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.

Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.

Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.

If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.

I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.

Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...

After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.

There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.

I respectfully disagree.

Rules are rules and are only important in the context of competitive, regulated games. If I only ever played in those situations I would probably have a different point of view, but as it stands now I play 1 competitive game for every 20 beer and pretzels game I enjoy casually with friends. In the abstract sense I would still love for the rules to be more consistent, but not if presented with the choice of having better rules or better models.

Now, from the perspective of a small business owner, I can understand the concerns about shelf space and the premium there, but that is easily resolved by having establishing a store standard, and webstore alternatives. GW could easily work with gaming stores to provide them with the highest selling models to fill their shelves, and leaving the less popular models as webstore exclusives. I don't know that I'll be convinced that a world exists were more player choice is bad thing.

The issue with that is when those choices are close, or exclude certain armies etc. More models also means expensive molds that they need to recoup and investment on. I mostly play casually these days, and I'd still opt for better rules as most of my games are of the pick-up nature, and so having poorly balanced rules leads to a lot of so-so games. I would argue that rules are only unimportant when both players are familiar with one another and modify those rules to produce games they enjoy. Personally I have little issue with GW on the updating models front, for the most part they do a great job (like I said few horrid out of date models), and if they did produce say new space marine models I am not likely to replace the ones I currently own just because they look cool, I simply lack the funds for that. New units, sure. I think those are great, updates of old sculpts are also good, but for me would take a back seat to good rules for all models. I would put updating bad models ahead of creating new units etc. For things like expanded product lines, I think something like Forgeworld is fine for that purpose.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


A 11 wounds character shouldn't be targetable if he is exactly the same size as a 8 wounds one. YOu really need this to be explained?

Secondly, Yes. But this rule introduce a limitation that shouldn't exist, hence why it is bad rule design

But you won't find an 11 wound character the same size as an 8 wound one. You'll find an 11 wound character that was reduced by 3 wounds and then given an additional save.

You're far to hung up on wounds as a measure of a model.

which is why it is a bad rule. Wounds shouldn't be perfectly correlated with size

 insaniak wrote:


That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

Why didn't you move your unit to get to a spot where Guilliman is closer?
Why didn't you fire more at the Guardsman unit to begin with?

 Desubot wrote:


kroot snipers (if they remain) are going to be interesting options.

Exalted, and very great conversions!