Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 01:15:52
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
You can't. But the way you set up detachments you can't take any elites without troops.
Previously people would throw HQs that didn't benefit from army traits into vanguard detachments and then put assassins in that.
There are no troops, to my knowledge, that don't have some sort of regiment/chapter benefit.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/30 01:25:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 06:39:46
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Reemule wrote:KurtAngle2 wrote:Reemule wrote:I think it would be a interesting rule that you have to fill 1 detachment before adding more. And then fill the second before adding a third.
So that Battalion becomes a Brigade and Brigade becomes UNPLAYABLE? How stupid
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Charles Babbage.
Taking a full battalion effectively requires you to take as much as a minimum brigade (which is impossible for some armies) and a full brigade is impossible for almost all armies.
You are widening the CP gap between armies with cheap units and those without even more than it already is.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/30 06:40:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 07:09:18
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Courageous Beastmaster
|
If you think you have a good balance idea ask yourself 2 questions: Does this help Guard? Does this help Eldar? If the answer to either of those is disproportionally yes, it is probably not a good idea. Forcing highlander-esque ideas down peoples throats doesn't work for a lot of codices with limited options or smaller army lists. Forcing a troop would ,for me personnaly, kill my interest in a lot of armies because you can't efficiently sink points into troops and you still probably won't have broken spam.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/30 07:09:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 07:37:31
Subject: Re:GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
chaos0xomega wrote: Peregrine wrote:Ugh. No, we do not need to add more -1 penalties to shooting on turn 1. That just makes long-range armies worthless, you can't hit anything on turn 1 and then you get mass charged, locked in combat, and wiped off the table before you ever fire a meaningful shot.
That's quite a short-sighted response, as suppression mechanics are much more than -1 to hit. Actually, it doesn't even need to be a to hit modifier, the point of suppression is to increase survivability of the target unit against repeat attack while also *limiting their effectiveness* in future turns (achieved through movement penalties, attack penalties or other such mechanisms). Some games, such as Bolt Action also use suppression as an alternative means of defeating an opponent - too many pinned down markers and the unit is removed from the table as though it was destroyed. Typically it is harder to achieve a suppression kill than it would be to remove the unit from the table by killing models if the suppression mechanic was not in play, but still easier to achieve than killing all the models when suppression is in play. Basically it raises the level of difficulty in alpha striking, but there is still some reward to shooting and going first.
I mean, if anything I would worry that it would make long range gunlines *too*powerful.
Sure, it's certainly possible to have things like a suppression mechanic, but that's not what people were talking about when I made that post. The proposals were for -1 shooting penalties applied to the entire army with no penalty for turn-1 movement, therefore crippling long-range shooting armies by giving them zero chance to engage close-range/melee threats as they move in.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 09:51:09
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Earth127 wrote:If you think you have a good balance idea ask yourself 2 questions: Does this help Guard? Does this help Eldar? If the answer to either of those is disproportionally yes, it is probably not a good idea.
Forcing highlander-esque ideas down peoples throats doesn't work for a lot of codices with limited options or smaller army lists.
Forcing a troop would ,for me personnaly, kill my interest in a lot of armies because you can't efficiently sink points into troops and you still probably won't have broken spam.
Yep, armies with good troops already have a big advantage - forcing people to take more widens that gap further.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 11:57:55
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Earth127 wrote:If you think you have a good balance idea ask yourself 2 questions: Does this help Guard? Does this help Eldar? If the answer to either of those is disproportionally yes, it is probably not a good idea.
Forcing highlander-esque ideas down peoples throats doesn't work for a lot of codices with limited options or smaller army lists.
Forcing a troop would ,for me personnaly, kill my interest in a lot of armies because you can't efficiently sink points into troops and you still probably won't have broken spam.
Limits on spam don’t really hurt most armies if you put exceptions for armies that don’t have a ton of options. It might mean GW has to balance more units to make book viable but that is a good thing. I really cannot think of too many armies that would be hurt by a limit of 1HQ per detachment, or 0-2 of any fast/heavy/elite per detachment. Or the limit I suggest for troops/dedicated transports.It just forces more tax units. I think it actually hurts guard as far as being used a screens or spaming mortars etc. especially with a 3 detachment limit. It also would not require changing every detachment to make it work. I guess I would probably limit lords of war in some way as well maybe 0-2 per detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess I would ask what army you think is unduly hurt by this?and if your answer is well x army cannot spam y, that is kind of the whole point.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/30 12:01:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 16:09:06
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I know it will be dismissed as "But Sisters" (because apparently it triggers people when the truth is told) - but limiting Sisters to only 1 of each HQ type per detachment means:
Sisters can never run a Battalion unless they bring Celestine as a mandatory option. They can never run two battalions. They can never ever run a brigade, period. Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum:
Also banning spam is silly. Spam is a good thing, and is how armies do.
It would be better to balance individual units.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/30 16:10:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 16:50:25
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Sisters have access to the full range of Imperial HQs.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you 
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 17:28:09
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
I don't have CA in front of me, but is this still true? Or would they lose access to their stratagems and relics if their only detachment included a non-Sororitas HQ? Because that still means no Brigade, ever, while retaining your access to those assets.
All-in-all, limits like this are antiquated and address the problem in the most ham-handed way.
If Hive Tyrants are that much of an issue, then fix them. Apparently, Tau Commanders were, and they were fixed. Sweeping changes like that only invite disaster... much like how ITC is going to have to do something about the new Drukhari army organization. Fix it now, only to have to unfix it 30 times later.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 20:12:07
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Clousseau
|
All it takes is a patrol to unlock sisters stratagems and rules.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you 
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 20:19:06
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
So now there is a patrol detachment tax to play Sisters?
We can escalate this all day. Point is: it is in no way fair to their players. Shall we smelt our models now for you? Or shall we fix the real problems?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 20:32:21
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Purifying Tempest wrote:So now there is a patrol detachment tax to play Sisters?
We can escalate this all day. Point is: it is in no way fair to their players. Shall we smelt our models now for you? Or shall we fix the real problems?
Not really, you could still run a battalion effortlessly. And acting like you don't have access to soup, or acting like soup isn't a huge boon to any army, is absurd. You can literally patch any weakness you have with Blood Angels or Imperial Guard, or both.
Most armies are battalion + other thing.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you 
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 21:30:18
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
But at this point, with pointless highlander rules and fixes for other factions pushed out globally to codexs who do not warrant such treatment is forcing armies into a play style that they may not want.
It is one thing to say "thou shalt not cross the streams, unless you want to"
and something completely different to say "thou shalt cross the streams if you are playing this faction".
So now I have to go out and buy more models from another faction just to make a legal sisters list. This is disregarding the sense of competing at a high level and totally on the "I just cannot do it at all because of stupid arbitrary rules because some guy got crushed by hive tyrants."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 21:37:19
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Marmatag wrote:All it takes is a patrol to unlock sisters stratagems and rules.
Who plays Patrols? Outrighters all the way!
I mean, you were taking Seraphim anyway, right?
|
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 21:42:53
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Marmatag wrote:All it takes is a patrol to unlock sisters stratagems and rules.
Who plays Patrols? Outrighters all the way!
I mean, you were taking Seraphim anyway, right?
Highlander, brah, Seraphim may deform the environment, so only 1 unit per detachment.
I had to snicker at the thought of sisters deforming the environment. Watch out, there's like 5 of 'em out there.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 22:43:03
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
The more I think about it a hybrid of 8ths system with 2nds percent system might work well.
|
BlaxicanX wrote:A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/30 22:53:26
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Eldarain wrote:The more I think about it a hybrid of 8ths system with 2nds percent system might work well.
People cannot even get the lists right and legal AS THE SYSTEM IS. Advocating percentage math is going to make things A LOT uglier.
"So and so won a tournament, but his fast attack was 1% over the allotted limit."
Fix the models that need fixing, tweaking the whole darn system is just injecting more bugs into it for later on.
Like major releases of software: they all have bugs and require patches. We could simply fix the bugs... or we can shift major versions because a bug is literally too big to fail (hah, jokes within jokes!).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 03:55:40
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Purifying Tempest wrote: Eldarain wrote:The more I think about it a hybrid of 8ths system with 2nds percent system might work well.
People cannot even get the lists right and legal AS THE SYSTEM IS. Advocating percentage math is going to make things A LOT uglier.
It really isn't going to make things uglier, unless TOs refuse to consistently enforce the rules. A percentage system is black and white, unlike many of GW's rules. You're either within the limits or you aren't, and answering the question involves very basic math that anyone is capable of doing. After the first few DQs people will start to get the hint and verify their lists before the event.
"So and so won a tournament, but his fast attack was 1% over the allotted limit."
Correction "so and so was DQed for violating the point limit, too bad they didn't bring a legal list". If you're 1% over the limit you didn't win, you cheated and get booted from the event.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 11:35:59
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:I know it will be dismissed as "But Sisters" (because apparently it triggers people when the truth is told) - but limiting Sisters to only 1 of each HQ type per detachment means:
Sisters can never run a Battalion unless they bring Celestine as a mandatory option. They can never run two battalions. They can never ever run a brigade, period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:
Also banning spam is silly. Spam is a good thing, and is how armies do.
It would be better to balance individual units.
Hence why I said you make exceptions for certain armies. And you are actually wrong as adeptus ministorum has additional HQ choices you would need Jacobis to make a brigade. You could also make rules for say inquisitors saying they don’t kill mono keyword detachments (like commissars for guard). Or you make every choice limited until every other option in faction has been taken. So sisters first battalion is Celestine and a cannoness after that you could have 2 cannonesses. Don’t want Celestine run an inqusititor.
As for spam no armies don’t just spam, I see no “army” when I look across and see 7 hive tyrants and spore mines. Further it is irrenlevant to matched play (competitive play) if an army right really be just 10 plague burst crawlers, that doesn’t make it good for the game. Limiting the ability to spam units allows those units to still be good, at without them dominating their slot. People can say “just fix the points” all they want but it is incredibly difficult to make all options equally good, while still having them be interesting.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 15:19:42
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Breng77 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:I know it will be dismissed as "But Sisters" (because apparently it triggers people when the truth is told) - but limiting Sisters to only 1 of each HQ type per detachment means:
Sisters can never run a Battalion unless they bring Celestine as a mandatory option. They can never run two battalions. They can never ever run a brigade, period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:
Also banning spam is silly. Spam is a good thing, and is how armies do.
It would be better to balance individual units.
Hence why I said you make exceptions for certain armies. And you are actually wrong as adeptus ministorum has additional HQ choices you would need Jacobis to make a brigade. You could also make rules for say inquisitors saying they don’t kill mono keyword detachments (like commissars for guard). Or you make every choice limited until every other option in faction has been taken. So sisters first battalion is Celestine and a cannoness after that you could have 2 cannonesses. Don’t want Celestine run an inqusititor.
As for spam no armies don’t just spam, I see no “army” when I look across and see 7 hive tyrants and spore mines. Further it is irrenlevant to matched play (competitive play) if an army right really be just 10 plague burst crawlers, that doesn’t make it good for the game. Limiting the ability to spam units allows those units to still be good, at without them dominating their slot. People can say “just fix the points” all they want but it is incredibly difficult to make all options equally good, while still having them be interesting.
If you don't see an "army" with Flyrants...what are you seeing then? It looks like an army to me. It isn't the army YOU want to face, but it's the army the opponent wanted to make and spent time creating the models for it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Purifying Tempest wrote: Eldarain wrote:The more I think about it a hybrid of 8ths system with 2nds percent system might work well.
People cannot even get the lists right and legal AS THE SYSTEM IS. Advocating percentage math is going to make things A LOT uglier.
It really isn't going to make things uglier, unless TOs refuse to consistently enforce the rules. A percentage system is black and white, unlike many of GW's rules. You're either within the limits or you aren't, and answering the question involves very basic math that anyone is capable of doing. After the first few DQs people will start to get the hint and verify their lists before the event.
"So and so won a tournament, but his fast attack was 1% over the allotted limit."
Correction "so and so was DQed for violating the point limit, too bad they didn't bring a legal list". If you're 1% over the limit you didn't win, you cheated and get booted from the event.
Some calculators round off differently though. How are we accounting for that, or should everyone pen-and-paper those division problems?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/31 15:20:44
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 16:01:22
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
99.9% of people running 7 flyrant ware doing so for the purpose of powergaming, not because they thought it was a cool fun fluffy list. I know 0 players who are not high level tournament players that own more than 2-3 flyrants. So those lists are the result of meta chasing, and those players will adapt. Automatically Appended Next Post: It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/31 16:03:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 16:07:43
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Breng77 wrote:99.9% of people running 7 flyrant ware doing so for the purpose of powergaming, not because they thought it was a cool fun fluffy list. I know 0 players who are not high level tournament players that own more than 2-3 flyrants. So those lists are the result of meta chasing, and those players will adapt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.
And who are you to decide if it looks like an army? Does it function on the tabletop? Is it aesthetically cohesive? 7 Flyrants and a lot spore mines sounds more like an army than a "one of everything" you people are trying to propose.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 16:27:06
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Breng77 wrote:
It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.
You know what also in no way looks like an army? The one-of-everything forces that some people on here think are the correct way to build your armies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 17:38:33
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Some calculators round off differently though. How are we accounting for that, or should everyone pen-and-paper those division problems?
Where exactly are you getting division problems out to so many decimal places that rounding errors matter? This is list construction, not advanced physics.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/31 17:38:48
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 18:21:48
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Assuming we don't have fractions of a percent for these list construction rules is there any scenario where the result will have more than two decimal places?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 18:48:07
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Some calculators round off differently though. How are we accounting for that, or should everyone pen-and-paper those division problems?
Where exactly are you getting division problems out to so many decimal places that rounding errors matter? This is list construction, not advanced physics.
I dunno. I mean if I had a fast attack slot consist of 473 points worth of models and I had to go do a 2000 point list, my phone calculator puts it at .2365. That seems relatively easy.
The question is where are we rounding? How do you handle something like irrational like 333 in a 1000 point list?
Doesn't it make sense to just kinda actually balance the units instead of some convoluted system when we already dumb errors like that? I don't want to have to calculate my opponents list AND make sure rules wise it's correct.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 18:58:10
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I dunno. I mean if I had a fast attack slot consist of 473 points worth of models and I had to go do a 2000 point list, my phone calculator puts it at .2365. That seems relatively easy.
The question is where are we rounding? How do you handle something like irrational like 333 in a 1000 point list?
Doesn't it make sense to just kinda actually balance the units instead of some convoluted system when we already dumb errors like that? I don't want to have to calculate my opponents list AND make sure rules wise it's correct.
Why are you doing this the hard way? If the cap is 25% in a 2000 point list you have up to 500 points. If it's 500 points or less you're good. If it's 501 points or more it's an illegal list. In no standard point format are you going to get slot caps that require so many decimal points that rounding differences are a relevant thing.
As for irrational numbers, the rule is X% or less. If the cap is 1/3 of a 1000 point list it doesn't matter if your calculator says the maximum point total is 333.3333 or 333.3333333 or 333.3333333334 or 333.33333333333333 or whatever, because 40k's points are in whole-point increments. You can have either 333 points (legal and below any possible rounding answer) or 334 points (illegal and above any possible rounding answer), not some fractional point total for a unit that would make the digits after the decimal point relevant. You'd only have a problem if you had a calculator that rounded 333.333333 up to 334 or something stupid like that, but who has a calculator that doesn't calculate at least 2-3 decimal places?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 19:02:44
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
My calculator at work is a relatively simple one and doesn't do any rounding.
It's more effort to do that than to just fix the units that are too good or too bad. Most fixes can surprisingly be simple outside the really borked Codices like AdMech and vanilla Marines, which need a rework even without a percentage system.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 19:09:34
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It's more effort to do that than to just fix the units that are too good or too bad.
It really isn't. Part of the problem is that with the FOC gone it's too easy to spam and soup every balance mistake GW makes. Putting percentage caps, or even removing all the detachments and going back to single FOC, puts a limit on how much of your list can be the overpowered thing and forces you to bring other stuff. It's an inherently better structure that mitigates balance mistakes. Fixing individual units is obviously something that should be done as well, but unit-specific fixes alone are likely to just change which unit is the overpowered one that everyone exploits.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/03/31 19:31:17
Subject: GW's "Adepticon Lesson"
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
They all do, they couldn't not. Your standard cheap calculator chip rounds at 16 decimal places so that the effect of the rounding will (almost) never be visible on an 8 digit display.
Since what we're talking about doing is taking the total points of the list and finding a value with is a certain percentage of that two decimal places is all that's needed.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/31 19:37:19
|
|
 |
 |
|