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.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.

Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.

You suck it up and either don't play the unit or understand that you're automatically going to be at a disadvantage when playing it. I've been doing this with my fellblade for a while. If the game isn't at least 2500 points it's probably staying home and even then I'm going to be starting out in the hole. I obviously still play it because it's my favorite model. But I understand the disadvantages. If gw would be a little more transparent and explain why they think the cost is fair it would at least take some of the sting out but that's not their current policy.

Of course that's just for things we just THINK are wrong. 55 point neophytes is obviously wrong and should be ignored. They just accidentally hit 5 twice.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.

Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.

These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

 alextroy wrote:
Precedence is not a straight jacket. It informs future decisions, it does not decide them. You can change the clear errors while leaving the 'questionable' decisions alone.

I am fully confident that the vast majority of people can tell the difference between the errors and the 'questionable' decisions in the Munintorum Field Manual. We all know that GSC Neophyte Hybrids are not supposed to be 55 points a model (the same cost as a Sanctus and nearly 3 times the cost of a Aberrant). The decision to take GW's errors as 'law of the land' is purely up to you, especially before an FAQ is actually published.

Yeah what he said.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.

So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.

Order of magnitude doesn't convey intent though. I think that's BCB's point as silly as it might seem. Sure, 55 point acolytes is most likely wrong. But people seem to be saying that this shouldn't set a precedent? That some other chance needs to be evaluated on its own and not "Well you changed this, so why not change this other thing".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because you know neos are not worth 55 points. You might not like that scripts are 4, but you know they're in that ballpark - that and being 3 points might tip too far given the granularity issues in the game.

But this is a complex discussion that you just want to boil down to nonsense to make a point that doesn't exist. "Throwing gak against the wall to see what sticks"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because you know neos are not worth 55 points. You might not like that scripts are 4, but you know they're in that ballpark - that and being 3 points might tip too far given the granularity issues in the game.

But this is a complex discussion that you just want to boil down to nonsense to make a point that doesn't exist. "Throwing gak against the wall to see what sticks"

You can't tell me what I do or do not "know". I, in fact, do know that Acolytes are worth 55 points, because the rules of the game say they are. I can only know what the game actually tells me.

Case in point, I can claim that I "know" that Genestealers are "meant" to have a Move Characteristic of 88". It's simply a case of someone pressing a key once instead of twice. That claim is just as valid as you claiming the Acolytes points are due to someone pressing a key twice instead of once.

Again, I am fully aware that Acolytes at 55ppm is weird and most likely not correct, but without any information to the contrary I cannot logically or consistently ignore that while not allowing the ignoring of other "issues".

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.

I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.

Ok, so if 1000% can be ignored, what % can't be? I am seriously asking here, what % in your opinion can't be ignored? And who gets to decide the arbitrary % value? I just want an number here. If the answer is so clear you should be able to provide me with a single number answer, right?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.

Ok, so if 1000% can be ignored, what % can't be? I am seriously asking here, what % in your opinion can't be ignored? And who gets to decide the arbitrary % value? I just want an number here. If the answer is so clear you should be able to provide me with a single number answer, right?

outliers are probably best dealt with on a case by case basis, and lets hope we never accrue enough extreme examples to be able to create a standard metric of when overruling official rules is appropriate.

Going back to Stompa, it literally got 3 times better at shooting and a 10% points reduction and is still considered poorly. Despite being so obviously underpowered in index it still wasn’t enough to warrant a universally accepted fanmade fix. The fact that so many people are able to come to a consensus on 55 point trash infantry being 11 times overpointed speaks volumes. Of course you don’t need to accept a game with anyone ‘house ruling’ them if you don’t want.

You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.

And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.

So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.

nareik wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.

I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!

I was meaning more in the vein of “but if we allow this obvious 5>55pts error to be houseruled wHeRe DoEs It EnD?” type nonsense.

See above for more examples of any semblance of critical judgement jettisoned for Internet edgery. From a guy who doesn’t even play. It’s kinda silly...

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.

I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. Is my view considered "extreme" by some? Perhaps, but I am not particularly concerned with how others view my positions. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so. I am very much an "Objective Truth is by definition Good" kind of person.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.

So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.

So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.

He doesn’t even play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.

I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so.

There is a middle ground, patently, but nice try at slippery slopery. Again.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
He doesn’t even play.

Demonstrably false, I actually played two games last week between revision for my mid year university exams, one with Orks and one with Primaris Marines.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nareik wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.

I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!

I was meaning more in the vein of “but if we allow this obvious 5>55pts error to be houseruled wHeRe DoEs It EnD?” type nonsense.

See above for more examples of any semblance of critical judgement jettisoned for Internet edgery. From a guy who doesn’t even play. It’s kinda silly...

To be honest I was just showing slippery slope works (or rather doesn’t) both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.

I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. Is my view considered "extreme" by some? Perhaps, but I am not particularly concerned with how others view my positions. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so. I am very much an "Objective Truth is by definition Good" kind of person.

I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.

nareik wrote:
I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.

Yes, but the issue becomes that no two people have the same view of what consensus will be acceptable. The only fair method is to follow what the rules say, as they are objective, whereas "I want to ignore rule A but not rule B" is subjective.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nareik wrote:
I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.

Yes, but the issue becomes that no two people have the same view of what consensus will be acceptable. The only fair method is to follow what the rules say, as they are objective, whereas "I want to ignore rule A but not rule B" is subjective.

You don’t need to agree on everything with everybody. Have fun playing with your 55 point chaff.

I’m certain plenty of players will agree not to follow raw on this issue, even if they can’t find common ground anywhere else.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.

And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.

And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.

In your opinion. In my opinion Smash Captains were highly inefficient and needed a points drop. Why is my opinion wrong and yours correct? Ultimately the only "opinion" that matters is GWs, they are the ones who decide the points costs.

Again though, the 55 point acolyte is an extreme example. There are plenty of other examples where something was adjusted in error, but the error SEEMS close enough that you aren't sure it was intended or not. Harping on a clear mistake isn't addressing the underlying point, that none of us know what GW is/was thinking with adjustments, so care has to be taken to change one thing without opening the floor to debate a ton of other things which may or may not be typos.

BCB is technically correct in that, while it is almost certainly a typo, the rules currently say an Acolyte is 55ppm. So that's the only 100% true statement until an errata, even if we all "know" that 55ppm is a typo. The rules are the rules. I don't quite agree with the rest of his argument, but this point is true no matter how much we know it's wrong, it's what the rules say. Just like when they redid the CSM codex and had the new Obliterators copy/pasted with their old 65ppm instead of the at the time new 115. Until they fixed it, by GW's own statements about rule precedence, the most recent version of the rules said they were 65ppm. Sure, almost everyone figured it was a copy and paste mistake, and only a real jackass would try to argue otherwise, but at the time that's what the rule was.

Let's not get too caught up on a specific and quite frankly ridiculous example since yes, we are all certain the Acolytes should be 5 and not 55. But what about all the other "Maybe this was intended" cases? Treating individual things on a case by case basis isn't the answer here, and that's the point BCB is trying to make however ridiculous his argument might be. You can point to 55ppm Acolytes and almost everyone (probably even BCB) would reasonably agree that's a typo and shouldn't be taken as-is. But then for any other case, who decides if it's a typo, intended, or otherwise? WE have no way of knowing beyond what the rules state, as stupid as they are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.

And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.

In your opinion. In my opinion Smash Captains were highly inefficient and needed a points drop. Why is my opinion wrong and yours correct? Ultimately the only "opinion" that matters is GWs, they are the ones who decide the points costs.

You're the worst devil's advocate ever.

You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

This game, by its very nature, is voluntary. Nobody is forced to play.

This game also consists of rules, written haphazardly in plain language.

No rule, no matter how clear, isn't subject to interpretation.

Taken to an utterly, hilariously absurd level, you could certainly argue that no rule is truly knowable - there is practically always, within the subjective frame of reference, room for interpretive error, because objectivity isn't something we can know to be within our grasp (see Descartes' Daemon, and combine with the limitations of our mostly-salt-and-fat computer).

Until applied, rules have no force. To be applied, a rule must be interpreted.

For this game, then, there must always be some form of meeting of the minds, where interpretations are hashed out. A default of "follow the rulebook's RAW language" is a powerful tool, and presumed socially and culturally, in a meeting of the minds, but so is "Clear and obvious error" as an acceptable reason to stray from the default, as is amply demonstrated throughout practically every imaginable area of case law.

If less-than-100% is good enough for billion+ $ contract interpretation, I think it's fair to apply to a hobby game. There's even this great stand-in for judges when the game gets competitive - tournament judges!

If, in your meeting of the minds, you can't come to an agreed-upon conclusion about what meets the requirements to be a "Clear and Obvious Error", then the game can't take place. In a competitive setting, the person refusing play will take the loss, another default social convention.

A failure to come to an agreed-upon conclusion is going to be viewed by the local community (and any outsiders privy to this event) differently based on where the disagreement lies.

If it's about something with evidenced arguments on both sides, there's probably going to be less social judgment about the failure.

If it's something like a 1000% point cost increase to a basic infantry unit, the social judgment will increase with the proportion of those who find adherence to RAW absurd.

You have a right to express yourself, and the community has a right to toss crude rules utilitarian philosophical ideology into the garbage bin they think it deserves.

Personally, though, I find the thought of applying stricter standards to game rules for a hobby game than to contracts with potentially billions of $ at stake or criminal trials with livelihoods or even actual lives on the line to be hilariously absurd. Trying to apply one-size-fits-all rules because you got far enough in philosophy 101 to figure out that subjectivity is a problem (but apparently not far enough to figure out just how difficult it is for beings like us, with such limited access to reality, to actually recognize objectivity if we could even access it) to the point you'll actively defend the specific case of 55 point acolytes... man, that's just such a weird hill to die on.

We hopefully all know the harm that actual, obvious-but-technically-not-in-an-objective-sense-that-we-don't-have-access-to-anyway errors like 55 point acolytes cause. That's an actual, necessary harm to GSC armies. We know it will happen if we hold ourselves to an absurd standard of objectivity. We KNOW it will happen.

Wayniac, what sort of perceived harms are you suggesting will result from, in THAT case, making the obvious conclusion that you yourself agreed was true - that it was a typo, not an intended change? You've referenced a slippery slope, but if you intend to play the game in as balanced a way possible (assuming that balanced gameplay is what you enjoy), what SPECIFICALLY do you fear will happen such that even the RISK of it is enough to allow obvious, actual, existing harms to continue?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.