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.

How is it a straw man. Thunder hammer point goes up in points, but only for characters, and not even all space marines characters, and stays the same for non marines. Why couldn't someone think it is a type of some sort, specialy when the point rise was huge comparing to the initial cost. And there were no signs from GW that they want to rethink the cost of Thunder Hammers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace 784064 10685789 wrote:

Because that's not how large corporation tend to work. There's a process and they're following it. In this case it's a stupid process because they really should have rushed out a quick fix for the most egregious errors like the 55 point Neophytes and the messed up Deathwatch unit sizes, with an understanding that a more complete errata would be forthcoming later.

I don't know, when boeing was proved to sell planes that blow up in the air. They had their head exec out in like 24 hours. And a rule change isn't a matter of life and death. What is the desing studio suppose to be responsible for, if not stuff like this? Specialy as that is what they do when they write a CA. Is the difference the fact that people have to pay for a CA, and GW doesn't want to fix stuff they broke for free?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

I use extreme examples because it shows the flaw of the argument. You cannot stay logically consistent when you allow the ignoring of some rules and not allow the ignoring of others. If the argument was sound I would not be able to provide extreme examples to show the argument isn't sound.

Plus non extrem examples are ignored with the argument that this is not an error, but what GW really wanted. Even if it gets fixed a year or more later.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I use extreme examples because it shows the flaw of the argument. You cannot stay logically consistent when you allow the ignoring of some rules and not allow the ignoring of others. If the argument was sound I would not be able to provide extreme examples to show the argument isn't sound.

Reductio ad absurdum. It's a logical fallacy, I believe. You have repeatedly stated that "all opinions are equally valid," which is just not true. If my opinion is that "snow is neon green" and your opinion is that "snow is white," one of our opinions has less value.

In any case, and as always, discuss it with your opponent.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.

Blastaar wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.

And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.

Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

 Octopoid wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.

And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.

While you're absolutely right, I wouldn't bother. These lot just ruin every single discussion on this forum with this "hyper-logic to the point of absurdity" nonsense. It'll just keep going round and round and round.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

"Common sense" does not exist. What you refer to as "commons sense" is really "something I find to be self-evident, and therefore believe it must be so for all people." "Commons sense" is not objective criteria, which is the point BCB is poorly making.

And in the absence of objective criteria, which is where we find ourselves, some manner of subjective criteria, such as an agreement between two subjective players, will have to function.

While you're absolutely right, I wouldn't bother. These lot just ruin every single discussion on this forum with this "hyper-logic to the point of absurdity" nonsense. It'll just keep going round and round and round.

Meh, this discussion has run eleven pages now. If it dies, it has died a good death, and we will sing its praises in the halls of Valhalla.

But we find ourselves in absence of objective criteria because GW is too lazy/greedy/whatever to provide it.

You guys are getting hung up on the GSC costing 55 points which is a symptom of GW not giving a feth. They've had ample time to fix it (and the many other inconsistencies what many believe are errors) before, during and after but have chosen to go radio silent and a lot of people are fine with that.

Other big issues with CA 2019 that impact my ability to use GW rules are the SW fast attack page being re-printed from the INDEX and the custode FW price reversions that can't be handled with the "of course swift claws don't cost what they cost in the index" because who knows what GW really wanted them to cost (not like I can play my SW now because of the SM 2.0 dex but it's still pretty sloppy).

So move on from the 55 point neos and realize that GW messed up large swaths of the CA2019 and for some reason are sitting on their thumbs not doing anything about it.

bananathug wrote:
But we find ourselves in absence of objective criteria because GW is too lazy/greedy/whatever to provide it.

You guys are getting hung up on the GSC costing 55 points which is a symptom of GW not giving a feth. They've had ample time to fix it (and the many other inconsistencies what many believe are errors) before, during and after but have chosen to go radio silent and a lot of people are fine with that.

Other big issues with CA 2019 that impact my ability to use GW rules are the SW fast attack page being re-printed from the INDEX and the custode FW price reversions that can't be handled with the "of course swift claws don't cost what they cost in the index" because who knows what GW really wanted them to cost (not like I can play my SW now because of the SM 2.0 dex but it's still pretty sloppy).

So move on from the 55 point neos and realize that GW messed up large swaths of the CA2019 and for some reason are sitting on their thumbs not doing anything about it.

So it has been said. "Clearly, GW doesn't care, blah blah blah." So, vote with your money, don't buy CA, and be done with it. In fact, stop buying GW products entirely. IN FACT, just stop playing the game entirely! That'll show them!

Whatever the reason, we are in an absence of objective criteria. Complaining about it on a General Discussion forum is unlikely to change that. Do the best you can with what you have, and that either means using subjective criteria or not playing the game.

Now, if you want to argue about what those subjective criteria should be, then we've got a real discussion happening. Just blaming GW and then getting mad at people who don't blame GW isn't very productive.

I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...

I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.

The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.

To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.

But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.

Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.

I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.

The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.

Wake up people.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!

So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!

So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?

I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.

 oni wrote:
I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...

I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.

The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.

To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.

But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.

Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.

I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.

The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.

Wake up people.

ya know, you'd have a point if they did not literally lower the points back down again... to the same point level again.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!

So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?

I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.

I mean, I respect Jervis Johnson's opinion more than some random person on the interwebs opinion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!

So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?

I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.

I mean, I respect Jervis Johnson's opinion more than some random person on the interwebs opinion.

Cool! So do I! That doesn't mean everyone does, or that anyone should!

 Octopoid wrote:

I think both sides can agree that 55ppm is the printed and official price, until otherwise specified. Whether or not that equals "correct" is a whole other debate.

Agreed. The constant bickering over whether 55ppm is "correct" is pointless. For the time being it is the printed and official point cost, and an organized competitive tournament environment should use the official printed rules. To do otherwise and allow this particular model to be included under its "old" rules/points would open the door to arguments that other models should be used at different point values due to similar CA errors ("GW meant bullgryns not ogryns when they increased their points . . ."; "I'm using the Gallant model from the AdMech codex instead of the Knights codex since it costs less . . ."; etc.).


There is only one solution: GW needs to publish an errata correcting the numerous issues with CA2019. Hence, this thread. Sadly, GW is likely considering what new book/product they can sell with the correct values instead of simply publishing and regularly updating the complete points lists for all armies online, as should have been done in the first place. This practice of publishing points updates on a yearly basis as a cash grab insults the community that has to wait months for obvious issues to be corrected. It is the 21st century now and about time GW gets with the times.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?

Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?

Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.

You shouldn't trust the ca, especially not the fw Part of it.

Which is preciscly the issue, the book was done carelessly, and now it is us that have to fix it up.
For a product with a pricetag.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?

Because, as has been explained to you multiple times, you are refusing to take into account what is usually referred to as "common sense." You are arguing to the absurd extreme, not in good faith, and you (and everyone you're arguing against) know it. We've seen through the web of illusions you have spun, and the reality we have spied is dark enough to shrivel a sane man's heart.

So is the points change for Ogryns, back to pre-CA values, a typo or not? And whichever your answer, what makes you think that? And since we've established from the 55pt Neophytes that the book has typos we need to house-rule over, how do we come to a common agreement on which changes are valid and which aren't?

Everyone's missing the forest for the trees with the 55pt Cultist example. I just want to play a balanced game with my friends; the book having such a glaring, obvious mistake kills my ability to trust that the rest of the book is accurate to the designers' intent, and our ability to all follow a common, objective source of rules. We can house rule that Neophytes should stay at 5pts, but it's going to be a more contentious discussion about what other changes to revert.

The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.

 Octopoid wrote:
The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.

Why bother having rules then if we have to just make up half the rules anyway?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
The short answer is, we don't know. We are playing in an objective-value vacuum. We don't know what is and isn't a typo - but hey, the good news is, that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN. We can make assumptions based on context clues, we can apply the apparently non-existent "Common Sense Rule" but really, in the end, whenever we play a game, we're two (or more) people agreeing on what rules to use. When we agree to use the written rules, it's just as binding as if we agree to use House Rules. The RAW gives us a context and a starting place, but it's not perfect, and never will be. We have to discuss places we disagree with the rules with our opponents. If we can come to an agreement, great! If not, well, I guess we can't move our toy soldiers around on a table and make blim-blam noises.

Why bother having rules then if we have to just make up half the rules anyway?

As said above, because they give us context and a place to start. They're better (arguably) than making up one's own system from the ground up (which, I'll note, a lot of people already do!). They are a ladder to help reach that high shelf, but if you don't like the ladder, that's fine! Use stilts, or a pogo stick, or a hot air balloon. Whatever floats your boat - just remember that, if you want to play the game, you and your opponent have to get to the same shelf the same way. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

 Octopoid wrote:
that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

'Every book ever written' has not forced me to constantly ask 'was this a deliberate balance change, or a version control failure?'. Pre-CA19 my group could use the printed points values as given. We might have had some balance complaints, but we at least trusted that the numbers that were there were supposed to be there.

You're dismissing the most blatant example of why this is a problem by saying 'use common sense'. Cool. How many times do I need to chant 'common sense' into a mirror before Jervis Johnson shows up to tell our currently-arguing SM and CSM players whether Cultists are actually supposed to be 4pts again? What does common sense tell us about the Ogryn changes? I don't have any clue.

RAW may not always be perfect, but when we can discern RAI we can work around it. Here? I have no idea what the RAI is for most of these changes. We're firmly in the realm of essentially house-ruling our own fancomp, and I think it's disingenuous to describe that as 'just use common sense'.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
that's true for EVERY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

'Every book ever written' has not forced me to constantly ask 'was this a deliberate balance change, or a version control failure?'. Pre-CA19 my group could use the printed points values as given. We might have had some balance complaints, but we at least trusted that the numbers that were there were supposed to be there.

You're dismissing the most blatant example of why this is a problem by saying 'use common sense'. Cool. How many times do I need to chant 'common sense' into a mirror before Jervis Johnson shows up to tell our currently-arguing SM and CSM players whether Cultists are actually supposed to be 4pts again? What does common sense tell us about the Ogryn changes? I don't have any clue.

RAW may not always be perfect, but when we can discern RAI we can work around it. Here? I have no idea what the RAI is for most of these changes. We're firmly in the realm of essentially house-ruling our own fancomp, and I think it's disingenuous to describe that as 'just use common sense'.

But it's not, though? I mean, what's your alternative?

EDIT: And why do you let Jervis Johnson have so much control over your fun? Whether he shows up or not, you should be able to come to an agreement with your gaming partner about what rules to use, so you can both have fun. Don't leave that in Jervis' hands. Even if you did pay money for rules - feel free to complain to Mr. Johnson, and see if it helps! But in the meantime, use that ever-elusive common sense and come to a middle ground!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.

Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.

You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?

Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.

If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.

By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored.

Their increase is less than 1000%, therefore I made absolutely no statement about them. Stop misrepresenting my argument to further your agenda.

So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.

An increase of 1000% or more without any further change to a units' rules is considered worthy to ignore.

Answer this instead: Do you believe that 55 points is the correct points value for an acolyte? You must answer with yes or no, and you must provide a reasoning for your answer that cannot be that you blindly following anything printed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
How is it a straw man. Thunder hammer point goes up in points, but only for characters, and not even all space marines characters, and stays the same for non marines. Why couldn't someone think it is a type of some sort, specialy when the point rise was huge comparing to the initial cost. And there were no signs from GW that they want to rethink the cost of Thunder Hammers.

Because BCB actually doesn't give a damn about Thunder Hammers but tries to use a completely unrelated point increase as an argument to justify blindly following obvious errors. That's a strawman.

Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?

 Jidmah wrote:
Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?

I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.

Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?

I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.

Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.

And more power to you. I think it's admirable that you practice what you preach, even if what you preach seems insane. Good on you. Just... it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone else to "live up" to your unreasonable standards.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tell me, if GK Terminators were 332 points each in CA, would you assume an error or not?

I would not, because that is the printed cost in CA19 and, until otherwise specified, that is the correct points cost. I don't agree that it's a fair cost, but it is the correct cost until an errata changes it, the same way I don't feel that 5ppm for Infantry Squads is a fair cost but that is the cost GW have decreed that they are.

Also, remember than I am (apparently) the only one who plays Assault weapons RaW, so make of that what you will. And before people say "you don't play the game", this actually came up in the game I played last week where I lost out on some flamer shots from one of the new Ork buggies because I had to advance.

And more power to you. I think it's admirable that you practice what you preach, even if what you preach seems insane. Good on you. Just... it's a little unreasonable to expect everyone else to "live up" to your unreasonable standards.

I don't think that following the rules is unreasonable. Is it unreasonable to ask your opponent to roll to hit for their Tactical Squad Bolters? Those are the exact same thing to me.

It's why my next game I am going to foolishly try a mechanised SOB army using Argent Shroud so I can advance my Immolators and still shoot their tasty Cannons even though Valorous Heart would be more suitable.