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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

I know they are, to you. They're not the same, as has been explained numerous times, but feel free to die on that hill.

EDIT: Let me try again. The difference is in the results the two rules produce, and again, this comes down to two people agreeing. If both people agree that Assault weapons should work just fine, and cultists should be 5 ppm, and CA is correct as-is, then more power to them. If those same two people decide that Tacticals shouldn't have to roll to hit, great! Let them play their game! But if either one wants the rules to be different, for whatever reason, then you have to have <gasp> a discussion, where you come to common ground or choose not to play with your toys.

 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. 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.

That's not logic, that's a syllogism.

 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.

Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.

Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.

 Jidmah 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.

Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.

Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.

Much as I'm not keen on defending some of BCB's antics, how was his first paragraph not answering your question?

Catulle wrote:

 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. 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.

That's not logic, that's a syllogism.

Syllogisms are logic. I'll go with any increase to a unit's overall cost above 100% (from 100 to 201 for example) I'd ignore until GW lets me know it's intended, I think considering the cost of a thunderhammer to have gone up by 100% doesn't make much sense, it has to be taken in context of the Smash Captain it's on, so it's more like 10-20% overall. SM would immediately be the worst faction in the game if you increased their pts by 20%, I don't think people get how delicate balance is.

Maybe one of us should email the list of issues to the 40k faq team?

Incidentally has anyone noticed how White Dwarf keeps joking about Robin Cruddace, who I believe heads 40k in some way, is no where to be found and use that joke to explain why they keep having guest columnists in his place?

 Dysartes wrote:
Much as I'm not keen on defending some of BCB's antics, how was his first paragraph not answering your question?

He answered the question directed at Karol instead of the one directed at him.

 Jidmah 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.

Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.

Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.

Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?

I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?

As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.

Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering how you intentionally dodged the question, I accept your concession that there is no specific threshold required to identify obvious mistakes.

Blindly following printing errors without questioning them is very opposite of intelligence.

I assumed the answer would be sufficient for both questions, but since you insist.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Yes, it is the correct points value for the acolyte because the rules say it is. This isn't "blindly" following the rules, it's following the rules. It's that simple. Do I think it's a fair cost? No, but the rules don't care or change depending on what I think is fair. If you won't accept "it's the rules" as an answer, then the answer is because The Emperor told me in a vision that it is true.

I'm still waiting for your limit of when points increases can and cannot be ignored, however.

Also, I love your attempt to imply that I can't say "Because the rules say it is" when you ask a rules question. What next? "Do you think a Space Marine has a BS of 3+ and you can't say "Because the datasheet says it has a BS of 3+"."?

What are you talking about? The rules say 7 is the correct points for acolytes.

Can everyone stop feeding the t... BCB and discuss something else?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can everyone stop feeding the t... BCB and discuss something else?

.

Indeed.

Getting back to the actual topic, I do wonder if, given that we're well past the usual 2-week FAQ/Errata schedule now, even allowing for the holiday period, they're doing something more extensive than usual? Were there any actual issues with CA, or is it all just MFM points/unit size stuff?

 Nazrak wrote:

Indeed.

Getting back to the actual topic, I do wonder if, given that we're well past the usual 2-week FAQ/Errata schedule now, even allowing for the holiday period, they're doing something more extensive than usual? Were there any actual issues with CA, or is it all just MFM points/unit size stuff?

I'm not aware of any issues with CA itself, though the Matched Play content in there was just the 12 missions and the new Maelstrom rules I think.

I hope the delay means they're going over every single entry to double-check it and make sure they don't have any other errors. If I was asked to do the errata for a document with the sort of fundamental errors the MFM has I'd start from page 1 and go through everything because I'd have no confidence in any of the entries given the volume and nature of the mistakes noticed so far.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFXiNMn4rPnaNfw716MPPL5_R3MgkgOX0TmxYMZZW5o/edit?usp=sharing

Yeah, if it's really just an exercise in checking the MFM stuff, then maybe they're just being extra-careful about it.

considering how much they left unchanged, that should've been atleast looked at that would be a rather long task.

Maybe they're changing FW points like they should have the first time.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?

I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?

I understand what you are saying, but there is a huge difference between a slightly less obvious printing error and a blatantly obvious printing error.
For example, if you are driving down a road with 70 mp/h and suddenly see a speed limit of 5 mp/h, that is pretty likely to be an error and should be 50. It might also not be an error because there is a ravine up ahead (I actually came across this situation once).
However, when you see a traffic sign telling you to turn left, when left is nothing but a wall, that is a blatantly obvious error and you have no reason to assume that driving into a wall is the correct course of action.

I see no reason to follow blatantly obvious errors.

As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.

They also need to create some datasheets the accidentally invented...
I'm also pretty sure that FAQs get more quality assurance than the original document.

I mean, BCB is actually right. The rules currently say they are 55ppm. Whether or not we think that's fair, by GW's own admission the most current points take precedence, so they are 55ppm. That's his entire argument. It's 100% correct, even if it's almost 100% a typo. Per GW's own statements until it's changed the "official" points cost is 55ppm, like it or not. That specific point ("the current official points cost is 55ppm") cannot be disputed, only debated whether or not it's a mistake (which it clearly has to be)

People are saying to apply intent, which yes I agree should happen, but RAI vs. RAW is also one of the biggest problems in 40k because it happens so frequently. So first of all, applying intent is already a slippery slope since you shouldn't have to apply intent and should be able to follow what the rules say.

Second, pointing out that well this is OBVIOUSLY a mistake, but this other thing which may or may not be a mistake is more of a gray area so we can't be certain is proving the entire reason why we need an FAQ yesterday, so we know exactly what "might be a typo" things are a typo, and which are intended (or, more likely, which ones they forgot to address and stuck with what they printed)

Refusing to use your brain is never right.

I really hope that GW prints "BCB has to punch himself in the face and upload a video of it to youtube" into one of their books and one point. According to him he would have to do it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Refusing to use your brain is never right..

Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.

 Jidmah wrote:
Refusing to use your brain is never right.

I really hope that GW prints "BCB has to punch himself in the face and upload a video of it to youtube" into one of their books and one point. According to him he would have to do it.

Again, nobody argues that, but let me give an exemple out of the list i allready have compiled, see link.

R&H chaos spawn, a unit virtually the same as normal chaos spawn, did never get changed, neither in CA 18 (down to 25 Pts for Chaos spawn, r&H remain 33) and CA 19 ( down to 20 for chaos spawn)
R&H cultists, still stuck with 10-30, dropped down to 4 pts, like regular cultists, went up to 5 like regular cultists, and whilest regular cultists now are back down to 4 R&H ones are still 5 pts.
Militia never seemed to be looked at.

Then there is the recent change to CSM sorcerers and MoP:
from 90 --> 80. I mean whilest i can understand it in the case of the rather hamstrung and less usefull MoP due to it's nieche use the regular sorcerer also dropped the same amount?

Talons dropped all the same, 2 times now,Raptors, even though beeing worse in many regards did never recive a drop. If we are to argue intent, and the intent is to make options viable then i do wonder why we never saw something in that regard for them aswell?(especially since the main body of the raptor, beeing the csm profile, dropped also quite heavily again recently)


then we have the astropath, an allready dropped unit, which was quite decent at it's 26 price point, should now drop to 15?
Then there is the curious case of the ogryns, the regular ones, the ones that generally are not picked due to bullgryns existing, getting a hike upwards again to codex level after beeing dropped down in CA 18? Is it possible that bullgryns were meant instead for the hike?

The issue is, that the intent, is seemingly not clearly understandable.

Unless it's an obvious mistake, like an arrow directing you to drive into a wall.

Unlike in every single one of your examples, there is no reason to believe that 55 point acolytes are intended over 5 points acolytes.

This is exactly the same kind of idiocy as "assault weapons don't work".

Oh, and as a general note to everyone - stop bringing up examples which might or might not be wrong.
BCB's stance is that you should follow things that are obviously and without doubt mistakes, cases where there is 0% reason to believe that the game should work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Refusing to use your brain is never right..

Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.

So, by that logic you should never shoot assault weapons after advancing, right?

 Jidmah wrote:
Unless it's an obvious mistake, like an arrow directing you to drive into a wall.

Unlike in every single one of your examples, there is no reason to believe that 55 point acolytes are intended over 5 points acolytes.

This is exactly the same kind of idiocy as "assault weapons don't work".

Oh, and as a general note to everyone - stop bringing up examples which might or might not be wrong.
BCB's stance is that you should follow things that are obviously and without doubt mistakes, cases where there is 0% reason to believe that the game should work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Refusing to use your brain is never right..

Maybe not, but neither is constantly applying intent to the rules of a game where it should be spelled out. Like I said above, the whole "RAI vs. RAW" debate is one of the keystone problems with 40k because that only comes up in bad games with unclear rules. Now it could be argued that since 40k has shown it's going to be like that, the argument of blindly following RAW is silly because it's going to have errors and inconsistencies that need interpretation.

So, by that logic you should never shoot assault weapons after advancing, right?

so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.

I mean I get his argument. I even agree to a point (I'd never try to enforce the ridiculous can't shoot assault weapons after advancing thing). But there needs to be consistency. It shouldn't be looking at each potential thing on its own.

Well done everyone, this stupid argument's made me want to kill myself.

 Nazrak wrote:
Well done everyone, this stupid argument's made me want to kill myself.

ohh look an edge.

Not Online!!! wrote:
so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.

Not really. The entire argument against just ignoring the obvious accidental duplication of a character (a common mistake when pasting into excel tables btw) is "55 points for acolyte might be the correct value because we don't know what the correct value for Thunderhammers/Ogryns/Poxwalker/Chaos Spawn is" and the weird believe that all errors must be handled in the exact same way, no matter their magnitude and the availability of a solution.

I agree that this dumb typo and other obvious errors unnecessarily makes us question all other reverts to previous values and other unexpected changes.

But that is no excuse to not to just fix obvious errors with obvious solutions. Just like we assume that assault weapons implicitly have the permission to shoot after advancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I mean I get his argument. I even agree to a point (I'd never try to enforce the ridiculous can't shoot assault weapons after advancing thing). But there needs to be consistency. It shouldn't be looking at each potential thing on its own.

And why is that?

Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.