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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?)

I don't think that's baiting. He's calling out the hypocrisy of the most consistently snide, passive-aggressive poster in this thread telling him to stay polite. I'm not sure I've seen a single post from you that isn't dripping with condescension.

JohnnyHell wrote:backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1.

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

Come on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.

Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.

YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.

Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.

YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.

Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.

Darsath wrote:
I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?

Yes, GW should have said something by now. Either that no Faq is needed (which would be weird with some very obvious errors like 55 pt Neophytes) or that they are working on something big that will take longer and for everyone to be patient.

But the pessimist in my thinks that upper management has stopped such a statement from being made because it would crash SM sales as people wait for an expected nerf, rather then buy in to the OP faction.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.

Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.

And this is how you identify who hasn't taken the effort to read the whole thread.

No-one thinks Neophytes should be 55ppm. I don't think Neophytes should be 55ppm. What I think doesn't matter a single jot, because what GW says is what matters, and GW says they are 55ppm. End of discussion. GW can easily errata it, but have refused to do so. Until they do, they are 55ppm.

The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

The magic of the human mind plus reason and rationality. Apparently those things are in short supply these days.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.

BTW, how have major tournaments handled this?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
As someone who has a job that involves a good amount of data entry, I can honestly say anyone that thinks Neophytes should be 55pts a model is an idiot IMO.

Also while there is no hard rule for what is a typo or error, numbers being off by a factor of ten is a good red flag when reconciling someone else's work that an error occurred. A simple email or IM to verify would be appropriate. I have had to do this before at my job.

And this is how you identify who hasn't taken the effort to read the whole thread.

No-one thinks Neophytes should be 55ppm. I don't think Neophytes should be 55ppm. What I think doesn't matter a single jot, because what GW says is what matters, and GW says they are 55ppm. End of discussion. GW can easily errata it, but have refused to do so. Until they do, they are 55ppm.

The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

Oh I read the thread. Holding people to 55pts Neophytes until FAQ drops is stupid. It is a obvious error. If you want to ignore common sense be my guest. Just realize people will think less of you for it.

Edit:. There is a difference between obvious errors and potential errors. 55pt Neophytes is a obvious error. Just blindly following RAW in cases like that is foolish.

Edit 2: To be clear, when I said "should" in my first post I didn't mean your personal opinion about Neophytes should cost but what pt value you would actually use when playing 40k with GSC.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

The magic of the human mind plus reason and rationality. Apparently those things are in short supply these days.

Well yeah. You ever take a look outside or turn on your TV?

Idiocracy here we come.

I think there's a divide here between people who:

1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad

2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.

I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.

The standards of actual legal systems arent sufficient for the raw diehards. Hilarious. Legislators do this kind of crap all the time. Absurd results arent enforced generally.

Wayniac wrote:
I think there's a divide here between people who:

1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad

2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.

I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.

Honestly, I'm coming around to the 'it's a tactical RPG' way of thought. Narrative, fluffy games just sound better every day. Fielding something pretty sounds more fun than the idiotic meta chase (which seems to boil down to 'Why you no Imperial nub?!') GW has created at this point.

The painters have won! God is dead! Have you seen the new contrast colors?!

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.

BTW, how have major tournaments handled this?

To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The "It's obviously a typo" argument simply doesn't hold water because of Ogyrns, Space Wolves, and Thunder Hammers. How do we know what is a change and what is a "typo"?

I think it kinda does. The neophyte thing is 'obvious typo' those other things are merely 'possible typos'.

BTW, how have major tournaments handled this?

To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?

well, from my experience...nobody will ever play you.

Problem solved. The group goes on.


The fact that you see these 55 point neophytes as some kind of glaring, massive problem and even the most hardcore, legalistic competitive gaming groups in the world pretty much all laughed it off and fixed it with an immediate house ruling just speaks to how extremely basic the social solution to this problem is.

"wwell what if someone thinks ogryns are a typo too? huh? HUH?"

Then I'd just let them play Ogryns at the cost they think is more correct.

We have people come by all the time who aren't super into the online loop who've got handwritten lists built from the backs of their codexes, which are almost always super out of date at this point. It's basically never an issue. There's folks that play armies and don't use all the universal army-wide rules they're entitled to based on current GW rules release products, because they think those rules are bs and produce bad games. There are also people who grant armies that don't have those rules access to them because they think it's bs they don't have them yet - I just watched a game last week where Ultramarines played vs Space Wolves and the first thing the former said to the latter was "hey, so am I playing without Doctrines or do you want to play with them?"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?

Most people will not agree with you.

Ultimately it is about how an overwhelming majority of players perceive it, and I think overwhelming majority would agree that the neophyte thing is an obvious typo, but no such consensus would form on the other examples. Granted, it is still stupid that they have not fixed it or even somehow acknowledged the mistake.

You can run your event with whatever points costs you want.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To take a page out of the RaI-playbook... in my opinion they are all obvious typos. What now?

Most people will not agree with you.

Ultimately it is about how an overwhelming majority of players perceive it, and I think overwhelming majority would agree that the neophyte thing is an obvious typo, but no such consensus would form on the other examples. Granted, it is still stupid that they have not fixed it or even somehow acknowledged the mistake.

The rules are not a democracy. The rules are the rules. I know some people think my position "extreme", but I simply cannot understand how you can justify breaking one rule and not breaking another. There is no middle ground.

Yeah there is. Courts do it all the time. TOs are effectively judges and can interpret what gw publishes.

Technically, playing Neophytes as 5 points per model is a houserule. One that I agree with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are not a democracy.

But how the game is actually played is.

The rules are the rules. I know some people think my position "extreme", but I simply cannot understand how you can justify breaking one rule and not breaking another. There is no middle ground.

Yes, we all know you cannot understand, but we normal people understand it just fine.

Wayniac wrote:
I think there's a divide here between people who:

1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad

2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.

I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.

The first is based on an indefensible slippery slope fallacy and a specious assertion that the procedure would be willy nilly.

But let's play it out. How would you go about determining the issue?

- I can look at other S3 T3 autogun infantry and see there is an issue.
- I can do some mathhammer and determine the problem as well.
- I have a previous value that makes more sense.
- An increase of 1100% seems very wrong
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (no they won't)

What about the Thunder Hammer?

- I can see it is very popular and effective in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF
- I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)

Meanwhile - "nope no way to know what is real or not!"

This is the problem with discussions (and society) today. Someone tosses crap on the wall and it takes pages and pages of discussion to peel down a single point. What if the Neo issue did not exist? How would you go about trusting anything GW has published? What if GW published a perfect CA next time - how do you go about determining your trust in it? We may as well just say it is all wrong and stop playing the game, because we're terminally confused about how to be rational human beings.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think there's a divide here between people who:

1) Feel you can't change rules willy nilly based on opinion without opening a big can of worms as to what is a typo and what isn't and use that as a reason to show why the rules need to be ironclad

2) Feel it's okay to look at every rule in isolation and change them piecemeal if necessary to better fit what people "think" is right.

I don't think either one is wrong or right, but I certainly lean more in the first camp than the second just for consistency.

The first is based on an indefensible slippery slope fallacy and a specious assertion that the procedure would be willy nilly.

But let's play it out. How would you go about determining the issue?

- I can look at other S3 T3 autogun infantry and see there is an issue.
- I can do some mathhammer and determine the problem as well.
- I have a previous value that makes more sense.
- An increase of 1100% seems very wrong
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (no they won't)

What about the Thunder Hammer?

- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF
- I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)

Meanwhile - "nope no way to know what is real or not!"

This is the problem with discussions (and society) today. Someone tosses crap on the wall and it takes pages and pages of discussion to peel down a single point. What if the Neo issue did not exist? How would you go about trusting anything GW has published? What if GW published a perfect CA next time - how do you go about determining your trust in it? We may as well just say it is all wrong and stop playing the game, because we're terminally confused about how to be rational human beings.

And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.

See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.

You are free to run your event that way. If real life laws are subject to this kind of analysis, gw's gak certainly is.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.

See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.

And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character? How do you know Ogryns are worth the price bump?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And I disagree. The Thunder Hammer is clearly a typo. If one is a typo, so is the other.

See? Slap some gak on the wall and call it a day. Back up your assertion that the TH should not be 40 points and that it was not effective at a cost of 24 points.

And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character? How do you know Ogryns are worth the price bump?

Were TH previously effective? Yes - hence a cost increase of some kind is warranted.
Are TH still being used? Yes - therefore the cost is not prohibitive except to those wishing to run multiple smash captains

Do Ogryns get used? No.
Are Ogryns better than Bullgryns to a point where it warrants a point increase? No - therefore it is a mistake.

You and everyone else knew Ogryns were off by the very fact that they don't get used and Bullgryns exist, but somehow you cannot deduce if it is a typo or not. Curious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And how can you say the Thunder Hammer is worth the cost of half a character?

He did:

- I can see it is very popular in the meta
- There are numerous relics that improve TH than the PF
- I can do mathhammer to determine the value
- An increase of 166% is not typically severe for a popular tool
- I can ask if people will still use this unit after the point increase (yes they will)

Since this thread is way, waaay off the rails anyway.

The reason that some people can handle taking some rules as "obviously incorrect" while others insist "Rules are rules, and the only consistency is perfect consistency" comes down to...

Pragmatism vs Dogmatism.

Pragmatism is a set of ideals that values a heuristic approach to life. It may be inefficient to determine the *best possible* approach, but spending a "reasonable effort" to determine a *very good* approach is worthwhile.

Dogmatism is a set of ideals that determines a *best possible* approach, without regard to cost / time frame. If it is more efficient to build a stone bridge that will last for centuries, before building the town (the town will need the bridge) then the bridge is built first, before the first shovel hits dirt to build the town.

Where as a Pragmatic approach might be to build a wooden bridge first, so people can begin building their homes (and thus have places to sleep) and then go back and revisit the bridge at a later time. It is less efficient, but is a *very good* solution that allows another, more immediately pressing concern to be addressed (building houses).

I myself am an unrelenting Pragmatist. And as such, value that and often deride Dogmatists even though my wife is an *utterly unrelenting* Dogmatist. I have lots of experience in this conflict.

I can't present the Dogmatic approach in as positive a light as Pragmatism, because it is antithetical to my personality. I can see the value in it (rarely ) but I find it to generally be detracting. However. When it comes to games with rules, I can appreciate the Dogmatic approach, even if I wouldn't agree with it.

Though, as a Pragmatist that does not wish to run afoul of a Dogmatist, my solution would simply be not to play units that have "obvious" mis-costs. I mean, I wasn't rocking Ogryn anyway.

Honestly for me it is a combination of multiple things that irk me.

One,i am a casual (ish) player, a well balanced ruleset especially codex internally allows for me for more thematic armies to work decently enough due to lower spread of power,leading to a broader spectrum of possible matches that are fun (not decided by faction choices from the get go)

Two, the crux is however that ca (especially the points) are in essence nothing more then a balance patch,arbtrarily gated behind a paywall.

Three, due to it beeing paywalled i'd expect better then such obvious typos as the Neophyten or the ogryns/bullgryns confusion.

Fourth, i'd also expect overall that all parts of the content in it would get looked at ....


And lastly, if i need to first go over with my partner on what maybee a fault,etc that is inconvenient and also taking up time.
Time some Off us don't have.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honestly for me it is a combination of multiple things that irk me.

One,i am a casual (ish) player, a well balanced ruleset especially codex internally allows for me for more thematic armies to work decently enough due to lower spread of power,leading to a broader spectrum of possible matches that are fun (not decided by faction choices from the get go)

Two, the crux is however that ca (especially the points) are in essence nothing more then a balance patch,arbtrarily gated behind a paywall.

Three, due to it beeing paywalled i'd expect better then such obvious typos as the Neophyten or the ogryns/bullgryns confusion.

Fourth, i'd also expect overall that all parts of the content in it would get looked at ....

Yes to all of this. We need good internal balance in all codexes. And ca should address ALL units. We paid gw money for all our armies/units and the least they can do is make them USABLE. Not op. Just usable. Selling a product then not supporting it is bad business.