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.

Slipspace wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Likewise, someone is free to suggest they think the updated TH points are also a typo. If they can persuade their opponent of that fact they can play with whatever points cost they see fit, otherwise the default is the points in CA19.

So if we were to be about to play each other, neither of us would actually know how many points our lists were, until we had debated (every?) points cost to see if we can agree that they are correct or not?

If I have a unit of Ogryns, how many points is that going to be? I think that the points cost in CA19 is an error on GW's part.

You have a unit of Neophytes. How many points are they? If they're not 55 points each, then how many points are they? If I don't agree with the cost you think they should be.. then..? If you can't convince me that they should be, say, 5 points each, then we default to the cost in CA19 anyway?

In practice, in a real life game (so, the only thing that actually matters rather than pointless online posturing) in the overwhelming majority of cases people are going to use the CA19 costs for everything bar Neophytes. If we can't agree on the cost of Neophytes we don't play. If I were to suggest 5 and you demanded 55, or 10, or 15 we wouldn't play. That's not an opponent I'm interested in spending any time with frankly.

It's telling that these "problems" only seem to exist online. I know dozens of 40k players, either directly or indirectly, and I know of precisely zero situations where anyone has demanded people play with Neophytes at 55 points, or to adjust the cost of Ogryns from CA19. That's not to say the Ogryns won't be adjusted if GW ever bother to release an errata for the book, it's simply the case that literally everyone I've ever encountered or heard about in real life doesn't find this to be an unsolvable problem.

It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.

You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.

If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.

You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.

If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)

Neo cost isn't being "plucked". You use the previous cost. Ogryn's aren't being plucked, either - use the previous cost. Game on.

What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.

Ogryns don't have an extreme cut-off so we think about it a little. Were people complaining about Ogryns previously? No? Then reverse the cost until we know more and be assured there is no risk in doing so. PA might somehow make them "worth" 30, but that book isn't out yet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Why do you refuse to accept the explanations people have provided?

Because "Because I say so" isn't a valid explanation and no one has provided anything other than that.

That isn't true at all.

But since we're here - please provide the rationale as to why 40 points for a Thunderhammer is questionable.

It's not. My entire point is that either both the Thunder Hammer and Acolyte points costs need to be respected, or neither of them do. There is no in between. If you assert the Acolyte is incorrectly priced, it is just as valid for me to assert the Thunder Hammer is incorrectly priced and no logically sound argument exists that allows one but not the other.

So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not. My entire point is that either both the Thunder Hammer and Acolyte points costs need to be respected, or neither of them do. There is no in between. If you assert the Acolyte is incorrectly priced, it is just as valid for me to assert the Thunder Hammer is incorrectly priced and no logically sound argument exists that allows one but not the other.

So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.

And that's where society implodes, because that isn't how people work in real life.

You've also arbitrarily decided the TH is "incorrect" to create this paper tiger. You didn't base it on any logic other than the points increased.

^ Dogmatic approach. Incompatible with Pragmatic approach.

Different value structures will result in different conclusions.

If one party believes that the solution only has *absolute* answers, and can't accept that a Pragmatist could, for the benefit of a more evenly matched game, show restraint and *NOT* just willy-nilly change points... just adjust what they think is fair.

This went beyond the purview of pragmatism/dogma long ago. We're now well withing the realm of absurdism vs rationality.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


So, we either have a game where both players can just willy-nilly decide all their stuff costs 0 points, or we can have a game were we follow the rulebook published by Games Workshop PLC say the points are. It's one or the other, you get to pick.

Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped. You don't have to blindly accept both sets of points costs and not accepting one doesn't mean you don't accept others. The world isn't black and white and even apparently inviolate printed rules can be called into question if they fail the reasonableness test. If it's good enough for the legal system it should be good enough for wargaming. You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not either one or the other - nuance can be applied, and is.

The issue I think people have with you is not that you're wrong, it's that you're constantly presenting scenarios that don't happen in the real world and acting as though you're some great rules crusader come to save us all from our own folly, shouting at the sky, while everyone else in the real world shrugs their shoulders and gets on with playing the actual game. We can all read, we all accept the Neophyte cost is printed as 55. What we don't accept is that this is the correct value because it is so ridiculously out of line with every other similar unit in the game. For the good of the game we make a decision not to use that cost and default back to the old one (while muttering under our breath at how bad GW are at their jobs). Why don't we do the same for every other points cost? Two reasons. Firstly, life's too short. Secondly, there's a line where adjustments cross over from weird to ridiculous and beyond that line is where people start making their own adjustments. No, I don't know where that line is and I can't codify it for you. All I know is it exists and it's less than or equal to a rise of 1100%. You may not like that, you may keep shouting "but why?" as much as you want, but that's the reality.

The (painful) part of Dogmatism is that it has an internal logic that is sound.

Externally, it encounters a similar problem to the internal logic of pacifism. It only works if every member of a group agrees to it.

And, if you’re both a pragmatist and a nihilist, then everything is absurd. It is pragmatic to accept the absurdity, to facilitate the development of the self’s desires and objectives.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

nareik wrote:

bananathug wrote:
That's the part that gets me.

If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?

Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.

The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.

I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.

40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500

I have. And I asked about the stompa as well as the hellforged/relic super heavys. I got the standard response. (And yes I was being a smart with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out imo).

By "standard response", do you mean the auto-response, or did you get an actual reply?

Slipspace wrote:
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.

So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.

What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?

You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.

So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.

What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?

But such person doesn't exist, so this is not an actual problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.

So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.

I really couldn't care less how you want to characterise my way of playing the game. If my house rules are the way literally everybody else I know of plays the game it's good enough for me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth...

Let's not. There's no need for hypotheticals here. I deal with what happens in the real world. Your hypothetical situation simply doesn't occur so I don't need to worry about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.

So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.

What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?

You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.

Well, VealGoldfishMoth, you're wrong about Thunderhammers.

*pulls out irrefutable napkin math*

And if you're wrong about this simple thing then you're most definitely wrong about "Acolytes" (actually Neophytes).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Wrong. I present as evidence...literally every single game I've seen or heard about involving GSC since CA19 dropped.

So you played with house rules, and inconsistent ones at that.

What relevance does that have to what the rules say? Let's imagine I have a cousin called VealGoldfishMoth, and they completely and utterly sincerely feel that Acolytes are so powerful that they deserve to be 55ppm and also feel that Thunder Hammers are so weak that their increase is clearly a typo. Why is VealGoldfishMoth's view less valid than yours?

You know what would fix all this? If GW actually delivered their promised errata within 2 weeks.

Well, VealGoldfishMoth, you're wrong about Thunderhammers.

*pulls out irrefutable napkin math*

And if you're wrong about this simple thing then you're most definitely wrong about "Acolytes" (actually Neophytes).

The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules. House rules are, by definition, purely subjective. The only objective measure is to play the game RaW. Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.

I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

nareik wrote:

bananathug wrote:
That's the part that gets me.

If it just a couple of tiny typos then why the heck haven't they released a quick fix PDF that fixes those two "tiny" errors?

Not addressing it and just leaving it is either a big feth you to SW players and other people that bought the book or a sign that something else is going on.

The radio silence is frankly B.S. and goes so much against the new more communicative GW that the PR department has been pushing I can't really understand the tactic.

I did ask earlier if anyone had emailed the faq team any of this list of errors. Also radio silence. It’s kind of funny if we are all sat here at our keyboards complaining to each other instead of feeding back into the system.

40KFAQ@gwplc.com is the one I remember. Don’t forget to ask if it was a typo that stompa was lowered by 50 points instead of 500

I have. And I asked about the stompa as well as the hellforged/relic super heavys. I got the standard response. (And yes I was being a smart with them about the stompa. It's good for them to have such moronic decisions pointed out imo).

By "standard response", do you mean the auto-response, or did you get an actual reply?

Auto-response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?

That's my theory. There's our FAQ everybody. Thanks for watching the show!

Crimson wrote:But such person doesn't exist, so this is not an actual problem.

Slipspace wrote:Let's not. There's no need for hypotheticals here. I deal with what happens in the real world.

I actually know a guy who swears up and down that Ogryns are underpriced, and he's probably going to have a problem if I want to ignore the Ogryn nerf as an obvious typo.

It's really not a hypothetical issue. People with nutty ideas about balance exist. Have you really never played against an opponent whose comments on balance made you glad they're not writing CA?

Well now with a rousing game of Is It A Typo?, you too can experience the frustration of trying to convince fellow amateur hour game developers of your interpretation of what was intended and what wasn't. Start every pick-up game at the hobby store with a negotiation over points values, bathe in the amicable glow of 'Sure, you can have those 20pts back, if I can take an extra squad to compensate', wonder in bewilderment if this guy actually plays the game if he thinks Impaler Cannons needed a points drop, and add a wholly unnecessary tinge of resentment to the gaming experience before any models even hit the table. Buy your copy today!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I think I mentioned a few pages back that perhaps the correction for GSC and Guard stuff would feature in their PA and there's an errata page in Greater Good. Perhaps that is it?

Maybe. It's a really weird procedure though.

Also what about the other errors like Space Wolves FA page or people who aren't interested in buying yet another book to play an army? Did we just get paywalled from receiving the correct points for another product we bought? Is it only the one unit that is wrong or what else needs to be corrected if it is a full page?

I am not passing judgment on a single page listing, simply asking some what ifs, but if they ask player to pay for a second product to update an incorrect first product I think the internet would break.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

It's not that it's an unsolvable problem - it's that a consistent solution isn't being presented.

You accept (assume) that Neophytes are costed incorrectly and assert that anybody playing you would have to let you use them at 5 points each. (Why not 6, or 4?)
But you also imply that Ogryns may also be wrong, but that they are stuck using the CA19 cost.
Surely you should be able to apply the same method of deducing the cost of an Ogryn as you used to pluck the 5 point cost of the Neophyte.

If Neophytes don't use the latest offical points cost which hasn't been FAQd, how come Ogryns do?
If it's just that the Neophyte cost is clearly and error, where is the cut off point for what an error is? Who is desciding/declaring which costs are errors and which are not? (or which are errors worthy of addressing and which are errors to be sucked up?)

Neo cost isn't being "plucked". You use the previous cost. Ogryn's aren't being plucked, either - use the previous cost. Game on.

What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.

Ogryns don't have an extreme cut-off so we think about it a little. Were people complaining about Ogryns previously? No? Then reverse the cost until we know more and be assured there is no risk in doing so. PA might somehow make them "worth" 30, but that book isn't out yet.

This is exactly what any reasonable person should do. However, they really should have had the fix out for this already so we don't even have to go through that whole chart just to decide what the cost of the units really are. It's absolutely lazy they haven't seen to this issue yet and makes me wonder exactly how much of the costs are wrong. Is it so vast an issue they need to take such time to get it fixed ? Can they just not be bothered now that they have sold the product to us ? Neither answer really feels very good. I do say as well not every player is reasonable which makes being reasonable a problem. If we all dealt with reason, we wouldn't have rules lawyers saying somehow an em scrambler prevents you from disembarking from a vehicle too close to a unit. This is all GW problems they need to fix and you can't just always assume the other guy is going to be reasonable.

More and more posts of people being completely incapable of answering BCB's core point. You don't get to decide what's a mistake and what isn't.

And really, you think GW follows a flow-chart like that? AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, the new Psychic Awakening book as an Errata section. 55 point Acolytes are about to go away. Personally I hope they go to 44 points each.

I find the idea of them selling erratas to erratas they already sold us to be in very poor taste.

I'd say though they should make them 54 pts and then watch the heads explode.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I find the idea of them selling erratas to erratas they already sold us to be in very poor taste.

I'd say though they should make them 54 pts and then watch the heads explode.

If the correct points for neophytes are in The Greater Good then we'll know when the reviews drop.

If they are then AAE called it.

Well it'll be good for someone to be right, but it sets a sad precedent to wait for additional releases for erratas like that.

Makes me wonder what the heck we even have the errata/faq pages for if they'll link them just to book drops ? Kinda defeats the purpose of their " living " rules and quick fixes to issues.

Yeah what's the point of ca if they don't even correct the issues it has? Having to buy supplements to get new rules is one thing but having to buy them to correct the mistakes they made in previous books? That's straight up bullgak.

But the errata page may be something completely different. We'll know soon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More and more posts of people being completely incapable of answering BCB's core point. You don't get to decide what's a mistake and what isn't.

And really, you think GW follows a flow-chart like that? AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, the new Psychic Awakening book as an Errata section. 55 point Acolytes are about to go away. Personally I hope they go to 44 points each.

Whether or not GW follows a flow chart is not germane nor is something so simple proper for broad balance decisions. BCB doesn't have a core point that exists in reality as much as you want to pretend like acting as though the options are binary is wise.

I'm still going with how real law works. And it's not the way BCB seems to think it is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules. House rules are, by definition, purely subjective. The only objective measure is to play the game RaW. Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.

Like this.

What is this standard?

The math doesn't matter when it comes to house rules.

Says who? By which governing body?

House rules are, by definition, purely subjective.

Right. I guess nothing matters, because ITC is popular. As is ETC. GW has house rules in their tournaments. Why...that's abject madness according to your standards!

Once you deviate from RaW you're playing with a subjective ruleset so any statistics about effectiveness do not matter.

Except the stats about the TH are using the RAW value. You just can't stand that your strawman doesn't stand up to scrutiny so you made this "rule".

 greatbigtree wrote:
The (painful) part of Dogmatism is that it has an internal logic that is sound. .

No it doesn't. It simply appears coherent and consistent to the adherent, largely by way of wishing it were so. No logic need apply, let alone need to be sound.

People are capable of amazing feats of cognitive dissonance and kept plenty of internally inconsistent 'facts' in their heads. Its a very consistent output of psychological studies.

Daedalus81 dude, let it go. BCB has stopped for now and he'll never concede the point no matter how good an argument anyone makes.

Anyway, I find it interesting that the idea that gw is putting the points correction for gsc neophytes in a book separate from ca is causing (perfectly fine) consternation, but when the new fw books were announced everyone was perfectly fine with gw forcing people with massively overpriced fw units to buy another book to get points fixes. Isn't ca supposed to address the balance of ALL units at the time of publication?