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.

Dogmatists create *internally consistent * logical structures.

I have two decades of a deep, maddening, loving relationship with my wife. For her, I can observe an internal logic to her opinions, convictions, preferences, and general point of view.

It is a different way of prioritizing values. To me, it often creates false binary options which is relevant to the point of view expressed by the Dogmatic view of, “You either follow all the rules, or the rules don’t matter so you’re not playing 40k.”

Different views will disagree on whether or not that is *important*. From a pure logic view, it is accurate to state that if you do not adhere to (all) the rules, you can not make a perfectly consistent judgement of the state of the game.

Is that important? To myself, as a pragmatist, it is not. Because I look at the issue of game balance as being heuristic. It may never be perfect, but if I perceive something as being egregiously incorrect I can deal with it in a few pragmatically effective means.

1: Ask my opponent for permission to adjust the rules (points) for the units or models I wish to use. Pragmatically, if we both agree that we will have a better game for changing the value of the units, then we will do that in this instance and have a better game for it.

2: Avoid the issue, by not taking that unit. I already don’t take models I like because they’re inefficient / not worth it, so if my opponent doesn’t want to agree to points / rule changes I’ll default to the RAW and just not use it.

3: Do I actually want to play this person? Playing against Dogmatists can really sharpen your game for tournament prep where RAW carries the day. But, it could also be unfun if I’m in a more casual state of mind. So make that call at that point.

4: Be a douche and just play with the points I think are fair. In early 8th, I gave myself a 10% penalty on points, in order to create closer, more interesting games. My opponents and I had better games, so that’s what I did behind the scenes to have better games.


In the end, one person asserting that the rest of the world is “doing it wrong” (one of my wife’s favourites ) is just one person. You needn’t change their mind, and it’s unlikely you will due to a differing value structure.

I find, pragmatically speaking, it is usually more efficient to understand Dogmatism so that you can argue in their “language”.

In this case, at the table, negotiate. If you can’t come to an agreement, you don’t play. This is dealing in the absolute that a Dogmatist understands. If you want a game, these are the conditions. You can even call it a win for yourself if I “win”, because I wasn’t playing by the rules.

Then have your game, or don’t. Simple problem, simple solution.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?

Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "

 EnTyme wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
It may just be that they have a hard and fast policy that CA is the vehicle for all pts updates, not FAQs. In which case the pts will all be corrected (hopefully) when CA 2020 is released. Just gotta sit tight til then!

We know that's not the case. GW has made points changes in both Errata and the Big FAQ when necessary. My guess is there were a lot of changes needed, and by the time the document was ready, LVO was coming up, and they decided to wait and see what changes needed to be made based on the results. Their biggest mistake is not communicating. I'm not sure why gaming companies still haven't figured out that radio silence is almost always bad.

Or they compiled a list of corrections but it was so extensive that someone higher up the chain balked at releasing that many rules for "free" and hit the breaks. Now they're either going back through to determine which corrections are most needed so they can release a shorter list or they've given up on the exercise entirely and will just fix it in CA 2020. Afterall, the product lines they're trying to push (*cough*primaris*cough*) are all costed correctly and who's buying Ogryn in 2020 anyway amirite?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'll just note that it's possible for 2 different people to go through your flowchart and wind up in different boxes.

I'll further note that even if they arrive in the same box and conclude that there was a typo, it still doesn't answer the question of what the correct pts cost is supposed to be.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?

Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "

Hey you just stole my line!

Ok I should have said "a lot of people" instead of "everyone". Still the preface to the Munitorum Field Manual says:

"This book is the result of the most comprehensive review of points values for Warhammer 40k to date, incorporating all the feedback we've received from players across the world. "

I call bullgak. Nobody in this comprehensive review complained about fw points costs?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?

Wait, wait, stop the hyperbole train, where was it writ that all people were totally fine with that ? I'm not fine with that at all either. I'm disgruntled about both, though we need to wait and see if the erratas in the book are fixes to the CA. I at least need to know for sure if this is bullgak before I call it such. It does leave me thinking " GW, you got some splanin to do ! "

Hey you just stole my line!

Ok I should have said "a lot of people" instead of "everyone". Still the preface to the Munitorum Field Manual says:

"This book is the result of the most comprehensive review of points values for Warhammer 40k to date, incorporating all the feedback we've received from players across the world. "

I call bullgak. Nobody in this comprehensive review complained about fw points costs?

I agree, that piece of munitorum field manual word vomit was completely false. I mean, the fact that I'm pretty sure no one believes they even take in and process " Feedback from players across the world " especially in regards to point costs or that it is very " comprehensive " is pretty telling in our trust of the company at large. So I'd say, I'm sure some did believe that but I'll end in saying we learned to be hyperbolic from GW, we learned it from watching them.

They just wanted to sell more over priced books just for a point cost, for which they deserve the Bullgak medal of distinction.

 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.

Because typos happen.
How do I know that that 40 pt TH shouldn't actually be a 30 pt TH? All it takes to get either result is hitting the wrong key one way or another.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?

Regarding the FW books specifically, if all they end up doing with them is fixing the points costs, then I doubt people will be OK with them. However, it is known that when the Imperial Armour books were written for 8th they:
A, Were written by the FW rules people, rather than the 40k rules team, which causes some people to have issues with them (as if the 40k team never write anything that's broken... *cough*IronHands*cough*)
B, Were written in a very short timeframe, allegedly due to poor internal communication
C, May have been disrupted by the death of Alan Bligh (though I'm less sure on the timetable there)
D, Haven't been patched (that often) to take into account changes to factions as part of their Codex releases, which can lead to some... odd interactions.

If these new Imperial Armour books mean that the units within can be reviewed, possibly rewritten, be updated in line with the Codex/PA rules, and possibly fix FW factions which don't work at the minute (looking at Corsairs and R&H specifically, with DKOK and Elysians close behind), then it is a win for the game overall.

 Dysartes wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?

Regarding the FW books specifically, if all they end up doing with them is fixing the points costs, then I doubt people will be OK with them. However, it is known that when the Imperial Armour books were written for 8th they:
A, Were written by the FW rules people, rather than the 40k rules team, which causes some people to have issues with them (as if the 40k team never write anything that's broken... *cough*IronHands*cough*)
B, Were written in a very short timeframe, allegedly due to poor internal communication
C, May have been disrupted by the death of Alan Bligh (though I'm less sure on the timetable there)
D, Haven't been patched (that often) to take into account changes to factions as part of their Codex releases, which can lead to some... odd interactions.

If these new Imperial Armour books mean that the units within can be reviewed, possibly rewritten, be updated in line with the Codex/PA rules, and possibly fix FW factions which don't work at the minute (looking at Corsairs and R&H specifically, with DKOK and Elysians close behind), then it is a win for the game overall.

Agreed on all counts. But ca is supposed to balance all units with the rules they have at the time of its publication. So was a fellblade worth 740 points base without wargear when ca2019 was published? And don't even get me started on the stupidity of the mega daemons points....

Frankly it's absurd that we as a community have this discussion.
It was gw that screwed up majorly, not us, gw should've fixed this mess Long ago. They didn't.

The sad truth is, regardless were you stand, the ca points are too innacurate for the pricetag, See the list i postest some pages back, it took me 1h for x ammounts of entries and it was done moreso out of curiosity.

And whilest bcb is nothing less then a dogmatist, he atleast applies his Standard consistently, that'd be more then gw's handling of keywords, which is sad in itself, that one of the most absurd dakkanauts is more consistent then a company selling rules and models.....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

How do you know that the previous cost is the correct cost though? That's just an assumption you've made. Somebody else could equally assume that Neophytes are a bit too good at 5 points and so were supposed to be changed to 6 points; or are inferior to Brood Brothers so should be 4 points. Why is your assumption any better/more reasonable than theirs?
How do we know that GW doesn't actually intend for Ogryns to be their CA19 cost? - it's not as though they haven't had tismy takes on point costs in the past...

Even if we could all follow the flowchart and all agree on every step, that still doesn't actually provide a solution which we can be sure is correct.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What is the cut-off? 1100% is probably a good start.

Ogryns or Swift Claws aren't 1100% changes - so again, what is the cut-off point?

What if points went down? Why would we assume that GW only mistakenly increases points?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

So should we revert all of the increased costs in the book so long as there wasn't widespread complaining about the unit/wargear? If not, why the different standard for some entries?
What if any specific opponant was complaining about Ogryns before CA19? Just screw them? Or don't revert the cost in that specific case? - at which point you can't know the cost of your own unit until you've discussed your opponant's views on their past balance...
Were people actually complaining about Thunder Hammers as opposed to Smash Captains? So revert those too?
If the Ogryn cost in CA19 was intended because PA is going to improve them, then we'd all actually be using the wrong cost by assuming that CA19 is in error - in which case we've actually made the situation worse!

Well error or no error, in the case of Neophytes, for sure GW ment to change their point cost in some way, they would not have listed them in the CA, if they did not envision any changes. And I doubt anyone, aside for maybe the head designer at GW responsible for CA changes, knows what the point costs was suppose to be.


By the way, if the changes are so abovious to people,as they seem to be in the case of the GSC unit or the Ogryns, why doesn't GW just put fix on their face book or their community page. It would take them like 10 min to say, sorry guys we made an error, unit X should cost Y points, we will fix it durning the CA FAQ or spring FAQ, till then play it at Y points.

Apparently the GSC errata section is about their army ambush ability, not fixing their points costs.

55 point Acolytes remain!

Karol wrote:
Well error or no error, in the case of Neophytes, for sure GW ment to change their point cost in some way, they would not have listed them in the CA, if they did not envision any changes.

That's not true though, as they have finally moved into a format where the pamphlet with points includes every model in the game at the time of publication, changes to codex or not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apparently the GSC errata section is about their army ambush ability, not fixing their points costs.

55 point Acolytes remain!

Clearly intended then kek

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apparently the GSC errata section is about their army ambush ability, not fixing their points costs.

55 point Acolytes remain!

You mean neophyte!

Clearly their point cost reflects how effective they are outside of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apparently the GSC errata section is about their army ambush ability, not fixing their points costs.

55 point Acolytes remain!

So back to the waiting game. Honestly I wish they'd just go ahead and release the fething faq so they can just address the most glaringly obvious mistakes and I can quit hoping that the reason for the delay is that they're actually going to do what ca is supposed to do and actually give balanced points to all the available units in the game.

But is it a mistake? Who gets to determ... ok I'll stop.

Yeah, the wait is... awful. I want them to errata my Hierodule's so that they're 150 points cheaper!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But is it a mistake? Who gets to determ... ok I'll stop.

Yeah, the wait is... awful. I want them to errata my Hierodule's so that they're 150 points cheaper!

They won't. We wait for the new fw books. Just like we waited for ca before and faqs before that. Gw has a strange animosity towards fw low.

Unless of course it's "primaris ".

Hopefully enough to can FW.

Can FW?

Oh please...

Seriously man, I don't like some FW options, but plenty are fine, I get you hate all that is 40k because they kill BA but as the song says, let it go.

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

Edit: Ignore this, the techno goblins are at work !

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general. And the crappy rules.

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

"I don't like these, so no one should be able to use them."

Cool stuff.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

No, most of its not too hard to beat.

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

No, most of its not too hard to beat.

You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.

I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

No, most of its not too hard to beat.

You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.

I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.

He has no answer and further will say they should remove blood angels. Just wait and see.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

No, most of its not too hard to beat.

You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.

I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.

I think GW should have killed off BA with the Nids. They missed a grand opportunity to actually make a meaningful change to the setting.

I got off to a bad start with FW in 5th, and this gak with the chappy dreads and leviathan dreads are a like a flash back. Marines don't need 83 dreads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hopefully enough to can FW.

What is your problem with fw? If you don't like the models, fine, but don't force your bad taste on others. If other players want to use fw they should be free to.

Is it because it's something else that makes it hard for you to win with your army of boring cannibals?

No, just sick of their units in general.

Gee that's a nuanced answer. Sick of how they look? Their rules? The fact that it's something else, along with hordes and not getting two victory points for every gretchin you kill that prevents you from winning?

And if you are sick of them how does that justify removing them as an option for everyone else?

No, most of its not too hard to beat.

You still haven't answered the question as to why you think fw should be removed other than yourself not liking the units.

I don't like Blood Angels. That doesn't make me want them removed from the game. It just makes me enjoy killing them more.

He has no answer and further will say they should remove blood angels. Just wait and see.

Why yes. The game needs fewer choices imo. Would help a lot with balance.