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.

SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything.

It would improve verisimilitude, and that's a fact, not an opinion.

Verisimilitude being better is an opinion, true. But saying "verisimilitude isn't better" is a much different claim to saying "bringing back AV won't improve anything". The former is an opinion, the latter is just wrong.

Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?

SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.

Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?

SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?

Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.

Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?

Why would I when there are still people complaining about the loss of AV?

SecondTime wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I don't miss av. Sorry that you do. I dont think bringing it back would improve anything. This is a game where i spent months tripointing every match just to survive shooting phases. Compared to that absursity, the av to toughness switch just doesnt register for me.

Honest question Martel, are you ever gonna stop complaining about tripointing or are we in it forever?

Why would I when there are still people complaining about the loss of AV?

Maybe you would find allies rather than foes in those people if you cared as much about the verisimilitude for the game's other aspects as you do for the aspects that affect your army. I also think tripointing is a silly and dull mechanic, and I think the same thing about the way Fiends force only a single enemy model to hit them in 9th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?

Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)

Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Okay it improves detail. Is that worthwhile though?

Detail is not a synonym for verisimilitude but I appreciate how hard you're struggling to avoid having to admit you just don't care if the game is true to its background or not (except when it applies to YOUR army, after all, it's completely unbelievable that the BA would ever tripoint! Death company are too insane for such shenangians!)

Oh yes such the struggle. Sorry I misconstrued your fancy word.

Apology accepted; I still haven't seen any real rebuttal as to why we shouldn't bring AV back though.

I already said I don't care. I'm not trying say we shouldn't. I just don't think its the panacea you think it is. There was OP units and trash under AV and we still have OP units and trash under the toughness scheme. I don't think my predators are hitting the table again either way, so it makes no difference to me. I would have thought it would have been easier for GW to cost stuff without having the monster/vehicle paradigm, but they never fail to disappoint with their mathematical acumen.

And AV would bring back the problem of why can I one shot a landraider (regardless of likelihood), but not head shot a carnifex or riptide.

SecondTime wrote:
I already said I don't care. I'm not trying say we shouldn't. I just don't think its the panacea you think it is. There was OP units and trash under AV and we still have OP units and trash under the toughness scheme. I don't think my predators are hitting the table again either way, so it makes no difference to me. I would have thought it would have been easier for GW to cost stuff without having the monster/vehicle paradigm, but they never fail to disappoint with their mathematical acumen.

I don't ever think I claimed it would be a panacea for anything. I think that it would improve verisimilitude to bring back, and can be implemented in a way as to avoid arguments.

Therefore, on the "list of things GW has done right" one can include AV by certain criteria and certain scoping conditions (e.g. AV was implemented well but the pivoting mechanics ruined it), and not automatically be wrong, despite your attempts to assert thusly:

SecondTime wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
AV mechanic was good and I think the old Armor saves were too. Which probably means we can’t say it’s something GW does right since they removed them

The glaring disparities between monsters and vehicles was too large. Also, vehicle shaken was too small of a penalty for a penetrations and explodes was too large of a reward.

Sure, I guess. But I could see a lot of people saying that unifying the system was also something they did correctly. Seems like a wash to me.

SecondTime wrote:
Sure, I guess. But I could see a lot of people saying that unifying the system was also something they did correctly. Seems like a wash to me.

You could, but I would have to ask them for their evidence. It's a discussion I'm willing to have whenever I've got the time.

Clearly, it's a discussion you're not willing to engage in (since you're smokescreening your thoughts behind 'well, I can possibly conceive of someone who might actually argue that unifying the system is a correct thing, probably'), but I'm willing regardless.

If it seems like a wash to you, when one side can show clear improvement (the pro-AV side) and the other side cannot (removing AV has not meaningfully improved the game) then perhaps you're not as unbiased as you think.

It's not a smokescreen. I already listed something that should have been an advantage, but wasn't. And yes, it seems like a wash to me. If you just want me to agree with you, I can do that too.

SecondTime wrote:
It's not a smokescreen. I already listed something that should have been an advantage, but wasn't. And yes, it seems like a wash to me. If you just want me to agree with you, I can do that too.

That's how agitating for change works (or should work). An agitator (me in this case) tries to convince people that their proposed change is correct and good. If you are unconvinced, then the problem could be:
1) There is some flaw in my ideas or point that makes a rational thinker unconvinced
or
2) You cannot be convinced due to bias/an unwillingness to follow the argument to its natural conclusion.
or
3) Another option offers a better or more rational alternative.
or
4) You just don't care.

We can rule out 4, since you jumped into the thread about AV to explain why you think it is bad. Clearly you care.
We can rule out 1, since you haven't found a flaw (or at least not one I haven't addressed) that I can clearly identify and address (part of the process is me improving and changing my own opinions and arguments, I'd like to know if one exists).
We can rule out 3, as no better or more rational alternative has been demonstrated to exist.

So... 2?

Mission cards.

I don't think AV is bad. Sure, bring it back. I just know for a fact that many other players do think it was bad. I don't have their evidence, and they don't need evidence to hold that opinion for better or for worse. People aren't always rational. You might think they have bad reasons, but that doesn't change their purchasing decisions.

As for the #3, I still think the unified system could have brought about easier costing. Just because it didn't, doesn't mean it didn't lower the bar.

I think the damage table was worse than AV myself.

Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.

Simple question with a simple answer:

Good: Quality of Models
Bad: Game Design
Ugly: Pricing

 Tokhuah wrote:
Simple question with a simple answer:

Good: Quality of Models
Bad: Game Design
Ugly: Pricing

Exalted.

SecondTime wrote:
Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.

I think the primary motivation was to make the game design easier; i.e. laziness (or a recognition of incompetence). I think the other reason might be that they've lost the plot a bit on how the narrative/setting informs the game design, and so such changes have no drawbacks. (If one no longer cares about how "true to the setting" the game is, then restricting oneself to try to be true to the setting is obviously silly).

I'm not sure GW gives one flying feth about negative feedback from 3rd-5th editions. They may have cared about negative feedback from 7th, but the way to fix that could've (and should've) been to carefully examine the flaws behind the feedback and then iteratively improve, rather than throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and then find a new baby to put in the filthy water.

You're right, the problem is GW. Not the AV system. So let's bring back something that's a not unreasonable concession to verisimilitude and remove the vehicles-as-wounds-pinatas mechanic, since it doesn't actually solve any problems.

Have to agree that, at least for me, the issue wasn't with AV itself, but rather with some of the rules surrounding AV. I think that if you fixed the damage table so that you weren't stun-locking vehicles for entire games (because that was the most fun-killing mechanic ever), and brought back vehicle firing arcs, you could make a real case for using AV. Would go a long way towards fixing some of the issues we currently have with some heavy weapons being replaced by mass-plasma guns, etc. and bring back the need for legitimate anti-tank. It could force some interesting decision making in list building imo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Why do YOU think GW got rid of it if its so superior? I think negative feedback from a lot players about the vehicle rules were one of the motivations. Not the sole motivation, but one of several.

I think the primary motivation was to make the game design easier; i.e. laziness (or a recognition of incompetence).

I'm not sure GW gives one flying feth about negative feedback from 3rd-5th editions. They may have cared about negative feedback from 7th, but the way to fix that could've (and should've) been to carefully examine the flaws behind the feedback and then iteratively improve, rather than throw the baby out, keep the bathwater, and then find a new baby to put in the filthy water.

Making game design easier might be worth the trade off. Might. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it the final word. I can see the argument that no matter how simple they make it we still get stuff like eradicators, though. Given their sales numbers, something must have gone right I guess.

SecondTime wrote:
Making game design easier might be worth the trade off. Might. Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it the final word. I can see the argument that no matter how simple they make it we still get stuff like eradicators, though. Given their sales numbers, something must have gone right I guess.

I would have to ask for evidence that making game design easier actually created any improvements in the game design. I can point to increased verisimilitude as a measurable improvement WITH AV, so someone would have to demonstrate an equally-measurable improvement without it.

Sales numbers aren't really that, as "whether or not a game has armor values on its tanks" is so far removed from why or why not it might sell well that even bringing it up strikes me as reaching.

Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right". It was a different way for them to screw things up.

SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".

Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...

actually, that could be argued as a thing they did right, or at least tried to. Throughout 8th, changes that showed up in FAQs and Chapter Approved seemed to be attempts to address ongoing problems in the game, so that's neat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".

Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...

I don't think that's how GW works at all. Only CA appears to be iterative.

SecondTime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Maybe. Well, sorry they got rid of AV for you. I still can't say GW implemented AV well enough for me personally to consider it as "right".

Yes, but it could be implemented better. Doing away with it completely is a worse decision than iteratively improving it (provided you're consciously and deliberately considering and iterating improvements, which I think GW wasn't really doing).

Ironically, GW got rid of AV immediately before an edition where they finally decided to have a deliberate process to adjust the rules...

I don't think that's how GW works at all. Only CA appears to be iterative.

I agree they didn't used to do deliberate iteration. I think they tried to in 8th, and for 9th it remains to be seen but I expect the trend to continue.

They haven't issued errata for eradicators yet. I'm very skeptical. The marine boner is too strong now, I think.

SecondTime wrote:
They haven't issued errata for eradicators yet. I'm very skeptical. The marine boner is too strong now, I think.

It's hard to say for sure. I think one of the greatest challenges in an iterative process is to avoid changing things TOO much, because then you don't get much examination of the problem.
GW's mistake with Eradicators might be that Eradicators are super overpowered and should be nerfed, or it might be a consequence of a much graver error on GW's part: not releasing the codexes all at once.

Eradicators in their current state might be fine in some conceivable future of 9th - but tweak a few variables of that future universe and suddenly they remain horrendously overpowered, or get even more oppressive. If GW's intent is that "Eradicators will be fine when we see the whole design paradigm of 9th", then their flaw is to place Eradicators designed for that paradigm into the box with all the 8th edition kiddies, rather than the Eradicators themselves requiring nerfing in the long run.

If this is indeed the case, the fixes are to:
1) Release all the 9th edition material at once, so some armies aren't forced to play with legacy rules against the new design paradigm
or
2) Release 9th Edition codexes with certain design paradigm features turned off if playing against an 8th edition book. (this one is so difficult to execute that I would recommend the 1st if someone asked me which without even mentioning the second).

I think they tested them at their current price, noticed that melta was awful as a single shot weapon in 8th/9th, tacked on the extra shot and called it done.

Just like they remade the Wraithknight a while ago and then just didn't change points in response. Rumor has it that marketing told them not to, but that was under Kirby.

SecondTime wrote:
I think they tested them at their current price, noticed that melta was awful as a single shot weapon in 8th/9th, tacked on the extra shot and called it done.

Just like they remade the Wraithknight a while ago and then just didn't change points in response. Rumor has it that marketing told them not to, but that was under Kirby.

Well, any design process that makes willy-nilly changes without further considering the impact (or while being told to ignore it, whatever the case) will always suffer whether or not it has AV, and whether or not it is iterative. If GW does not realize this, then we should continue to agitate for change (if we care) or just stop worrying about it and go find something fine to do (if we don't).