whispersofblood

Which is why my expanded explaination of the position included the increased impact of additional rules. But fundamentally the underlying issue of cost becomes relevant. 1 CP to create situation which decreases the detriments of variance in large pools, while retaining the benefit of variance vs. 1 CP for improved success rate + variance across a small pool(something like 45% of the original pool of a 3+/3+ profile). This also explains why boosting a 3+ to a 2+ is "better value" than a 4+ to a 3+ while the straight probable gains for spend remains the same, the room for variance in the actual performance undermines the particular gains from the 1 CP spend. Think of it this way; you roll 12 dice on a 4+ and roll 6 success, but when you check your '3' you would have only gained 1 additional success because the majority of the failures (of which there were a statistically average amount) were '1's, and '2's. The benefit you would have gained is small for your spend, despite appearing average in the instant. The value isn't in the particular gains (+1 to hit, -1 SV) it's in the relative difference in the effect of the spend. This relative difference matters in game, because dice rolls are instantaneous and not statistical averages. This generally isn't relevant because we haven't run into magnitude of failure dice rolls, so we haven't needed to consider them. As such averages have been a suffeciently deep consideration. Now we have an on demand ability to turn marginal failure into success, which means we have to consider how the variation of specific values before we can acertain the value of the ability/spend. There will be situations where even attacking second you will net a larger advantage by going All out Attack yourself rather than All out Defence based on the deeper probabilities. Wait until we start having conversations about the fluxuation on the value of a on CP across phases and factions.

Ah I get the disconnect, perhaps "simple" was an understatement. It's more akin to economics, than arithmetic. The conversation was about influence. And why All out Attack feels more impactful than All out Defence. My explanation kinda meandered, probably because I'm doing multiple things at once. The difference is the value each command ability beings to a player. All out Attack allows a player to create situations where they can impact the chance to benefit from variance, particularly because they are upstream. All out Defence allows for a player to decrease the odds of failure down stream but because the influence is on only a few pools of dice it has consequently less influence on the outcome. Because they have same cost the same for differing amounts of influence on any given situation the resulting value is different. This effect becomes more pronounced the more rules you add in, or the more you improve the underlying impact (short hand for the relationship between chance for success+amount of dmg) for an individual attack.

It's not cummulative, while calculating averages we are actually calculating the chance of a single attack on a profile being successful, and then imply the multiplication required for the profile. But that isn't how it works in actuality. Each step is a new set of likelihoods, and the number of dice rolled creates a weighted value to any modifications to a "successful roll". So a 16% increase in successes on 30 dice. And a 16% decrease in success on 6 dice aren't symmetrical in influence to how much damage a unit takes generally speaking. And while we can find fringe cases where a combination of wound characteristic, rend value, save characteristic, and damage value create equilibrium. When deciding *influence* you want always get the most value by targetting upstream. Especially because the result is removing models you also want in increase the number of steps where you can benefit from outliers, particularly when you can positively influence the appearance of negative outliers. Getting more hits than you should, should result in more damage per die. A fractional gain on a small pool statistically has a high chance of resulting in *no* change in outcome. Now that isn't how we feel about the save roll, but that is kind of hear nor there. That's before you figure out what the cost of each action is. This is functionally the same methodology people have used to intutuited that Rend -1 is probably has the lowest value to a player.

I'm not an anything player, or should we get into a pissing contest counting our event appearances and factions appearances? I can assure you my nether regions are suffeciently swoll. It's simple math, bonuses to save influence the smallest pool of dice and therefore have the lowest influence on outcomes.

The KoS is a bit of an aspirational beatstick, 6s to hit being an additional hit, and 6s to wound causing MWs means flaming weapon at the end of the stack could be quite impressive. But it's not something to plan off of.

I think the real lack of symmetry is due to the fact that saves rolls are the least influencial roll. All Out Attack influences the full stack, All out Attack the bottom of the stack . Realistically All out Defence should be -1 to hit rolls or - 1 A to a minimum of 1 to be as beneficial, or relevant, alternatively a ward would have been interesting.

The problem is Rend hits disproportionately, across match ups. D3 MWs is D3 MWs it's easy to map out the predicted dmg of the model applying it, and less variable when it's scaled on something like a units attacks. Rend is a utility, meaning how much is beneficial completely changes depending on the specific context. So it's +/- on the game completely changes depending on the local popularity of factions. When combined with the availability of invulnerable saves in 40k AP proliferation creates very drastic haves and havenots. Its one of I believe the best designed aspects of LRL. Everyone no matter what faction you play has some idea how much dmg to expect from a LRL unit. And the LRL player knows as well. Which means the decision making can move from a basic reactive mathmatical tactical choice. To a high strategic level choice, where you are weighing up if the dmg is worth it. In exchange LRL give up the any real possibility of effeciently amassing high damage in any one place. So they do about 9-12 dmg for about 150 of combat dmg, and 6-7 for 150 pts of shooting dmg full stop. The opposite would be something like a bunch of stabbas with fanatics. It's creates consistency via volume, and the fanatics increase variance which makes the unit a tactical problem. If you take a minute to think about it, it makes a game against LRL feel very different from a game against a less elite faction. Now some people would say that feel is NPE. I suggest it's the very variety we want from the game. As the game designer what you want to control for is effectiveness. So MWs and Rend can be different, situational better or worse, but you want to keep their ability to effect them game relatively close. So LRL aren't clearing the board in a storm of glowing Pikes, and Chaos Warriors aren't cleaving their way through all unit types with two handed weapons. And, you can push the boundaries of what is already accepted with each and see where it goes. For example if Vanari could get +1 A it would probably be too much.

There is a distinction between frequency and volume though. Just because many factions can generate MWs doesn't mean there is "a lot" of MW being produced in a standard match. In fact every faction should be able to generate MWs it's important mechanic which allows for the scaling of saves across unit types and factions.

I think we should keep in mind that people are only just gaining experience with the tools available. Like any edition change there is an early meta, which is usually the application of the most obvious stuff. In 8th edition it was smashing steadfast hordes into each other, eventually we got better tools via armybooks and the game envolved into something unrecognizable. Right now I think hero monsters are the most obvious play. But, I predict that to change in the not too distance future as armies are built to take advantage of the rest of the ruleset.

I actually think the GSG and FEC have similar solutions. It involves a lot of screens, redeploy, unorthodox units or using existing units in unorthodox ways. I think I might have some ideas but I'd have to spend some time with the books, and there is a might backlog.

Forget it, I suddenly remember why I don't talk shop with laymen.

There is a legal standard for "anti-customer" and GW is a long way away from that.

There is a lot more to the Blood Angels paint scheme, than red armour... Like you don't strength the argument by reducing it to an absurd simplification.

I don't think that is the argument. I think more accurately the argument being put forward is the specific scheme Primary: Gold, Secondary: God, Tertiary: Blue and white hammer iconography communicates something very specific to the viewer. And, that care should be taken to distinguish your models if that isn't what you are trying to communicate, given the painter has absolute control of their scheme. The original questions is not of a general nature, so it doesn't make sense to apply the answer generally.

You wouldn't say that if you had ever read a judgement 🤣. Words are often the most confusing form of communication. As someone from one English speaking country who moved to another I have lots of examples of this. This conversation does remind me of a dissertation I read about the morality and practicality of plain clothes officers. The thesis being the whole point of plain clothes was obscuring the truth to catch crime rather than being visible and preventing crime. It was an interesting read, but I suppose not really that relevant beyond the fact that uniforms are communication, that is the whole reason these faction have colour schemes after all. If the words and sights are at cross purpose one can expect confusion. And, given that when painting you have absolute control I think it's ok for each person to make an effort to minimize that risk. But, maybe I'm over stepping?

Thankfully most events have TOs who are the ultimate authority and already determine "reasonableness". But in law reasonable basically is short hand for the relevant authority has room for discretion. Which I think the faq answers leaves. In a lot of cases that are being brought up a TO isn't going to rule against them. And if the TO is a "fascist" well then you have to decide if complying is worth it for you as an individual. But I don't really have a horse in this fight even when I like a scheme I can't bring myself to do it, and I'm so used to Whfb I often don't even care what's in my opponent's list specifically. And, this has been a rule at Warhammer World events, and to get on Warhammer Live for a long time already so I'm pretty sure It's reached peak penetration.

I wouldn't exactly articulate it that way. Player B is reasonably reacting to what Player A is reasonably communicating. If that makes sense? Im doing a lot of public law at the moment so maybe I'm just in a particular state of mind about powers and responsibilities 🤔 I'd put the responsibility on Player A to reseasonable distinguish the colour scheme, and if they have done so we can then start asking questions of Player B.

Great army! I've been meaning to ask you actually you were using a unit of 10 Dawnriders to mix results earlier. Had you tried going to 15 to achieve the breakthrough power you were looking for? I played it only once on TTS and it was pretty effective, but it requires a lot of structural support in the list (Levitate and Speed of Hysh available). And I'm unsure if it's worth the investment IRL.

Yeah I've been really thinking about FEC and OBR as of late. I think people who are dedicated to FEC are going to need to completely rethink how they build armies for this edition. And for OBR I think they are fine at the game, they just are like TK were in WHFB playing a completely different game to the rest of us. I think we might see more from them once the excitement from the new rules becomes more normal and people are looking to play something different.

Stretching it a bit yeah? Subfactions have specific colour schemes. Even to the particular paint. They can be generalized to a shade of colour, however, they do have specific details which both of you have pointed out you don't adhere to. Now this is where two developed or developing human beings can finish the communication the paint scheme started. "Yeah my SCE look "similar" to stormhost xyc, but they clearly are not, because ABC, and I'm playing them as stormhost 123. See Silver accents instead of gold, yellow instead of blue, etc etc. The language here doesn't say similar schemes should be applied as if they are specific schemes. Like the faq answers effectively says subfaction colour schemes are a specific thing and as such mean something. The nature of specificity is that it excludes things not of that thing. Now if you take the ****** most people will say fine and form an opinion about you internally but that is like anything else in life.

I'm a bit shocked this is the most controversial faq answer the logic seems pretty clear. How you paint your models regardless of whether you intend it or not communicates something to the person standing across from you. The FAQ references when the colours you've chosen specifically communicate something that is not true. For example if your models look like Hammers of Sigmar a reasonable person would assume they are Hammers of Sigmar, so it would not be sporting to say that are Anvils of the Heldenhammer. What people seem to then be assuming is also true is the counter factual. Where if my army doesn't look like something that it can't be that thing. Which the battletomes to my knowledge address giving room for individual paint schemes to use specific sub-factions. The individual with the Living City army for example would be fine. As a) it couldn't be anything else besides living city. And b) not being something, is not the same as, not being something else, but being something else. Anyway this is super boring, paint your models how you'd like but appreciate you might constrain yourself in the future from using the "best" rules.

That depends. They aren't matched play legal. But otherwise they are available to be taken otherwise for free.

I think if a player were to lean into the alarith element than a Spirit of the Mountain is good. Avalenor seems far too expensive for its MV characteristic. It doesn't matter how many bonuses a unit recieves for getting charged unless it's invulnerable to damage letting you opponent decide what fights your unit is poor strategically. So low movement is a serious problem. Especially at over 400 points. But I can see 10 Stoneguard, Spirit of the Mountain and 1 stonemage being a decent part of any army.

Played two games with HoS and against LRL. 29 Chaos warriors, Halberds + shields backed with Curse are a ferocious unit. The battleplans were interesting and gave a good static perspective to maneuver around. Battle Tactics made the choices available challenging and engaging. Even though I had a firm grip on the flow of the game it ended 16-19 in the first match and if my opponent had made some different decision could have been even closer. The game has a very board game feel, reminded me of playing economy games like Porto Rico, or Agricola.

RE Chaos Knights; Yeah there main benefit is they are cheap, like really cheap. And you can optimize their output without spending more points which is key to their price being low. They are good at hunting units that will out maneuver your slower infantry. But, you need to have the resources around to make them land. Lances, and All out Attack make good work killing non-hero monsters, and other cavalry. With 2" reach they do it on a pretty small frontage as well. But I wouldn't invest anything beyond that. Their shields mean you don't need to really worry too much about them as you can let them take MW spells/shooting and just accept the damage they receive in exchange for DP. But, yeah they are there to trade their lives for tactical considerations. In godseekers they have +2 to charge rolls as well, which just gives more free benefits.