51 replies to this topic

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

Come on, C-4, you can do it! Don't blow up on yourself!

I'm going for C-4, as stated, because I've felt quite restricted by the 10 and 10 limitations imposed by the current Vanilla Codex. It means you're taking five marines for no other reason than a special and heavy weapon. And you're doing this all the time. I don't want this happening to the Unforgiven codex.

Edited by Chapter Master Ignis Domus, 18 February 2011 - 08:55 PM.

[Isiah]

A few of you guys in here need to grow up VERY FAST!!

Any more off-topic discussion will just be stripped out. Furthermore, the topic will risk being closed, meaning the vote process binned and no Troops choice resolution for your 'new' Codex...

...and you'll only have yourselves to blame.



I've never seen such rubbish churned up over a simple board vote. If you don't want to vote then don't, but please don't spoil things for others. What makes it worse is that it's belittling the effort of Gilly his team to keep the whole thing on the rails. But I advise those of you on the decision-making team to take a step back from getting sucked into this puerile arguing.

I should remind you all that the process method itself isn't the thing that is being voted on here nor is it up for discussion. We are voting on the choices displayed at the top of the topic !! So please post accordingly.

All further posts in ALL these new codex development topics are going to need to shape up bigtime – as I'm getting pretty fed up with the shannanigans of a few rotten apples in the pile.

I suggest some of you take a look again at the forum rules, measure yourselves by those requirements and ensure that you either:

• Post accordingly or:
• Go play somewhere else.



Cheers
I

Edited by Isiah, 18 February 2011 - 09:30 PM.

[Steel Company]

I've voted, after fallowing what has been going on, and I stand by my choices. If I have more time in the near future (buying a house and moving takes a lot of time >.>) I will like to contribute to the later stages of the Codex Unforgiven.

[FerociousBeast]

27 voters! People are coming out of the woodwork.

Voted as well

I worry that some options are splitting their vote. For example options 4 and 6 are quite similar, and supporters of one may consider the other a "close second". Is it worth having a runoff vote?

I think it's worth considering having runoff votes until one option for each enjoys a 51+% majority. Might not be good for morale if one option with 33% approval ends up taking the pie.

That said, "Goooo 33%! Get bigger!" Hopefully my ambiguous phrasing won't coerce anyone into voting against their will.

[Isiah]

Gilly can make up his mind if he wants run off votes. Let's see what the results are before deciding what to do next.

[pueriexdeus]

I'm confused why there are only the two As per Codex options. I know I mentioned a third, hmmm lets see,,, oh ya C:DA.

Are people really voting based on a 3 point Storm Bolter?

[Octavulg]

And drop pods.

Frankly, I'd say not doing a runoff if something doesn't have a majority is something that would need to be explained. Especially with the way the results look right now, to be frank.

[Grand Master Neo]

A few of you guys in here need to grow up VERY FAST!!

Any more off-topic discussion will just be stripped out. Furthermore, the topic will risk being closed, meaning the vote process binned and no Troops choice resolution for your 'new' Codex...

...and you'll only have yourselves to blame.



I've never seen such rubbish churned up over a simple board vote. If you don't want to vote then don't, but please don't spoil things for others. What makes it worse is that it's belittling the effort of Gilly his team to keep the whole thing on the rails. But I advise those of you on the decision-making team to take a step back from getting sucked into this puerile arguing.

I should remind you all that the process method itself isn't the thing that is being voted on here nor is it up for discussion. We are voting on the choices displayed at the top of the topic !! So please post accordingly.

All further posts in ALL these new codex development topics are going to need to shape up bigtime – as I'm getting pretty fed up with the shannanigans of a few rotten apples in the pile.

I suggest some of you take a look again at the forum rules, measure yourselves by those requirements and ensure that you either:

• Post accordingly or:
• Go play somewhere else.



Cheers
I

this is the whole reason i have kept quiet during this stage so far

there seems to be too much arguing based on non-sensical and purial points. i have a few thingsto contribute as discussed in othr threads but unfortunately have not had the time to follow through with them as yet (getting divorced, sellin a house, looking after a kid and planning a new wedding for when the divorce is fialised on top of working 50-60 hour weeks really does take its toll on other commitments)

[shabbadoo]

I was the 9th voter. That's it.

[Xyon]

I voted, but you didnt have an option I would have liked to see, 1 heavy/special at 5 men, and an additional heavy weapon at 10, without the option for an additional special. Wolfs have their two special, I don't think we need two special, two heavy is what I think would be distinct.

[Brother_Darius]

I expected some close votes, but not for both 2.1 and 2.2 and all of 3.1 - 3.6 to be so evenly split

[Brother_Darius]

Been looking at vote #'s to see if any combinations might come up, or maybe some compromises might reveal themselves for possible devotes if Gilly thinks its appropriate. I had to redo may numbers as when I first calculated there was a complete three way tie at eight each in 3.,1 3.4, 3.6. There has been a recent 3.1 surge

Its interesting to note that in the Unyielding discussion that 21 different people partook in the discussion. 26 people voted in the unyielding poll. For the Tac squad discussion, again 21 diff people commented, however more voted. To date we now have 35 people who have voted and 3 more who abstained.

Of the 35 who voted;

17/35 voted in no option for duplicates, only 1SW and 1HW total (3.1 + 3.2)
18/35 voted for the possibikty of duplicates, not just (1/1) maybe (2/0 or 0/2) vote 3.4, 3.5, 3.6

11/35 voted that DA should not have options avail before other chapters, only at 10 troops total (3.1)
24/35 voted DA should have it earlier, at 5 men (3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6)


Out of those 24 who voted for early access;
22/24 approved of SW early access (3.2, 3.4, 3,6)
10/24 approved of HW early access (3.5, 3.6)


Feel free to add your own observations if I've missed any. Regarding the Vt Sgt vote. That's pretty straight up even

Edited by Brother_Darius, 21 February 2011 - 01:25 AM.

[Octavulg]

I'd say the best thing to do would be break it down into two votes: one on when you get access to weapons and one on what weapon combinations are allowed. Discuss the pros and cons of each possible combination fully (which did not happen last time).

The Vet Sergeant vote looks even, but I suspect the "No Vet Sergeant" people would prefer limited numbers to unlimited.

[Xyon]

Personally, for the vet sgt discussion, I think a deathwing upgrade should be available, I dont think it should allow access to any more wargear, as I think a greater amount of wargear should be avialable for the sgt to begin with. I do think having it add a special rule to the unit would be fine though.

[Brother_Darius]

More votes, odds have stayed pretty close so far. What has been interesting to me recently has been to see some of the recent diverse opinions.

I scroll down to look at the votes and I see a jump in 2.3 and I think. "Oh, this guy is conservative". Then when I look at the loadout votes, I see jumps in 3.4, or 3.6

Then another time I'll see jumps in in 2.2 and think. 'This guy is liberals then I see the jump in 3.1 or 3.2

I think that guys are looking at each thing individually which is good INTO


New #'s

The Unyielding discussion that 21 different people partook in the discussion. 26 people voted in the unyielding poll.
The Tac squad discussion, again 21 diff people commented, however more voted. To date we now have 41 people who have voted.

Of the 41 who voted;

20/41 voted for no option for duplicates, only 1SW and 1HW total (3.1 + 3.2)
21/41 voted for the possiblity of duplicates, not just (1/1) maybe (2/0 or 0/2) vote 3.4, 3.5, 3.6

13/41 voted that DA should not have options avail before other chapters, only at 10 troops total (3.1)
28/41 voted DA should have it earlier, at 5 men (3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6)


Out of those 28 who voted for early access;
25/28 approved of SW early access (3.2, 3.4, 3,6)
12/28 approved of HW early access (3.5, 3.6)

Edited by Brother_Darius, 21 February 2011 - 06:25 PM.

[Brother_Darius]

Regarding the Vt Sgt vote. Option two may need to be fleshed out a little. To read it, it indicates that there may be wargear options, thee may not. There may be USR upgrades, there may not.

What if we made the Sgt a two step process similar to what it was in 3rd edition? At the first step the Sgt becomes a DW Sgt. This conveys no USR but does grant access to addition wargear that has a DA feel to them. (Suppressors, Relic Blades, Teleport homers, Auxspecs, etc...) Then at an additional upgrade the DW Sgt becomes a Inner Council member which does offer the USR. Having to make two separate upgrades would make an all fearless army cost prohibitive. However by allow the first upgrade to only grant wargear, it also does allow a greater representation of the leadership throughout the Greening, without it having an over balancing influence.

[Gillyfish]

Okay, I shall leave the poll open for a few more hours. I shall close it tomorrow morning (British time), so you have until then.

I'll see what the votes are before deciding upon any break outs. I'm initially inclined to pencil the winners in to the tracking thread and then see whether we need to change them post-playtesting or once we have more meat on the bones. In other words, move on to other areas of debate and then come back if necessary.

[Brother_Darius]

Is there a rush. Shouldn't we at least attempt some compromise options first?

I mean in numbs 2.2 we don't even know what were implementing. It was well defines prior but got made pretty innocuous right before. I mean it may or may not give wargear? It may or may not give a USR? What exactly did little over 1/3 of people agree to there? That Sgt should not be unlimited? But what else?

[FerociousBeast]

Assuming no drastic changes between now and when the polls close, Question 1 and Question 2 are pretty clear. Question 1 has a clear winner, and while Question 2 does not, it is highly probable that the majority of those who voted for no Deathwing sergeant at all would choose limited numbers of sergeants if they were forced to choose between the other two options.

However, Question 3, which really is the most important question on the table, is not so clear. Right now, it is evenly divided (21 to 21) between those who want to follow an official codex's precedent and those who want to do something entirely new. It is in no way definite that the current winner, option 1, would win a follow up election against one of the other non-codex ideas. In fact, I find it doubtful.

Therefore, if we take Question 3's winner at face value, we could very possibly end up with an option that does not enjoy popular support at all.

I voted for Question 3 Option 1, and I state again that I think it would be a great--perhaps even critical--mistake not to go with it, but I think we need to analyze the results of this election more carefully before drawing any definite conclusions from it.

[con-fusion]

There is nothing wrong with the C:SM5 Tac Squad. They are effective units that can be used in a number of different ways. I would be just fine with that version and no DW Sergeants. In fact (except for replacing Combat Tactics with Stubborn, the drop pod fix, and either adding one DA signature weapon to the mix or recosting one such weapon to be cheaper... not necessarily the storm bolter as in C:BA5), that is what I actually expect GW will do.

Doing something different is not inherently bad. I have proposed a number of very different options myself (many of which I did not support but thought should be talked about). However, the fluff does not support something so far off from the C:SM5 standard (at least in appearance), so we should limit ourselves to subtle differences (unless we are trying to take the Unforgiven in a completely new direction).

Subtle differences, like a different weapon mix or DW Sergeants, cannot in and of themselves be critical mistakes that will ruin the entire project. But, they must be paid for in order to maintain both internal (squad) and external (army list) balance. Want a special weapon in a Tac Squad at five marines? The trade off has to be something like more limited weapon options or recosting existing weapons to make it so the Tac Squad does not get free special and heavy weapons. Want to add a plasma cannon? Same thing. More options equals more flexibility. In 40k 5th ed, flexibility comes at a steep premium.

I am all for closing this thread tomorrow morning (British time), and going with whichever options have garnered the most votes. The people who wanted something different should have worked harder to draw more voters to their views.

However, in the future, it might be best to wait on calling a vote until we can narrow things down to three options for any single issue.

Edited by con-fusion, 23 February 2011 - 04:26 PM.

[Gillyfish]

However, in the future, it might be best to wait on calling a vote until we can narrow things down to three options for any single issue.

You may be right. I guess we'll see how things go. In an ideal world of course, everyone will agree and we won't need to vote at all!!

[con-fusion]

However, in the future, it might be best to wait on calling a vote until we can narrow things down to three options for any single issue.

You may be right. I guess we'll see how things go. In an ideal world of course, everyone will agree and we won't need to vote at all!!

I look forward to the coming utopia.

[Brother_Darius]

While Question 2 does not have a clear winner, it is highly probable that the majority of those who voted for no Deathwing sergeant at all would choose limited numbers of sergeants if they were forced to choose between the other two options.

While I generally agree with the first part, depending on how option 2 is further defined not everyone would choose option #2. That was the very reason for changing option #2 to such an innocuous description. It was stated that people feared that if they listed the option as an elite choice people might vote for option #3 instead

[Brother_Darius]

However, in the future, it might be best to wait on calling a vote until we can narrow things down to three options for any single issue.

You may be right. I guess we'll see how things go. In an ideal world of course, everyone will agree and we won't need to vote at all!!

I believe that octovulg had originally proposed a kind of bracket voting early on, particularly for vote #3.

Using that as an example you could do a 3.1 vs 3.2 run off and a 3.4 vs 3.6 run-off. The winner for each would then face off.

[Xyon]

Regarding the Vt Sgt vote. Option two may need to be fleshed out a little. To read it, it indicates that there may be wargear options, thee may not. There may be USR upgrades, there may not.

What if we made the Sgt a two step process similar to what it was in 3rd edition? At the first step the Sgt becomes a DW Sgt. This conveys no USR but does grant access to addition wargear that has a DA feel to them. (Suppressors, Relic Blades, Teleport homers, Auxspecs, etc...) Then at an additional upgrade the DW Sgt becomes a Inner Council member which does offer the USR. Having to make two separate upgrades would make an all fearless army cost prohibitive. However by allow the first upgrade to only grant wargear, it also does allow a greater representation of the leadership throughout the Greening, without it having an over balancing influence.

While that makes sense, having to pay points with no stat upgrade, just to pay more points for equipment, is silly to me. You could make the equipment more expensive, or make the upgrade for the special USR cost more points