So, what ridiculous things have you heard from people in 40K, and how do you deal with it? Asking for advice is okay, too.
If this belongs elsewhere, I apologise. I'm sure "General Discussion" is the right place.
Here's mine;
Ridiculous/silly thing: People in my local GW still insist that a psyker arriving from reserve may cast a blessing(s), despite being shown otherwise because "it's all simultaneous, so it doesn't matter that they did arrive from reserve." essentially saying that the rule has no use...
How I deal with it: I don't know how, honestly. I haven't played against anyone trying to insist otherwise since I found this rule, yet. Any advice would be appreciated on how to handle this if it comes up. I don't like coming off as a ****.)
Another;
Ridiculous/silly thing: Some of the guys call you a "rules lawyer/Nazi" for following the rules in your own game, and correct rules in your game but hate it and yell at you for doing it to them. I'm fine with people correcting other people mid-game, but it's kinda hypocritical and ridiculous when they yell at you for it.
How I deal with it: ... I don't I have serious issues with not wanting to come off as "that guy". Advice would be nice.
People who say army tiers are completely fictional and all armies have an equal chance of winning, only the skill of the player matters.
How I deal with it: laugh and leave them to their silly delusions as I stomp their terribly made Blood Angels army.
PrinceRaven wrote: People who say army tiers are completely fictional and all armies have an equal chance of winning, only the skill of the player matters.
How I deal with it: laugh and leave them to their silly delusions as I stomp their terribly made Blood Angels army.
My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".
I know that this will cause a row. It was not my intention. It is the thing that gives me most amusement while simultaneously offending me to the core.
"Codex selection is more important than player skill."
"Space Marines aren't competitive."
"Drop Pods aren't competitive." (This one just makes me laugh!)
"[Insert latest publication from Games Workshop] ruined the game."
"If Games Workshop doesn't do [insert business action proposed by a waiter at a Garfield's with no practical business experience whatsoever] then they're going to go under. You'll see."
"In X years, [insert random new miniature game] will completely devour Games Workshop."
I used to argue with stupid opinions, but eventually I realized that at some point you have to let otherwise smart people hold their stupid opinions. Or just let stupid people be stupid. At this point, the only time I bother to argue with someone at all is if I have enough respect for them to give them the opportunity to change my mind. And there's damn few people on that list.
haha the in x years..... its soo true... its not just this though, everyone wants the latest to topple the king.
i read plenty of daft stuff, i hear less of it though because most people i deal with are level headed... the one that i get the BEST laugh out of is
"reckon we should use mysterious terrain and objectives" me and opponent usually look each other in the eye and as we start putting models on the table.
My 1st game ever my opponent told me, " I am your elder and your better. You don't argue with me. The rules go how I say they go."
I had to drag the shop owner over to get the guy to play fair. He doesn't even play at this shop anymore. He was very upset a 1st time player beat him.
"You have to add this, this, and the other thing to your army. You can't run it that way."
Note that this was not a matter of violating the force org chart or the guy trying to give friendly advice. He was TELLING me that my perfectly legal, decently performing, themed army needed to be completely revamped because it was different from the army lists that were all the rage on the internet. It's MY army, sweety. As long as I'm not breaking any rules, I can run it however I want to.
Ridiculous: "Without massive home rules is basic WH40K unplayable!"
How I deal with it: I play 40K with their delirious whining "but, but, you cant do that!" behind my back.
Ridiculous: "The lasgun doesnt have AP? Geez, without plasmavets its completely useless, why do you play it, its meatshiled for the one lascannon?"
How I deal with it: FRFSRF...please, roll 46 armor saves for your mighty ten space marines.
Ridiculous (well, rather annoying): "I see, you must make a lot of money to play Guard and buying Knight. You like pay to win?"
Response: Dunno. I find it difficult to just start to explain I have a job and I can spend money on hobby I like. Even apologizing that I dare to spend more money than him? Heck. By the way, I want even playing the Knight, just buying the model to paint him for another year.
UlrikDecado wrote: Ridiculous: "Without massive home rules is basic WH40K unplayable!"
How I deal with it: I play 40K with their delirious whining "but, but, you cant do that!" behind my back.
So, you use EVERYTHING from the rulebook including mysterious terrain and objectives (or whatever it is). If not...
ridiculous statement: "the game SHOULD be all about shooting. Assault shouldn't even be in it!"
response: roll eyes and talk to someone else.
ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.
response: Same as first.
ridiculous statement: Anyone using the "tactics" buzzword to back up their claims that melee hasn't been relegated to the domain of a handful of units that can get to melee range with either hilarious speed or survivability, if not both. Usually they personally use at least one of those units while making this claim.
UlrikDecado wrote: Ridiculous: "Without massive home rules is basic WH40K unplayable!"
How I deal with it: I play 40K with their delirious whining "but, but, you cant do that!" behind my back.
So, you use EVERYTHING from the rulebook including mysterious terrain and objectives (or whatever it is). If not...
Spoiler:
So, yeah.
Yes, I usually do, but even if not, I wouldn consider it massive homerules. But you remind me some of those whiners who just cant bear someone has fun without insisting how broken everything is ))
PrinceRaven wrote: People who say army tiers are completely fictional and all armies have an equal chance of winning, only the skill of the player matters. How I deal with it: laugh and leave them to their silly delusions as I stomp their terribly made Blood Angels army.
Unnecessarily offending others is unnecessary. And offensive.
@topic: "Riptides aren't overpowered, they are strong but expensive."
Ridiculous: "The lasgun doesnt have AP? Geez, without plasmavets its completely useless, why do you play it, its meatshiled for the one lascannon?"
How I deal with it: FRFSRF...please, roll 46 armor saves for your mighty ten space marines.
A GW store (that is now closed) employee told me something in that vein when he learned I was starting a Guard army.
"Imperial Guard? That army sucks! Lasguns are only good against Kroots, because they have no armour save! Why don't you buy *points to marine starter set" waaayy better!"
Idolator wrote: My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".
Um, why? Would you prefer to pay for a rulebook of even more brobdingnagian proportions that is full of telling you what you can't do?
AAAAAND, thanks for showing everyone why.
Nope, still not following you. You're seriously saying you'd rather have a rulebook that resembles this:
Spoiler:
HEE-Hee! This is why I find it sooo fun as well as revolting.
Everyone that is married/devoted/enslaved into calling it a "permissive ruleset" refuses, absolutely refuse to acknowledge that it is anything else. It's especially funny since there is no such thing as a PERMISSIVE RULESET. The term doesn't even exist outside of some dudes devoted internet ramblings. Add to that, his given definition of permissive rule set is the text book definition of a restrictive rule. Literally, the text book definition of restrictive rule.
PrinceRaven wrote: People who say army tiers are completely fictional and all armies have an equal chance of winning, only the skill of the player matters.
How I deal with it: laugh and leave them to their silly delusions as I stomp their terribly made Blood Angels army.
PrinceRaven wrote: People who say army tiers are completely fictional and all armies have an equal chance of winning, only the skill of the player matters.
How I deal with it: laugh and leave them to their silly delusions as I stomp their terribly made Blood Angels army.
Unnecessarily offending others is unnecessary. And offensive.
I don't find it offensive that some people are ignorant of the gross imbalance between 40k armies.
Ridiculous thing? When someone says 40K is a well made, balanced game and GW is a good gaming company. Then we try to wrest the kool-aid from his hands (not usually successful I'm afraid).
Ond Angel wrote: So, what ridiculous things have you heard from people in 40K, and how do you deal with it? Asking for advice is okay, too.
If this belongs elsewhere, I apologise. I'm sure "General Discussion" is the right place.
Here's mine;
Ridiculous/silly thing: People in my local GW still insist that a psyker arriving from reserve may cast a blessing(s), despite being shown otherwise because "it's all simultaneous, so it doesn't matter that they did arrive from reserve." essentially saying that the rule has no use...
How I deal with it: I don't know how, honestly. I haven't played against anyone trying to insist otherwise since I found this rule, yet. Any advice would be appreciated on how to handle this if it comes up. I don't like coming off as a ****.)
Another;
Ridiculous/silly thing: Some of the guys call you a "rules lawyer/Nazi" for following the rules in your own game, and correct rules in your game but hate it and yell at you for doing it to them. I'm fine with people correcting other people mid-game, but it's kinda hypocritical and ridiculous when they yell at you for it.
How I deal with it: ... I don't I have serious issues with not wanting to come off as "that guy". Advice would be nice.
The other player starts yelling at me and verbally abusing me, then goodbye, game over, FOAD.
ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.
That claim is true though, the problem does not lay in the riptide itself, but spesifically in the ion accelerator.
A HBC riptide is a fair deal.
It's still too durable for the price as well.
This. The riptide wouldn't be all that awesome if all those weapons were on a broadside body, ready to drop to the first melta/lascannon to land a hit. It's mainly that you get your preferred load out of weaponry on an agile platform that is comparable to land raiders and small super heavies in durability.
ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.
That claim is true though, the problem does not lay in the riptide itself, but spesifically in the ion accelerator.
A HBC riptide is a fair deal.
And we'll just ignore that they are the most survivable MC in game having an enate immunity to double T ID and a 2+ save right?
I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop. In comparison to any of the more balanced MCs out there, especially those that don't get Thrust Moves (>.> A riptide the most absolute bastardized creation of GW since the removal of EW from the Daemons Dex all together. (And those 2++ re-rollables but you can blame GW for their absolute fail in terms of Grimoire + forewarning as their BRB Psyker spells and the access most armies have to it now, Tzeentch daemons being the disgusting jerks they are)
Well, 180 plus the 40 points in the ion accelerator and stimulant injector that everyone runs him with. (Yes, I know, I'm sure people do run them differently, but that setup is stupidly effective)
On topic:
I think I'm just going to list a few of the rules that people at a nearby game store were using, despite evidence to the contrary:
1. You don't roll for consolidate, it's always a flat 3" (I've shown him the actual rule 3 weeks in a row, he continues to tell people it's 3")
2. You only get the Aegis Defense Line's 4+ cover save if the model is within 2" of the wall, any further out and it's a standard 5+.
3. As long as more than half the unit is in cover, the entire unit gets a cover save (which is understandable, because that was how it worked in 5th edition)
4. If a vehicle is an assault vehicle, you can always get out of it no matter what speed it moved
5. You don't get Deny the Witch rolls against witchfire, because the psyker is manifesting the power at himself and THEN shooting it at a target
6. Long Fang packs can't split fire even when the Pack Leader is alive, because they do not have the split fire special rule.
6a. Long Fang packs CAN split fire, but they have to roll a Leadership test as with Split Fire, because the Pack Leader gives them the Split Fire special rule (different person).
How I dealt with it: decided to stop going there, because I enjoy playing by the rules of the game and not having to adjust to whatever random house rule is in effect that week.
ridiculous statement: Any claims that riptides are not undercosted by a wide margin.
That claim is true though, the problem does not lay in the riptide itself, but spesifically in the ion accelerator.
A HBC riptide is a fair deal.
And we'll just ignore that they are the most survivable MC in game having an enate immunity to double T ID and a 2+ save right?
I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop. In comparison to any of the more balanced MCs out there, especially those that don't get Thrust Moves (>.> A riptide the most absolute bastardized creation of GW since the removal of EW from the Daemons Dex all together. (And those 2++ re-rollables but you can blame GW for their absolute fail in terms of Grimoire + forewarning as their BRB Psyker spells and the access most armies have to it now, Tzeentch daemons being the disgusting jerks they are)
Note, I said "fair" not "weak".
HBC riptides are still good, as they are still horridly hard to kill, but what they become fair because they have far less firepower, incredibly low firepower for its price actually.
Without that potentially cover-ignoring AP2 pieplate, he struggles to provide the high-threat status that makes people shoot at him despite how hard it is to remove him, and takes away his ability to threaten you from across the field-every codex can present shooting units that deal far more dakka/point then the HBC riptide.
A riptide is not OP because of its range, its AP2 pie in a markerlight army, its jetpack manuverability, or his durability-its the combination that spins out of control, and once you brake the combo apart, one way or another-and the HBC does not have the combo as he lacks the range, and the firepower.
I highly disagree. At the price point the thing is at, with all the toys it gets, the thing is still waaaaaaay more durable than anything under 250-300 points has any right to be.
If there was such a thing as a 40k "draft" tournament, similar to Magic's booster drafts, even if every non apoc unit in the game were present, a HBC riptide would still be a high contender for first round pick.
Maybe it's just me as a general, but if my troops can stay alive, I can FIND a way to make them do something useful. I don't care if they're armed with blowguns.
"B-but I give it a suboptimal load out!" Does not make the unit NOT broken. It DOES make you a player that's somewhat respectful of the balance and your opponents' game experiences, since you see it as off the rocker enough to self nerf it a bit.
But no, even the HBC version is undercosted, just by virtue of the nigh-invincible body that it sits on being undercosted.
And it's what Phil Kelly said at Games Day a couple years ago.
I only really have one: "You need [Insert Unit/Army/Allies/Latest Netlist/Ubercombo thing here] to win" and it's mutation: "If you play [Insert anything that isn't considered to be the best of the best by the internet here] you'll never win."
ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: Games Workshop should allow the Grots to have their own army in the future and their own codex of course.
Story could be a good amount of Grots have joined together, combining their powers or just working together to take revenge on the Orks.
HQ Grot with pointy stick
Elites
Grots with slingshots
Troops
Grots
This may seem unbalanced but they could make it balanced, just look at robot zombie people, they are all powerful and they have their own codex and army.
It's an older thread, but it checks out. I was about to not post.
Idolator wrote: My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the topic title. I never saw anything in the rules that lead me to believe that they are "permissive" as such. To me they are just "descriptive" of how to play the game. I agree that they often 'appear' permissive, because that is that is a natural way to explain something and keep it relevant. That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules. Most reasonable people are able to interpret the rules and play the game without knowing anything about "permissive" or "restrictive" principles. People who adhere to a staunch "permissive" rule-set end up with a broken non-functioning game, which just proves the idiocy of the whole idea.
The ridiculous example that sprung to mind was someone insisting that 5th ed Rage (usr) was impossible because it required you to check LOS, and "the rules don't 'permit' you to check LOS during the movement phase".
Idolator wrote: My absolute favorite/most repugnant thing that I hear is "permissive rule set".
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the topic title. I never saw anything in the rules that lead me to believe that they are "permissive" as such. To me they are just "descriptive" of how to play the game. I agree that they often 'appear' permissive, because that is that is a natural way to explain something and keep it relevant. That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules. Most reasonable people are able to interpret the rules and play the game without knowing anything about "permissive" or "restrictive" principles. People who adhere to a staunch "permissive" rule-set end up with a broken non-functioning game, which just proves the idiocy of the whole idea.
The ridiculous example that sprung to mind was someone insisting that 5th ed Rage (usr) was impossible because it required you to check LOS, and "the rules don't 'permit' you to check LOS during the movement phase".
Heck, man. In sixth edition alone there are numerous examples where no permission is given. Search lights prevent a targeted unit from receiving any benefits from night fight....but none of night fight's effects are listed as benefits. Which causes all manner of arguments as to which of the effects are to be considered benefits to the targeted unit, because no permission to receive a benefit is ever given. When it is obvious that all of the effects of night fighting are beneficial to unit that would be the intended target.
It's just a list of rules. Some of those are rules permit you to do things, some are rules that restrict you from doing things, some do both at the same time, some give you partial permission and leave out key parts.
Movement rules tell you that you can move your units up to their maximum distance. Giving both a permission to move and a restriction on distance, all the while neglecting any mention as to which direction is permissible.(so you have no permission to choose which direction that they are going) We all know that you can choose the direction of movement (most of the time) but it doesn't fit in with the "permissive rules" point of view.
Smacks wrote: That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules.
That's how game rules work, though. The rules define what is possible within the structure of the game. If something isn't defined, it simply isn't a part of the rules.
Smacks wrote: That doesn't mean that every single thing needs be expressly permitted or else it is against the rules.
That's how game rules work, though. The rules define what is possible within the structure of the game. If something isn't defined, it simply isn't a part of the rules.
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
I like those first two there. Both are really, really bad evil in the worst of ways. One is hell bent on the extermination of everything else the other is hell bent on expanding for the greater good of The Tau Reich.
Those Duke Boys might pull it off though, one day the mountain lions'll get 'em but the law never will!
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.
Do you really need a rule that specifically states "You can move your models in any direction" in order to do so? Is it not enough to specify the max distance you can move them, how many times you can pivot during the move, or that you can't move them off the table, or within 1" of enemy models, the effects of terrain on said movement, etc.? I guess you do, since I once saw someone point out that in 5th edition you could get around the Rage rule by moving your models backwards, then turning them around at the end of the move, so they technically couldn't "see" enemy units while moving and so weren't forced to move towards the nearest visible unit...
Sidstyler wrote: Do you really need a rule that specifically states "You can move your models in any direction" in order to do so?
It's good games design to do so, at the very least.
But yes, if you're going to design a system that works around models being able to freely move in any direction, the rules should say so. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they can do so, or if (as I have seen asked in the past) they're supposed to just move 'forwards'. It's not at all uncommon for people to assume that models in 40K have to move in straight lines... again, because the rules never explain how the movement actually works.
Man, game design is hard.
Well, no, game design is easy. Good game design is hard.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't really think it is as poorly written as some say. I DO think there is a current flaw in the writing of the newer books, where they build in combinations of rules to work in tandem but do not expressly say so -- but this is likely because they have some kind of data that tells them what we all already know, that there are players who prefer to trawl through and find these epic rule combos (which sell kits) rather than make them explicit.
I really do not think the example given about movement is a good one. It says a model moves X inches...by not specifying further it still basically says X inches, and I don't need it to say "in any direction" afterward (even though it does indirectly imply this in places). I don't need it to tell me I can bend the tape, either; X inches is X inches. So in ways I consider it to be decently written, as they have to waste less time with minutiae.
I run a club and have for 6 years now; no new player has ever asked me such a question.
What does this have to do with the thread, you ask? My number one thing I hear day in and day out that is just drek:
"The rules for this game are so bad it's unplayable."
It is pretty much unplayable according to strict RAW. My favourite example is how all non-vehicles that don't have eyes (the majority of models in the game) don't have permission to draw line of sight.
PrinceRaven wrote: It is pretty much unplayable according to strict RAW. My favourite example is how all non-vehicles that don't have eyes (the majority of models in the game) don't have permission to draw line of sight.
Strict RAW leads to all sorts of things I just have to laugh at in general. GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.
I can agree that that if rules are being written for something like a computer then they need to follow a strict structure, and every eventuality needs to be covered no matter how banal. Even minor spelling mistakes will throw a computer off.
However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose. It is obvious that you can check LOS at any time. In fact just by looking at the table most people will instantly see all but the most difficult shots without even consciously trying. To say that you can't do this without permission is on a par with saying that "You can't stand in the same room as the game" and "you can't breath while playing (or hold your breath either) because the rules don't permit it".
I'm not saying that humans don't deserve well written rules, and there are certainly many examples from 40k that are unclear or need to be FAQed. However the Rage example I quoted was never one of them. It is beyond clear how it works. The people who insist it can't be played are either insane pedants of just being deliberately difficult.
There is also the issue that rules (especially for humans) should be concise, so they are easy to learn and digest. I would disagree that making a rule (that is already clear) longer just to appease pedants constitutes "better" writing. People don't need or want rules that are written in the painful kind of detail required by computers, it would be far more annoying to sift through than it would ever be helpful.
GoliothOnline wrote: I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.
So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.
GoliothOnline wrote: I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.
So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.
Nah, they're not comparable at all.
They're really not though.
The torrent flamer is good against 4+ or worse saves but it's not (potentially ignores cover) AP2, so to really do damage to anything other than 4+ or worse saves you need to get in close while the Riptide can sit back and destroy pretty much everything and anything from across the table.
They have two completely different roles, and to make the DK useful it needs to be at least 205pts (that's with no shooting) and will still not be able to assault until turn 2 at the best with a invul that can't be better than 5+. Unless you run 3 of them, Tau makes a DK cry long before it gets into assault. To make them as good as they get it will run you 260 pts, which is pretty damn high.
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.
However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose.
Tell me, have you had a look in the 40kYMDC forum recently?
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.
However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose.
Tell me, have you had a look in the 40kYMDC forum recently?
Oh! I have! It's a $#!%#@^% mess.
Seriously, about half of YMDC is all arguments over rules that could be cleared up if people would back down and just admit that they'd play it differently than it reads but a lot of threads drag on and on because of no one wanting to stray from a reading so strict of the rule that it ends up breaking the game most of the time.
The Ion Accelerator does have the better AP, but it does scatter and it does require support to ignore cover. The torrent flamer will never scatter and will always ignore cover while never getting hot. It may only be AP4, but always having the ability to deny the enemy getting a 3+/2+ cover save by going to ground is always good.
GoliothOnline wrote: I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.
So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.
Nah, they're not comparable at all.
They're really not though.
The torrent flamer is good against 4+ or worse saves but it's not (potentially ignores cover) AP2, so to really do damage to anything other than 4+ or worse saves you need to get in close while the Riptide can sit back and destroy pretty much everything and anything from across the table.
They have two completely different roles, and to make the DK useful it needs to be at least 205pts (that's with no shooting) and will still not be able to assault until turn 2 at the best with a invul that can't be better than 5+. Unless you run 3 of them, Tau makes a DK cry long before it gets into assault. To make them as good as they get it will run you 260 pts, which is pretty damn high.
Why does a weapon have to have a low AP to kill things with a good armor save?
Brainleech Devourers have no AP and I kill stuff all the time with them.
Yes, they have different roles. That's absolutely correct. The statement I quoted and addressed didn't talk about roles, just numbers.
Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?
The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.
I can agree that that if rules are being written for something like a computer then they need to follow a strict structure, and every eventuality needs to be covered no matter how banal. Even minor spelling mistakes will throw a computer off.
However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose. It is obvious that you can check LOS at any time. In fact just by looking at the table most people will instantly see all but the most difficult shots without even consciously trying. To say that you can't do this without permission is on a par with saying that "You can't stand in the same room as the game" and "you can't breath while playing (or hold your breath either) because the rules don't permit it".
I'm not saying that humans don't deserve well written rules, and there are certainly many examples from 40k that are unclear or need to be FAQed. However the Rage example I quoted was never one of them. It is beyond clear how it works. The people who insist it can't be played are either insane pedants of just being deliberately difficult.
There is also the issue that rules (especially for humans) should be concise, so they are easy to learn and digest. I would disagree that making a rule (that is already clear) longer just to appease pedants constitutes "better" writing. People don't need or want rules that are written in the painful kind of detail required by computers, it would be far more annoying to sift through than it would ever be helpful.
This is the best summation of the rules situation I have ever read. In 6 years I have not had a rule situation come up that wasn't able to be settled by simply looking at the books, there is a certain point at which we as humans trying to play a game together enters into the equation. Theoretically the book doesn't say how to do a lot of things and if you are going to walk such a literal line everything falls apart, Which is why I have always found the old unplayable schtick to be hilarious.
You can get down to every little variable between the Riptide and Dreadknight, but if you guys are honestly arguing that the DK is on par with the Riptide for effectiveness vs. point cost... I will be leaving.
The torrent flamer still only has a 12" + Template range with AP4 vs. the 72" with the IA. You have to get it into CC to really start doing damage, and when running only 1 I have rarely had luck getting them there without a massive amount of terrain.
The Riptide is cheaper (unless you want to deep strike your DK with no PT and then have it slog around 6" at a time), just as mobile, has an extra wound, can take drones, can get FNP, etc... It obviously isn't going to be destroying anyone in CC, but it doesn't have to. It sits back and is effective from turn 1 until the end of the game.
On paper, yeah they're both S6 T6 monstrous creatures with a 2+, but that is just about the extent of the similarities...
PrinceRaven wrote: The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.
Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).
There were far too many good points made by too many people for me to quote them all supporting the "permissive rule set is a fallacy" stance for me to quote them all. Good examples though.
I'm not a huge fan of GW or their policies and I think that many of their policies of late are terrible, that being said, by and large the basic rules of the 40K are fairly well written. I may not agree with some of their inclusions (flyers,allies,etc) or the mechanics thereof but they are for the most part, clear. (This is from a mechanics standpoint not from a balance standpoint, which is poo.)
Until, someone makes the assertion that; actions not specifically enumerated are forbidden. It is only through this mindlessly narrow view that the rules appear to be unplayable. It's the crux of my point. That view doesn't even allow humans to play the game as there is nothing stating that the players may breath or touch the models with their hands. Let's get beyond that and look at the mechanics. As I pointed out, following that incredibly narrow view, there is no way to move the models as there is no general instruction on which direction the models may move.
Then there's the rule book itself stating that the rules don't cover everything that can happen. Which is impossible if the rules forbid any action not listed, because that would be everything.
Meaning that the first thing that you have to do, in order to play the game, is ignore the rules.
Then there is the ridiculous use of language that really kills me. Permission can only be given after limits (restrictions) have been put into place. Stating "You can't do anything unless I tell you that you can." Is the antithesis of permissive. It is however a good example of oppressive. One also has to absolutely torture the English language beyond recognition to classify compulsory mandates as "permission".
Or........it could just be a set of rules that give instructions, sets limits and dictates certain actions.
PrinceRaven wrote: The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.
Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).
Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.
PrinceRaven wrote: The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.
Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).
Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.
That's the other half of them.
And I saw that one. It was aimed at Ignores Cover vs Vehicles.
PrinceRaven wrote: The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.
Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).
Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.
Of course. It doesn't say I can't ignore the ignore cove rule anywhere in the rulebook.
PrinceRaven wrote: The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.
Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).
Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.
Of course. It doesn't say I can't ignore the ignore cove rule anywhere in the rulebook.
Actually the argument was that it didn't apply to vehicles because the rule mentions "wounds".
Grimtuff wrote: It also doesn't say I just can't simply knock you out and declare myself automatic winner if we're going down that stupid route.
This is hard for you, I can tell, because you didn't address any of the points. But, I will address your fully thought out and cogent point (that had absolutely nothing to do with my statements) with all deserving respect.
So sure, you can commit the crime that you mentioned any time that you wanted and you would indeed be the winner of the match (not automatic winner though, you did have to perform an extreme action to cause your opponent to lose). I wouldn't suggest it however. As the rules for 40K don't exist in a vacuum. Provided that you survived the attempt, it would probably be the last game that you actually played for a while.
The rules are not a binary function. The "all or nothing" argument is hogwash.
Grimtuff wrote: As is the "argument" of "It doesn't say I can't"...
Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more.
I still see that you're having a tough time. Could you please point out when I made that statement.
That statement is just as wrong headed as the fallacious and oxymoronic "permissive rule set" argument.
Edit
Plus, the second part "Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more" is just plain incorrect. As evidenced with this statement from the rules.
"immobilized walkers cannot pivot"
Edit again.
Come to think of it, that second statement destroys your own argument. Since requiring an enumerated allowance immediately disallows all other actions.
Grimtuff wrote: As is the "argument" of "It doesn't say I can't"...
Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more.
I still see that you're having a tough time. Could you please point out when I made that statement.
That statement is just as wrong headed as the fallacious and oxymoronic "permissive rule set" argument.
Edit
Plus, the second part "Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more" is just plain incorrect. As evidenced with this statement from the rules.
"immobilized walkers cannot pivot"
For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.
And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path. Stop acting like your smug and/or high and mighty for "figuring something out" that's usually debated at length. Unless you're an accredited game designer with some sort of actual insight, then you're at best fanning flames and at worst being absolutely counter productive to the discussion at hand.
The most ridiculous thing in 40k is usually whatever is the newest printed item. Pretty much everything from the December to Remember event forward is a case of "of course you can do X now... lemme guess, you paid $15 to do X, right?" GW is selling special rules now. Take units outside of the force org at standard points cost with almost zero llimitations that get extra benefits for free. That's the most ridiculous thing in 40k as it's completely outside any form of rational thought or design.
For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.
And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path. Stop acting like your smug and/or high and mighty for "figuring something out" that's usually debated at length. Unless you're an accredited game designer with some sort of actual insight, then you're at best fanning flames and at worst being absolutely counter productive to the discussion at hand.
You guys make excellent arguments against statements that I never made and against position that I have not taken. My hat's off to you.
The rest becomes a bit convoluted after the word "path".
Especially since the discussion at hand is "ridiculous things that you've heard from people in 40k"
Honestly, though! If you can give me a definition of "Permissive rule set" from a legitimate source I would be surprised.
PS. I don't have a Spanish Mastiff/Pug mix. I did have a cat but he passed away last year.
TheKbob wrote: For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.
You are mixing up points here. We all agree that 40k has rules which are unclear. That does not mean that all parts which are not written according to the "permissive" paradigm are unclear. It is not unreasonable for the creators to make certain assumptions about the reader when writing. Things like:
- They are human,
- They are alive,
- They understand what a 'game' is,
- They have played games before involving turns
These (and a million others that aren't worth mentioning) are all reasonable assumptions. They don't need to be written in the rules, and if they were it would just be annoying because as readers we don't want to be patronized with irrelevant nonsense.
And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path.
This is only true if you have absolutely no powers of reasoning or judgement. All the examples like "I could just beat-up my opponent and declare myself the winner, because the rules don't say I can't" are contrived and silly. The people who spout these know that they are absurd, so I can only suppose that they do this on purpose to prove a point (reductio ad absurdum). This would work against someone arguing that the rules are "restrictive", but against someone arguing that the rules require a reasonable level of judgement, the argument is self defeating because it implies none.
The rules don't need to say anything about "beating-up" your opponent, because that is outside the scope of the game. The rules assume that both players are alive and conscious for the duration of the game, this is a reasonable assumption that doesn't need to be written down. Even if players do have a fight during the game, what difference does it make? So long as they return to conclude the game: none. The rules also list victory conditions for the game, declaring yourself the winner on turn one is not among them, but that does not mean it is not allowed, we just generally assume that it isn't because it is A: absurd, and B: quite an important exception not to be on the the list. However if your opponent decides to abandon the game... Well then you might be justified in declaring yourself the winner, and I'm sure many players and TOs would agree with you. Even thought the specific circumstances might not have been anticipated by the designer (opponent spontaneously turned into a bowl for fruit).
I ask again, have you actually been in the YMDC forum? You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.
Grimtuff wrote: I ask again, have you actually been in the YMDC forum? You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.
TheKbob wrote: For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.
You are mixing up points here. We all agree that 40k has rules which are unclear. That does not mean that all parts which are not written according to the "permissive" paradigm are unclear. It is not unreasonable for the creators to make certain assumptions about the reader when writing. Things like 'they are human' and 'they are alive' and that they understand what a game constitutes, and have played games before involving turns. These are reasonable assumptions. They don't need to be written in the rules, and if they were it would just be annoying because as readers we don't want to be patronized with irrelevant nonsense.
And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path.
This is only true if you have absolutely no powers of reasoning or judgement. All the examples like "I could just beat-up my opponent and declare myself the winner, because the rules don't say I can't" are contrived and silly. The people who spout these know that they are absurd, so I can only suppose that they do this on purpose to prove a point (reductio ad absurdum). This would work against someone arguing that the rules are "restrictive", but against someone arguing that the rules require a reasonable level of judgement, the argument is self defeating because it implies none.
The rules don't need to say anything about "beating-up" your opponent, because that is outside the scope of the game. The rules assume that both players are alive and conscious for the duration of the game, this is a reasonable assumption that doesn't need to be written down. Even if players do have a fight during the game, what difference does it make? So long as they return to conclude the game: none. The rules also list victory conditions for the game, declaring yourself the winner on turn one is not among them, but that does not mean it is not allowed, we just generally assume that it isn't because it is A: absurd, and B: quite an important exception not to be on the the list. However if your opponent decides to abandon the game... Well then you might be justified in declaring yourself the winner, and I'm sure many players and TOs would agree with you. Even thought the specific circumstances might not have been anticipated by the designer (opponent spontaneously turned into a bowl for fruit).
It doesn't matter. You cannot give reasoning and logic as an argument for situations within the game with conflicting rules that are purely mechanics based. Or times when GW has purely FAQd against reasoning and logic.
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to "game logic".
Chess is a definitive permissive ruleset. Each piece may only move in set number of fashions. It's the perfect example. As complexity increases, to even include random number generation, the idea of game development is the same: the rules limit to what you are allowed to do.
When the company fails to use this judgement, they shift into a non-permissive mentality, and this can flaw the game and introduce conflict. Complexity lends to this happening.
It's essentially law, but inverse. Proper law functions under the mentality that you must define what is illegal. Trying to write laws for everything that is legal would be asinine and would be a nanny state; nanny laws don't work. See prohibition for this fact, the US alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and the current drug prohibition. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but the it's the extreme example of the opposite.
A good game is a permissive ruleset and only uses non-permissive in very, very rare circumstances. Since a game is less complex than Real Life™, it's much easier to write what you can and are allowed to do within the confines then to build the ruleset around what you aren't allowed to do. Warhammer 40k is written by trying to do both. What people mean when they say 40k is a permissive ruleset, it means it SHOULD be permissive as this is good game design. My guy is in close combat with your guy. When is he allowed to punch? At his iniative. How many times can he punch? As many as his attack profile allows for. Does my opponent get armor saves? Yes, unless I my melee attacks have an armor penetration value equal to or "greater" than their armor save value (greater in the AP2> AP3 > Ap4, etc. context).
It's when you cannot do one of these things within standard application becomes wonky and must be addressed. I have a power fist but I consolidate into combat "at initiative". My iniative is stat is 4 on a space marine, but I'm at initiative 1 because of unwieldy. This caused confusion for a long time, it wasn't clear what was intended, and was later FAQd for clarity. This was when they used non-permissive rules. The examples of such are pervasive throughout Warhammer 40k and I'd bet a major cause of butthurt within YMDC.
Grimtuff wrote: You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.
If it makes you happy: yes I have been there, and I have argued with Gwar ad topic lock...
But I'm actually not placing too much faith in people at all. I clearly stated that we all agree that there are parts of the rules that are unclear. And I am not excusing the 40k rule writing at all. I agree with you that there is vast room for improvement. We are in agreement on these points.
What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).
TheKbob wrote: For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.
You are mixing up points here. We all agree that 40k has rules which are unclear. That does not mean that all parts which are not written according to the "permissive" paradigm are unclear. It is not unreasonable for the creators to make certain assumptions about the reader when writing. Things like 'they are human' and 'they are alive' and that they understand what a game constitutes, and have played games before involving turns. These are reasonable assumptions. They don't need to be written in the rules, and if they were it would just be annoying because as readers we don't want to be patronized with irrelevant nonsense.
And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path.
This is only true if you have absolutely no powers of reasoning or judgement. All the examples like "I could just beat-up my opponent and declare myself the winner, because the rules don't say I can't" are contrived and silly. The people who spout these know that they are absurd, so I can only suppose that they do this on purpose to prove a point (reductio ad absurdum). This would work against someone arguing that the rules are "restrictive", but against someone arguing that the rules require a reasonable level of judgement, the argument is self defeating because it implies none.
The rules don't need to say anything about "beating-up" your opponent, because that is outside the scope of the game. The rules assume that both players are alive and conscious for the duration of the game, this is a reasonable assumption that doesn't need to be written down. Even if players do have a fight during the game, what difference does it make? So long as they return to conclude the game: none. The rules also list victory conditions for the game, declaring yourself the winner on turn one is not among them, but that does not mean it is not allowed, we just generally assume that it isn't because it is A: absurd, and B: quite an important exception not to be on the the list. However if your opponent decides to abandon the game... Well then you might be justified in declaring yourself the winner, and I'm sure many players and TOs would agree with you. Even thought the specific circumstances might not have been anticipated by the designer (opponent spontaneously turned into a bowl for fruit).
It doesn't matter. You cannot give reasoning and logic as an argument for situations within the game with conflicting rules that are purely mechanics based. Or times when GW has purely FAQd against reasoning and logic.
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to "game logic".
Chess is a definitive permissive ruleset. Each piece may only move in set number of fashions. It's the perfect example. As complexity increases, to even include random number generation, the idea of game development is the same: the rules limit to what you are allowed to do.
When the company fails to use this judgement, they shift into a non-permissive mentality, and this can flaw the game and introduce conflict. Complexity lends to this happening.
It's essentially law, but inverse. Proper law functions under the mentality that you must define what is illegal. Trying to write laws for everything that is legal would be asinine and would be a nanny state; nanny laws don't work. See prohibition for this fact, the US alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and the current drug prohibition. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but the it's the extreme example of the opposite.
A good game is a permissive ruleset and only uses non-permissive in very, very rare circumstances. Since a game is less complex than Real Life™, it's much easier to write what you can and are allowed to do within the confines then to build the ruleset around what you aren't allowed to do. Warhammer 40k is written by trying to do both. What people mean when they say 40k is a permissive ruleset, it means it SHOULD be permissive as this is good game design. My guy is in close combat with your guy. When is he allowed to punch? At his iniative. How many times can he punch? As many as his attack profile allows for. Does my opponent get armor saves? Yes, unless I my melee attacks have an armor penetration value equal to or "greater" than their armor save value (greater in the AP2> AP3 > Ap4, etc. context).
It's when you cannot do one of these things within standard application becomes wonky and must be addressed. I have a power fist but I consolidate into combat "at initiative". My iniative is stat is 4 on a space marine, but I'm at initiative 1 because of unwieldy. This caused confusion for a long time, it wasn't clear what was intended, and was later FAQd for clarity. This was when they used non-permissive rules. The examples of such are pervasive throughout Warhammer 40k and I'd bet a major cause of butthurt within YMDC.
Hi, yes I complete agree with you. It should be permissive to an extent. My point is really that even a permissive ruleset would probably depend on some reasonable assumptions. And the case I was discussing of not being able to check LOS during the movement phase, is an example of that. However there were "certain rules lawyers" who insisted that this wasn't possible because the rules are 'permissive' and this was NOT expressly 'permitted'. Even though anyone with the ability to see, would likely do it anyway just by looking at the table.
ClockworkZion wrote: GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.
Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'
But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".
Ummm......
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
ClockworkZion wrote: GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.
Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'
But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".
Ummm......
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011
It's not the first time GW has said "You can legally do this, but you shouldn't". Space Wolves require each HQ to be different, yet all that means is you can run two completely identical except that one has a frost sword and the other has a frost axe. Is it legal? Yes, Is it in the spirit of the rule? No.
Smacks wrote: What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).
And that's the argument on why they are bad. Because non-permissive results in conflict or contradiction and GW is very poor when it comes to issuing timely correction on said matters.
Smacks wrote: What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).
And that's the argument on why they are bad. Because non-permissive results in conflict or contradiction and GW is very poor when it comes to issuing timely correction on said matters.
Yeah I can agree with that. Sorry, I edited my post to reply to you on page three, but the topic moves fast!
EDIT: for your convenience...
Hi, yes I completely agree with you. It should be permissive to an extent. My point is really that even a permissive ruleset would probably depend on some reasonable assumptions. And the case I was discussing of not being able to check LOS during the movement phase, is an example of that. However there were "certain rules lawyers" who insisted that this wasn't possible because the rules are 'permissive' and this was NOT expressly 'permitted'. Even though anyone with the ability to see, would likely do it anyway just by looking at the table.
ClockworkZion wrote: GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.
Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'
But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".
Ummm......
Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.
Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011
Yeah, he admits he it's legal as per RAW then says don't do it because it doesn't fit the spirit of the game.
Some past FAQs basically read a lot like that in their answers said not to follow the strict allowances of the rules or to ignore the rules completely.
The again the rulebook says you can ignore the rules to create a fun experiance for everyone involved so maybe we're just not being friendly enough.
Hey if we have a rules discrepancy, and the rules don't lay out clearly how to solve it, we roll off. Worked out pretty well for us. We figure, hey this is a game, why bog it down?
Murdius Maximus wrote: Hey if we have a rules discrepancy, and the rules don't lay out clearly how to solve it, we roll off. Worked out pretty well for us. We figure, hey this is a game, why bog it down?
Because this opens the door for people to abuse said roll off. While you know not to play that person again if this is the case, in competitive settings or looking for pick-up games, both are abhorrent and a good way to waste 2.5 hours.
I've seen folks trying to abuse the "dice off" rule too many times. It's a bad rule. I don't like the Warmachine book has it, either, but they at least have a company forum with Infernals who will rule on issues that are truly above and beyond what was expected or intended. GW has nothing, so an issue in one game is now an in issue forever. Are you dice off on said contradiction every time it comes back up? Or is there an agreement afterwards?
If the latter, we are paying for a product, at a premium price, that we must then troubleshoot and "patch" with house rules. This is a bad thing. I'm not paying for an alpha or beta issue.
Another way of saying it: if I bought a model kit and found my melta gun deformed or missing bits, GW would probably send me a new sprue and make me a happy customer. That's for a $35 box of marines. I spend $50 for a codex, find grammatical issues and contradictions/unclear rules and I get zero support. For being a "models" company, this is seems like a crap way of doing business. Think GW will give me a refund on my SoB codex since it definitely doesn't meet my expectations the same way I could return a box of marines?
First game with competitive player: I suggest he play a more "balanced" list than a "net list".
"You do not tell me what to do, this is all by the rules!"
I play him and he does win.
Second game with competitive player: I say I am prepared for a more competitive game to "his liking" (he appeared less happier about a game realizing no easy victim this time).
I utterly table him with much wining about "that is cheating!" (no, it was not), "you can't do that!" (yes you can according to rules), "that is not fair" (a little more fair than last game), "you paid to win!" (been playing 40k for some 20 years now).
I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.
"Orks are OP!" Quoted from my 9 year old brother. Because I take Lootas and Boom Guns. And my brothers (Yes all 3 of them) play CSM without Helturkeys.
Talizvar wrote: I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.
I couldn't agree more,
There are guys like this in the area I'm in...
<.<
I do like to play them at their own game so they know how others feel, a few times it's sucessful but most of the time I'm being a dick or a douche or <insert some kind of insult> when I do it back, but it's 100% okay when they do it.
.-,
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
This reminds me of my last game with the Doom. Out of a 1750 Dark Eldar army, he soloed all infantry except for a 10-man squad of Kabalite Warriors (they got swept by an I1 Tervigon). So, yeah, the Doom was just a wee bit broken.
I HATE it when people cannot, will not, take what they dish out and feel it is perfectly fair as long as they are doing it.
I feel your pain exactly here. There is one very vocal guy at my store who only plays netlists. He gets so upset when he loses and pretty much never plays games he's losing until the end. I've had him concede on me top of turn 3, and I've seen him concede turn 2.
Even if he's winning he will complain about the broken stuff in the enemy's list.
He was using a centurionstar with Tigurius and was complaining that my Chaos spawn were overpowered...
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.
I have seen it single handedly wreck flanks. Every. Single. Member. Of our gaming group has experienced the same thing. So please do try to temper your criticism.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
I will just say this. There is a reason that every model in my army that is capable of being an interceptor takes it and takes a fusion blaster. I built entire lists around countering the Doom. Even now it's not an actual unit anymore I still build lists that way because I'm afraid its ghost will rise from the warp and suck away my entire army. When one of the most broken armies in the game is terrified of something you know it's pretty good.
It doesn't matter. You cannot give reasoning and logic as an argument for situations within the game with conflicting rules that are purely mechanics based. Or times when GW has purely FAQd against reasoning and logic.
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to "game logic".
Chess is a definitive permissive ruleset. Each piece may only move in set number of fashions. It's the perfect example. As complexity increases, to even include random number generation, the idea of game development is the same: the rules limit to what you are allowed to do.
When the company fails to use this judgement, they shift into a non-permissive mentality, and this can flaw the game and introduce conflict. Complexity lends to this happening.
It's essentially law, but inverse. Proper law functions under the mentality that you must define what is illegal. Trying to write laws for everything that is legal would be asinine and would be a nanny state; nanny laws don't work. See prohibition for this fact, the US alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and the current drug prohibition. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but the it's the extreme example of the opposite.
A good game is a permissive ruleset and only uses non-permissive in very, very rare circumstances. Since a game is less complex than Real Life™, it's much easier to write what you can and are allowed to do within the confines then to build the ruleset around what you aren't allowed to do. Warhammer 40k is written by trying to do both. What people mean when they say 40k is a permissive ruleset, it means it SHOULD be permissive as this is good game design. My guy is in close combat with your guy. When is he allowed to punch? At his iniative. How many times can he punch? As many as his attack profile allows for. Does my opponent get armor saves? Yes, unless I my melee attacks have an armor penetration value equal to or "greater" than their armor save value (greater in the AP2> AP3 > Ap4, etc. context).
It's when you cannot do one of these things within standard application becomes wonky and must be addressed. I have a power fist but I consolidate into combat "at initiative". My iniative is stat is 4 on a space marine, but I'm at initiative 1 because of unwieldy. This caused confusion for a long time, it wasn't clear what was intended, and was later FAQd for clarity. This was when they used non-permissive rules. The examples of such are pervasive throughout Warhammer 40k and I'd bet a major cause of butthurt within YMDC.
Someone is massively confused, it could be me.
Chess is a definitive example of a permissive rule set because it restricts the movement of the pieces? I don't get it.
What is the definition of a permissive rule set? I've honestly never seen one. I ask every time someone uses this term, but no one has a respected and legitimate source from which it is derived. So far it seems to be a completely made up term with no meaning other than that of the current user.
What type of laws(rules) are you ascribing to the prohibition laws? Laws are just rules by another name. It's difficult to tell if you consider them permissive or non-permissive. This is also the first time I've seen anyone use the term "non-permissive", what does it mean?
It's by far easier to write rules that limit than rules that allow. Imposing limits and requirements is all that rules do. It's literally the only functions that rules serve. Rules place restrictions on behavior and actions by placing limits or requirements. Anything not expressly limited or expressly required is open for interpretation. Which is how every rule system in the world works. All of them. Every Law. Every Rule. Every set of instructions. It's why there are professionals that make their livelihood based on rules interpretations. They're called attorneys, referees,umpires,judges. Claiming that the only allowable actions by the players are those that are enumerated prevents the game from being played at all.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.
Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.
Idolator wrote:What is the definition of a permissive rule set?
A ruleset in which you need permission from the rules to do things.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.
Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.
Nice ad hominem there calling other people incompetent when they had problems with Doom.
They may have had really poor luck or poor list building as well, I won't deny that. I'm just saying that in every game I played or witnessed the Doom against competent opponents it didn't do much beyond distracting and killing a small amount of troops. The ones in which it did I could point out the mistakes the opponent made that led to the Doom performing better than expected every time.
The most common mistakes were deploying in a way that allowed the Doom to be within 6" of too many units, having their army standing out in the open instead of in area terrain, not moving away from the Doom before shooting at it, and trying to decrease its wounds with low strength shooting and CC instead of ID'ing it.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?
Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.
Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.
Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.
Indeed. Our gaming group is a collection of incompetent rubes.
azreal13 wrote: Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour
Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity
I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.
Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?
Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.
"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?
azreal13 wrote: Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour
Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity
I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.
Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?
Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.
"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?
It's based on the idea that the ruleset gives you "permission" to do things.
Don't blame me, I didn't choose the word for that.
azreal13 wrote: Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour
Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity
I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.
Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?
Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.
"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?
The idea is that the rules give you permissions in a permissive ruleset (such as 40k) and the rules give you prohibitions in a prohibitive ruleset (the law, for instance).
A bit confusing, I know, but those are the terms that are used.
Idolator wrote: Chess is a definitive example of a permissive rule set because it restricts the movement of the pieces? I don't get it.
The rules of Chess don't restrict the movement of pieces. They outline how those pieces are permitted to move. Without those permissions, there would be no way within the rules of the game to move at all.
What type of laws(rules) are you ascribing to the prohibition laws?
The bit about prohibition was a side-track. The point was that laws are generally written with a focus on what isn't allowed, because what isn't allowed is a much smaller set of things than what is allowed.
In games design, the opposite is true. There are far, far fewer things that you can do in a game than that you can't... and so writing a set of games rules in the same way as we write laws would be a pointless act of tedium.
It's by far easier to write rules that limit than rules that allow.
It really isn't.
If your focus is on limiting instead of allowing, just as an example, you're going to need to have movement rules that point out that normal models can not fly, can not hover above the board, can not teleport, can not grow an organic skateboard out of their feet and move twice as fast, can not lassoo a passing native lifeform and use it as a mount, can not create a tank from mind-power, can not abandon the battle and go fishing, can not bake a cake on the front fender of a passing motorbike, can not swim, can not climb trees, can not trip over their own shoelaces, can not boost their own morale by singing an uplifting song about barmaids and cucumbers, can not gain a strength boost by eating trail rations as they move, can not suddenly learn magic and blast everyone with lightning, can not have a nap and come back in the battle you're going to play next week as a free unit, and can not suddenly turn into a completely different unit and decide to fight for the other side.
Just for starters.
Writing rules from that perspective is futile. It is far easier to outline what the unit is permitted to do in that phase, and assume that anything not listed is simply not possible.
PrinceRaven wrote: They may have had really poor luck or poor list building as well, I won't deny that. I'm just saying that in every game I played or witnessed the Doom against competent opponents it didn't do much beyond distracting and killing a small amount of troops. The ones in which it did I could point out the mistakes the opponent made that led to the Doom performing better than expected every time.
The most common mistakes were deploying in a way that allowed the Doom to be within 6" of too many units, having their army standing out in the open instead of in area terrain, not moving away from the Doom before shooting at it, and trying to decrease its wounds with low strength shooting and CC instead of ID'ing it.
I've seen both games where the spore scattered a bit and doom died without being able to cause a single wound, and games where doom solo'd his way through half an army. He was essentially a 13" across template blast weapon on the turn he came in, before he even decided to fire off cataclysm at someone for the turn. And god help you if he turned in cataclysm to take biomancy and rolled iron arm.
I personally have benefitted from a nigh unstoppable Doom before. I borrowed a nids army for a big 6 way game one weekend, got him in turn 3, tossed the spore with doom out into the middle of what was about to become a 4 way melee brawl. Doom leeched two warlords, finished off two squads, and sent 3 running back to their lines. Only one squad of chaos marines with a lord didn't flee, thanks to fearlessness. A s10 cataclysm then hit a SM land raider nearby and popped it, spilling out termies.
Next turn? Heavy weapons from here and there fire at Doom (only the chaos and marine players were really worried about him now,) he passes every single save. The chaos troops AND marine termies gather up nearby (outside the leech area.) Chaos goes before the marines, so they get some bolter wounds through then charge, and accomplish nothing. Termies go, Doom cripples the chaos squad, leaving just the lord, and goes back to 10 wounds, and the Termies charge. Doom passes every invuln save. Next guy's turn? The lord and all 5 termies die to leech, and Doom just starts wandering towards the next nearest player's deployment zone.
He never got to do anything else that game, because people gave up trying to kill him, (heavy weapons had pretty much all gotten killed in everyone's army) and the massive battle literally just moved AWAY from the Doom of Malan'tai while fighting each other. Even the guys who ran away after the initial leech, the players just had them book it the hell away from him. He did get me another linebreaker though.
This is a 90 point model ladies and gentlemen. He must've easily eaten over 1500 points plus blowing up a land raider. We decided to say that this huge battle was actually ON Malan'tai, and all records were lost of it.
As for the permissive ruleset. Yeah I think common sense sort of has a place, but I think 40k's rule design is "permissive" in style, as in it tells you what you CAN do 99% of the time. It goes unstated that you cannot, within the rules, physically attack your opponent to win the game, but the fact that it never says you can is considered to be "good enough."
Compare this to say....basketball. Most sports use a more prohibitive tone in their rules. The rules explain scoring, and then follow with what you CAN'T do. EG you can't leave the play area with the ball, you can't walk with the ball, you can't commit various fouls, you can't double dribble, etc. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can't have a vertical leap of 20 feet, or be 7'4" in height, or make a shot from across the whole court, or run faster than the other players. Generally sports use a "prohibitive rules" design because most of what you can do in the game is limited only by your physical capabilities.
I do highly agree that YMDC takes the "permissive ruleset" argument into the next solar system past where it was intended to go, but I think the 40k rules design DO prioritize letting you know what you CAN do, instead of what you can't.
TheKbob wrote: One thing I hate is playing a list that I "toned down" and still get "That list is OP broken!" Yea, you should my actual tournament list then... :/
This is the very thing that drives me nuts.
I like to have a variety of units for flexibility and simply to try out and they look better as a variety.
Then THOSE people who want to "cave face" and are looking for those lists.
So I have to carry TWO lists with me and I feel like a cheat just for that.
I would take a close game to tabling my opponent any day (or being tabled for being "nice").
Using the 5th edition Nid codex I ran a Prime, 3 dakkafexes, and a bunch of genestealers to make 1k points. Not an optimized list at all, and pretty easy for most armies to pummel into the ground.
Tabled my opponent in 4 turns, got called names for bringing an overpowered unit of 3 monstrous creatures that are unkillable.
"If it wasn't for unit (x) I would have won this."
"You play Orks as non-horde, therefore you're doing it wrong." AND "You play Orks purely as horde, therefore you're doing it wrong." (Yes, I've heard both of these, thankfully neither against me specifically.)
"You cannot overwatch, your units already forfeited to shoot at the first close-combat attackers." "Yeah I did, but the first dudes didn't reach my dudes, therefore---" "No you can't do that."
Hideous game enjoyment killing balance issues = 'Narrative'. .
Random game winning /losing dice rolls for no good reason = 'Cinematic.'
Not only do GW plc 'pi$$ in your pocket and tell you it is raining'.
But they say its your fault its raining and sell you an umbrella.And tell you its your fault you smell of pi$$, and sell you some deodorant.
Lanrak wrote: Not only do GW plc 'pi$$ in your pocket and tell you it is raining'.
But they say its your fault its raining and sell you an umbrella.And tell you its your fault you smell of pi$$, and sell you some deodorant.
Please refrain from deliberately mis-spelling words. It just irritates people. If you're worried about the language you are using being caught by the word filter... well, that's the entire point of the word filter, and deliberately circumventing it will just earn you a suspension.
Story time! I've heard somebody say. "Ah a daemon prince? What's it's strength? 5? Ha! Well that just proves that Tau technology is the best and that riptides are better than daemon princes. I should go in and one hit kill it but that would require it surviving my shots. Oh, and thanks for the free kill point." (it was a sergeant that became a prince...)
Other things.
Somebody asked me the range and strength of a boltgun
The starter force is balanced
Rending causes an auto-wound with no armor saves on a hit roll of a 6.
Balanced rules are bad
Balanced rules hurt min maxers and take the fun away
Thousand Sons are good
The Riptide isn't that bad
I have some more but too lazy to list them this late at night.
That you can't let someone who got the same or similar list for much cheaper play against you as it would make you seem like a fool. That was right here on dakka.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Historically, lots of homosexuals had wives and children. And yet even that fact does not make his/her statement any less ridiculous .
To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.
Is there a requirement to like the company that makes the game, in order to like the game?
I just find it hypocritical.
Imagine hearing "I hate Microsoft, but I love my xbox." "I hate America, but it love serving in the army." "I don't like the institution of marriage, but I decided to marry my girlfriend." I just find it annoying that people can be so delusional and hypocritical, and defend it with "GW isn't 40k man! I hate that money grubbing GW corporation." So in you dislike you support the object of your dislike with buying its products? Hm. IMHO
The rant I hear from a regular gamer is ridiculous and almost tin foil hat stuff. He is like"...I hate GW. They are a world destroying corporation, and they don't understand my hobby (40k). I can't stand them, and won't support them." Then, in our GW store where he games, he takes out his GW case, with GW minis, and GW books, and says "let's play 40k." without skipping a beat. When he starts to lose he is ranting "damnit, see, GW nerfed that unit of mine! I hate GW." Then he buys a new blister (made by GW)...
It would be hypocritical if you said "I hate 40k. Wanna play some 40k?". But even then - I've done things I don't like because the people I'm with enjoy them.
Kain wrote: To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.
If heterosexuals really dislike penises so much, he would not care for you cutting of his, right ?
Seriously, if he was right, only homosexuals could appreciate stuff like Kingdom Death or Giger's art. That would be pretty sad. And if we were to apply the same to female organs, only the bisexuals could .
Kain wrote: To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.
If heterosexuals really dislike penises so much, he would not care for you cutting of his, right ?
Seriously, if he was right, only homosexuals could appreciate stuff like Kingdom Death or Giger's art. That would be pretty sad. And if we were to apply the same to female organs, only the bisexuals could .
Ultimately, I think it boils down to him being butthurt about his legio terminators screwing up their deep strike scatter roll and getting pulverized by living artillery nodes.
But yes, the fear of the penis borders on the hilarious quite often. Much like Americans having a weird love-hate relation with sex.
I place little value in the institution of marriage. I would marry my girlfriend though, because it's important to her. You don't have to like every part of something to take part in it or enjoy it,
Is there a requirement to like the company that makes the game, in order to like the game?
I just find it hypocritical.
Imagine hearing "I hate Microsoft, but I love my xbox." "I hate America, but it love serving in the army." "I don't like the institution of marriage, but I decided to marry my girlfriend." I just find it annoying that people can be so delusional and hypocritical, and defend it with "GW isn't 40k man! I hate that money grubbing GW corporation." So in you dislike you support the object of your dislike with buying its products? Hm. IMHO
The rant I hear from a regular gamer is ridiculous and almost tin foil hat stuff. He is like"...I hate GW. They are a world destroying corporation, and they don't understand my hobby (40k). I can't stand them, and won't support them." Then, in our GW store where he games, he takes out his GW case, with GW minis, and GW books, and says "let's play 40k." without skipping a beat. When he starts to lose he is ranting "damnit, see, GW nerfed that unit of mine! I hate GW." Then he buys a new blister (made by GW)...
Hope that clarifies my view point.
I take it that you like earthquakes since you like living on land. After all it is earthquakes and tectonic plate shifting that gives us this fabulous surface to tread upon.
One doesn't have to like the source of something to like a given result. Also, a person doesn't have to like the entirety of a thing to enjoy one aspect of it.
Dead fish suck, but fish meal fertilizer is awesome.
azreal13 wrote: Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour
Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity
I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.
Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?
Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.
"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?
Idolator, you have asked many times to get a credible source for the term "permissive rule set" and truth be told m8, you are absolutely right. There is no such term in any credible lexicon. It was a made term by a wargame blogger. It was then snatched up by some in the community to excuse there over use of pedantic and semantic arguments. Unfortunately it has gotten so main stream now that many good natured debates get railroaded by this absolutely made up phrase. All made up phrases aside I have never, in my 20+ years of playing most of GW's products, played against an opponent who has said that phrase or even heard about it till 2 or 3 years ago.
I have also never seen, in any of the rule books, a statement saying "if we didn't say you could do it that means you can't!" I have seen in almost all of the rules books many statements saying the exact opposite.
Andy Chambers wrote something very perfect for YMDC. I am paraphrasing of course. "40k is not like chess or draughts. Its a fluid game that requires complex rules. If it ever comes a time when something is not covered roll off on it" That to me is the EXACT opposite of the made up phrase "permissive rule set" . Tbh thats the core rule to all of GW's games as said by the creators of GW's games.
Ridiculous things I have heard. I have truly heard someone say I was "palming" my dice. After that I always use a Yahtzee cup.
"I hate the company that makes the product I love."
Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...
"I hate the company that makes the product I love."
Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...
krazynadechukr wrote: Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike.
Because the problem here isn't anything to do with beliefs or morals?
GW's recent actions haven't been 'morally' wrong. Just annoying and stupid. If they were, I dunno, exploiting homeless kids in Africa, then you might have a point.
"God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!"
Because if you're choosing Dunkin' Donuts over Krispy Kremes or Voodoo Donuts, you are bad and should feel bad.
Dunkin' Donut is a specific producer of donuts, with an in-house recipe and manner of making them. "Donut" is a generic term for a kind of fried pastry.
"I hate the company that makes the product I love."
Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...
Dead fish are the source of fish meal fertilizer,and it is wonderful, makes my tomatoes thrive. I am repelled/disgusted by dead fish in general though for many reasons.
GW is the source of 40K. I am repelled/disgusted by GW in general though, for many reasons.
It's a bit of a joke. Connected to the argument to show that the source of a thing can be disliked while still liking something that it produces. I also hate mold on bread, but penicillin is awesome.
40k is not GW. Warhammer 40K is one product made by a company, much like the X-box is one product made by a company.If another company made the X-box, I would still like it.. GW is a company that is publicly traded and has changed leadership and business practices to the point that it is no longer the same company that it once was. 40K can be divorced from GW and picked up by another company. I would still dislike GW and would still like 40K. I do truly enjoy the intellectual property that is Warhammer 40,000 but I haven't purchased anything from GW in over a year, mostly because their product has gone from being a seafood dinner to being something that I dump in the ground.
Terrain that are clearly ruins confer a cover save if you are covered by them. Cool, we all know that. It also says that if there is a base, the base is area terrain thus inducing a 5+ cover and difficult terrain checks. Cool, makes sense.
One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"
Vineheart01 wrote: So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"
No microscope required. This is 100% explicitly allowed by the Ruins rules.
Terrain that are clearly ruins confer a cover save if you are covered by them. Cool, we all know that. It also says that if there is a base, the base is area terrain thus inducing a 5+ cover and difficult terrain checks. Cool, makes sense.
One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"
While open to discussion (meaning bad rule design), pg. 99 does state: It's perfectly acceptable to assume that combatants on both sides have brought plenty of cutting tools, acidic things, or naked ferocity to muscle their way through any wall so foolish as to block their path. Indeed, the normal rules for moving through difficult terrain allow you to do just this.
So basically, wishy wash rules that say "Yea, we mean to allow this, but in case you forget to cover this in one of the 47 other topics you'll need discuss prior to starting, you can now have another rules dispute based on our poor wording. Which may or may not be used by your opponent to their advantage. But remember, have FUN!"
I have never used the word permissive rule set in regards to wargaming. It means something within martial arts though.
When talking about martial arts a permissive rule set is one that allows a great number of styles and techniques to use with fewer rules separating it from a real fight.
For example mma is a permissive rule set. Muay Thai is a permissive striking rule set where as Olympic TKD and point fighting karate are not.
Vineheart01 wrote: One of my opponents took that one step further. The rules for area terrains, specifically forests, state you ignore the crap on top of the base when moving models around. So he tried to move his soldiers THROUGH A WALL lol. i said "Oh hell naw! Even if that was legal by reading with a 1000x microscope between the lines i wouldnt allow that bullcrap because thats jet/jump/skimmer's strengths out the window if that was true!"
Was it classified as a ruin?
You can move through it.
Skimmers, etc. can bounce over impassable terrain where normal models can't.
The most ridiculous thing I have heard, outside of this website, is that Chapterhouse Studios was a dick for trying to sue poor ol' Games Workshop. Now Games Workshop has to remove is forced to remove units with no models from their codices and it is all CHS's fault for trying to challenge GW's bogus claims.
While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.
Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.
Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.
As they were the defendant it isn't fair to blame CHS for anything that happened.
If GW had let sleeping dogs lie, everyone would have carried on as they were, but instead chose to pursue a lawsuit which actually managed to expose a whole bunch of stuff that has subsequently cause them issues.
GW has nobody to blame but themselves for any fallout from the CHS case.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I do think CHS is at least partially responsible for putting GW in a position where they feel things need to be removed if they don't have the money to make them (and let's be honest, that's why things went without models before, budgetting reasons) I don't blame CHS for everything that happened.
Of course it doesn't help that GW seemed to think they have the same kind of legal power as Disney, but now that they've been proven wrong they're pulling back on a lot of things.
As they were the defendant it isn't fair to blame CHS for anything that happened.
If GW had let sleeping dogs lie, everyone would have carried on as they were, but instead chose to pursue a lawsuit which actually managed to expose a whole bunch of stuff that has subsequently cause them issues.
GW has nobody to blame but themselves for any fallout from the CHS case.
CHS had very intentionally decided to try and make models to fill GW's gaps. To pretend that choosing to do that didn't lead to the whole chain of events that's leading to us losing stuff in codexes now would be silly.
I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that they definitely deliberately tried to make products to cash in on GW not having a model to fill that gap. That's as far as I'm putting any "blame" on them.
All I'm saying is choices were made deliberately and the events that occurred afterwards only occurred because they chose to go down that road, and then keep going down it in the way that they did even after they knew GW was watching what they were doing.
No, loads of companies fill the gaps. One could make the argument, perhaps, that CHS were a little more relaxed in disguising it, but regardless, they weren't unique.
Rather than acknowledge that they were only making money if GW themselves made money (as the majority of their catalogue required you to have a GW kit already to want or need them) and leave them be, GW chose to go down the route that led to the current situation.
There are any number of ways they could have protected themselves historically, or at least taken steps before they initiated the suit, but they weren't aware/competent/humble enough to do so, therefore, I repeat, this situation has come about solely at the instigation of GW and their inability to do things properly.
CHS being blatant about it was definitely the issue I think that made GW so ready to try and sue. CHS could have backed down about been ing quite as blatant when they were C&Dad but they doubled down which made things more of a mess.
Not that I feel GW handled it all that well either.
My favorite is the guy who tried to tell me that my army was not right and that i had to take x and y or i'd never win. i proceeded to totally wipe his "internet" army with my themed force. he threw a hisy fit got one of the guys running the event over as he was sure my army was illegal and that i was cheating. turned out he was the one cheating as he had weighted dice.
So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?
Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.
azreal13 wrote: So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?
Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.
Easy with the accusations, you'll find I'm no blind defender of GW if you actually pay attention to the things I say. I'm not saying CHS was wrong, but we have to admit that their choosing to fight did lead to negative repercussions to us, the consumer and how GW handles things that they don't have the budget to make models for. Is it GW's fault for putting too much into the codexes when they knew they didn't have the time or money available to make models for it? Pretty much, but because they did and the case made things change we have to give up models now. No longer do we get things to get wave releases later nor do we get stuff we can play by kit-bashing together an appropriate character.
It's a large reason the codexes aren't feeling like the changes are as big and I think it's worth recognizing that when CHS doubled down (and this is before they got a legal team, I mean when they basically flipped GW the bird over the C&D) that the ripple effect occurred and we're feeling some of those ripples even now. I won't claim CHS was wrong for trying to monetize an obvious hole in the market or that they were wrong to do so, but it's clear that we lost some things because of it and I don't think we should ignore it. Things aren't black and white in the real world and even if they were mostly right a little gray comes with it too.
I do pay attention to the things you say, and as a result I have come to the conclusion that, while taking great pains about appearing to be reasonable, you are frequently the poster, or amongst the posters who look for a reason to let GW off the hook in any discussion that centers around the correctness or otherwise of their actions.
It isn't really an accusation, so I wouldn't get all up in arms about it, more an observation.
I will object to you using 'we' in the way you did there though, 'we' do not 'have' to do anything. 'You' are welcome to make any assumptions you like, but don't presume I wish to be included.
There is basically nothing in the whole situation that can be considered negative to the consumer that can't be laid at GWs feet either as a result of their actions bringing the case, conducting the case, or failure to take sensible actions to protect themselves in the past.
azreal13 wrote: I do pay attention to the things you say, and as a result I have come to the conclusion that, while taking great pains about appearing to be reasonable, you are frequently the poster, or amongst the posters who look for a reason to let GW off the hook in any discussion that centers around the correctness or otherwise of their actions.
I don't take "great pains" to look reasonable, I am actually (at least as far as I see myself) a reasonable person. And as such I'm not going to keep going back and forth and how much blame for rocking the boat CHS should or should not get in regards to upsetting the status quo that has lead to the loss of things that don't have models and so on. It's a lot of gray and all opinion on the end so let's leave it at that.
azreal13 wrote: So CHS, who have subsequently emerged as being mostly in the right, and have a fighting chance of being completely exonerated, given the inconsistency in some of the rulings and the representation they're now rocking for the appeal stage, could have backed down?
Please, I think the reflection off your armour is getting in your eyes.
Easy with the accusations, you'll find I'm no blind defender of GW if you actually pay attention to the things I say. I'm not saying CHS was wrong, but we have to admit that their choosing to fight did lead to negative repercussions to us, the consumer and how GW handles things that they don't have the budget to make models for. Is it GW's fault for putting too much into the codexes when they knew they didn't have the time or money available to make models for it? Pretty much, but because they did and the case made things change we have to give up models now. No longer do we get things to get wave releases later nor do we get stuff we can play by kit-bashing together an appropriate character.
It's a large reason the codexes aren't feeling like the changes are as big and I think it's worth recognizing that when CHS doubled down (and this is before they got a legal team, I mean when they basically flipped GW the bird over the C&D) that the ripple effect occurred and we're feeling some of those ripples even now. I won't claim CHS was wrong for trying to monetize an obvious hole in the market or that they were wrong to do so, but it's clear that we lost some things because of it and I don't think we should ignore it. Things aren't black and white in the real world and even if they were mostly right a little gray comes with it too.
While i don't agree with the accusation I can see where it came from.
There have been reproductions for us, the consumers, from this but ALL of the blame rests squarely on GWs shoulders. If you haven't read the thread on the case I really do suggest finding it and filtering to just read Weeble's posts or something.
GW gave Chapterhouse no reason to back down, they where bullies from the start suing over things they didn't own with the intention of shutting down CH for good. Hell, thanks to this case we now know Chapterhouse could have been MORE blatant with what they have been doing as we now know there is nothing wrong with saying that their parts are compatible with a games workshop space marine.
I simply don't see where the grey you speak of comes from here. Chapterhouse made a product, GW decided it was infringing their IP and attempted to bully CH. Over the course of the trial they continued to play the part of the bully and even lied to the court on a couple of occasions. CH got some pro bono lawyers and fought back because the other option was to effectively close down.
So, keeping on topic, the most ridiculous thing I have heard was when someone who either really didn't understand the situation at all or was just blatantly trolling posted in that thread saying that GW won the case and the guy running CH was now a criminal.
While i don't agree with the accusation I can see where it came from.
There have been reproductions for us, the consumers, from this but ALL of the blame rests squarely on GWs shoulders. If you haven't read the thread on the case I really do suggest finding it and filtering to just read Weeble's posts or something.
I don't really mean it as an accusation, but an observation. By rocking the boat they changed the status quo and we're losing stuff out of codexes because of it. Now we can definitely argue that it shouldn't have been there in the first place and if it was going to be there it should have been supported with models, but frankly that doesn't change the past and GW's definite dropping the ball on those products doesn't change with "should haves" unfortunately.
jonolikespie wrote: GW gave Chapterhouse no reason to back down, they where bullies from the start suing over things they didn't own with the intention of shutting down CH for good. Hell, thanks to this case we now know Chapterhouse could have been MORE blatant with what they have been doing as we now know there is nothing wrong with saying that their parts are compatible with a games workshop space marine.
I'm not saying CHS was wrong, I'm just saying that sometimes good acts come with negative repercussions.
jonolikespie wrote: I simply don't see where the grey you speak of comes from here. Chapterhouse made a product, GW decided it was infringing their IP and attempted to bully CH. Over the course of the trial they continued to play the part of the bully and even lied to the court on a couple of occasions. CH got some pro bono lawyers and fought back because the other option was to effectively close down.
The bullying is why I said GW seemed to think they could approach IP like Disney does. I see some grey in CHS' motives and claims, but then again I don't believe there are any real heroes, especially in cases like this. Anyone who claims a company is a hero is saying some ridiculious stuff in my book.
As for ridiculious things, I've known some people who felt it was alright to horribly beat down the new players just because they were skull dragged when they where new.
This whole thing had been an interesting development.
GW would write about units they may not have models for.
GW would depend on completed models to be used as a means to prevent copying their IP.
By not releasing the models with the codex it would create a demand for the model.
CHS would "ninja" GW and make a model.
Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.
CHS had the poor manners to now put GW in an uncomfortable position and have to rethink how they do codex releases. It really is a cool legal problem; you describe a model and it's function in rules but the real legal item is the physical model.
Now we are faced with a core codex and a series of supplements. All priced properly to cover their legal costs from this whole debacle.
<edit> So to stay on topic, a "ridiculous thing" would be blaming CHS for making use of a glaring opportunity that GW forgot was their primary means of defending their IP. Just answering the call of supply and demand.
rigeld2 wrote: It's true though, using the rules for measuring distances between units.
It doesn't matter for shooting though - you can only kill what's in range of the longest range weapon you're firing.
Individual models have to be in range of at least one model to get shots though.
Yeah, by the anecdotal logic, adding a lascannon to a squad and putting it in front of the unit allows all the bolters behind it to shoot at that target on the other side of the board.
StarTrotter wrote: Not quite. They still need to have a model within 24" of all the boltgunners.
That is true, but the logic of "this one guy's in range so the rest can shoot too" is what I'm blowing out of proportion. What can't a bit of hyperbole fix?
StarTrotter wrote: Not quite. They still need to have a model within 24" of all the boltgunners.
That is true, but the logic of "this one guy's in range so the rest can shoot too" is what I'm blowing out of proportion. What can't a bit of hyperbole fix?
Ah forgive me then! I suppose it is quite aprt for the title of the discussion eh? A bit ridiculous?
Talizvar wrote: Now GW runs the risk of running into IP infringement because someone else made the model first.
That's always been the assumption of internet non-lawyers and isn't true. Unless GW wanted to directly copy CHS' model of course.
"Always been the assumption", "isn't true" there is always further to a complicated case, do not assume huge ignorance on my part just yet.
I may have to add what you said to ridiculous things I heard people say.
IF someone would want to claim an IP infringement, a good start is pointing to your product being out first then the relevant details of the infringement.
Review of the CHS ruling shows many of the considerations.
Full list of transcripts here:
http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html 373 gets into the meat of what could be presented in trial or not up to 377.
Review 403-on for the various settling or aftermath of the case.
They are up to 489 documents all leading up to now still beating out the details of the judgment/"settlement" and the gazillion amendments being proposed.
If you look at the details and reasons for their appeal of the judgment, just having some common dimensions or features like the hotly contested shoulder-pads cast doubt and they point to them as prior works before CHS put out theirs.
as we start putting models on the table.
))
A riptide the most absolute bastardized creation of 
