Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all,

In order to satisfy a discussion in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/386320.page

It is required of the collective consciousness of Dakka that you present your situations for zeekil to interpret and "Make Da Call" here.

At the end of this month, our resident TOs can bring together their rulings on his calls and decide if he is correct in terms of RAW and RAI 99.9% of the time.

You may begin...

Lol nice wording I like it.

However for clarification I did say that I was correct about 99.9% of rules calls including the strieghtforward ones, not 99.9% of the twisted-once-in-a-lifetime scenarios that almost never happen and have a vague answer that will take days to analyze.

The most complex rules scenario?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page

Of course that was before the new FaQ.

Most of the rules that has to be interpreted has less to do with the actual rule, and more to do with degrees, angles and fractions, none of which are easily examplified in a forum post, because they are so situational. It's stupid to demand clear cut, well defined examples of things which are by their very nature vague and ill defined. The fact that these rules are vague and ill defined is the entire issue here, which is why it's hard to come up with examples without actually writing down detailed descriptions of issues that come up during actual play.

It's almost like religious people who demand hard evidence that evolution is happening right now. That's nearly impossible to prove, by the very nature of evolution (I.E. taking millions of years to make a difference.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zeekill wrote:Lol nice wording I like it.

However for clarification I did say that I was correct about 99.9% of rules calls including the strieghtforward ones, not 99.9% of the twisted-once-in-a-lifetime scenarios that almost never happen and have a vague answer that will take days to analyze.

You said you were always correct in your rules-calls.

As for the OP, how about this one
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/385698.page#3119613

SgtSixkilla wrote:You said you were correct in your rules-calls 99.9% of the time

As for the OP, how about this one
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/385698.page#3119613

Firstly, I fixed that.

Secondly, I would say that, as written, the rule would mean you would have a streight 4D6 - as saying that it has "an AP of 4D6" would mean that rolling 4D6 would override what is written in the rulebook under "Armor Penetration." As codex overrides rulebook when it comes to rule conflicts.

Then again I can also see why the opposite argument of 4D6+3 comes up, and it is a poorly written rule. But Matt Ward did write the codex, and we all know that when he means "bananas" he will write "chalkboard."

zeekill wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:You said you were correct in your rules-calls 99.9% of the time

As for the OP, how about this one
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/385698.page#3119613

Firstly, I fixed that.

Lol. I would say that being wrong once in a 1000 means you are always correct. The overlap is virtually non-existent.

I'm really not seeing a point to this thread beyond continuing an argument that was itself locked because people couldn't behave like grown-ups.

If someone wants to establish 'rules cred' they can do it by participating in the relevant discussions like everyone else.

This isn't the place for calling people out.