The State of 40k Forums...

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.

**Grimtuff**

MWHistorian wrote:
Are there any other examples of this?

Off of the top of my head...

Legion of the Damned (if taken on their own as a primary detachment) auto lose every game.
Teleporting Yarrick (though this may have been corrected in the new book).
Going back a few editions with this one, but Vehicles never actually being defined as models. Made for a few "interesting" YMDC discussions I seem to remember...
The whole crouching Wraithlords thing from 3rd.
The fact that at one point there were 4! (IIRC) versions of the 3.5 CSM codex in circulation. With no indication from GW said printing had been replaced.
Terminators not wearing Terminator armour.

**ClockworkZion**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.

So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?

Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.

**Grimtuff**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.

So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?

Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.

Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.

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

This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.

**Kilkrazy**

Yep. It was a rule that was mathematically defined, and some people still could not understand it, because of a fixed idea that high die rolls are "better" than low ones. (In disregard of the fact that when rolling Leadership, low rolls are better than high ones.)

Eventually the whinging and moaning™ led GW to overrule the rules. At least then there was clarity.

As long as you didn't read the rulebook.

**Polonius**

The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.

In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.

**ClockworkZion**

Grimtuff wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.

So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?

Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.

Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.

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

This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.

What FAQs?

**CthuluIsSpy**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.

So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?

Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.

Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.

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

This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.

What FAQs?

Fax, you say? Wasn't that an old way of documents, before emails?
Note sure what that has to do with warhammer...

**Grimtuff**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.

So basically GW itself says "don't use RAW"?

Well that kind of invalidates what YMDC is all about then.

Quite egregious example here in their current FAQs.

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

This kids, is why you need outside playtesting.

What FAQs?

Oh touché! You waited in the wings until the new website launch to plop that one down didn't you?

**TheKbob**

Polonius wrote:
The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.

In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.

IANAL*, but I've always thought the same. RAW always seems to ignore some sort of underpinning or thought process that can be gleaned on what makes sense. But you also cannot deny the hard left of some of the FAQs that defy any form of logic.

*I wanted to do law, but a lot of my law school and post law school friends said "Just,... don't..." with glum faces.

**ClockworkZion**

Grimtuff wrote:
Oh touché! You waited in the wings until the new website launch to plop that one down didn't you?

Nope, that'd require me to expect them to drop FAQs and I frankly didn't know what to expect for this update in general. It just crossed my mind when I saw your post again.

**Crablezworth**

TheKbob wrote:
Polonius wrote:
The more time I spent as a lawyer, the more sense GW makes. Not because you need to have a good grasp on logic, legal principles, or analysis to read the GW rules, but because you learn to understand the underlying "here's what we meant" that underpins nearly all written rules, in games and the law.

In other words, the sort of exacting RAW wrangling that exists in YMDC would be laughed out of nearly any court in the country.

IANAL*, but I've always thought the same. RAW always seems to ignore some sort of underpinning or thought process that can be gleaned on what makes sense. But you also cannot deny the hard left of some of the FAQs that defy any form of logic.

*I wanted to do law, but a lot of my law school and post law school friends said "Just,... don't..." with glum faces.

Heldrake cough cough, that made no sense, mostly because it was an FAQ and not an errata, meaning we were justs supposed to infer that it broke all the well layed out and incredibly specific rules for vehicle fire arcs. Stuff like that sets a horrible precedent.

**MWHistorian**

Yaaay! Until they get the Faqs back up the Heldrake isn't so cheese anymore!
Woohoo!! Woo...what? we're still going to act like the faqs are...oh. Okay.

Darn.

(walks off with hands in pockets.)