Latest posts for the thread "Examples of bad GW rules writing"

Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Please, contribute them. I'm mostly looking for silliness in terms of lack of quality assurance with the text itself; in my view the overall level of quality of the text generated by GW is inexcusable when paired with the rate at which errata are produced.

I'll start with one of my favorites:

BTB p.27, emphasis mine:

When a unit contains several multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible

Now, I've said before GW needs to hire a technical writer to proof their text. I suppose it's possible they have one. If they, do they really need to either:

a) Replace the technical writer who okayed the above text
b) Fire the manager who overrode the technical writer's complaint to the above text

It's really that simple -- there's no excuse for technical writing to be as imprecise as the above. "Several" is a word that is fundamentally impossible to adjucate accurately, and "whole" is never defined (while "whole" itself has a fairly straight-forward meaning, it is ambiguous in this case -- there is no context to absolutely determine whether it refers to whole unwounded models as opposed to wounded models, or just to models as opposed to wounds). It is, I assert, a direct example of bad technical writing; exactly the thing that a lot of us complainers complain about.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Infantryman — GMT

That rule is blindingly simple.

If you've a unit of Trolls, which have more than 1 wound, and the unit takes wounds, lets say 3, you remove one three wound model instead of giving one wound to 3 models...

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Asmodai — GMT

It's simple and everyone knows how it works in play. It's still appalling worded.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

fellblade — GMT

And while we're at it, why not give the corrected rule? I'd be interested to know how Lowinor would change the rule he uses as an example, to make it more clear and unambiguous. (Because I'm not a technical writer, and while I see his point, I couldn't come up with better wording.)

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Well, the rule itself is fairly simple. It's not all that contentious in play with the exception of a few situations that aren't all that common, but it's poorly written and not universally understood. Ed even claimed at one point that the rule as written requires a Thousand Sons player to whack the sorceror in a squad on the first wound received, which is isn't the case. It's just not a well-written rule.

Now, I'm not a technical writer (I do work with them, and get reminded of such if I try to write documentation -- I work as a software developer professionally), but it's fairly obvious that the rule would be better if both the word "several" were replaced with something else (e.g., "multiple", which is how many people play the rule, but as written there's no way to quantify "several" -- "more than one" seems the most sensible way to interpret it, but again, the rule as written is ambiguous) and the word "whole" needs to be qualified (as there was an inconclusive debate in YMTC about the meaning of "whole" in the rule rather recently, with no absolute way to resolve it).

But, anyway, here we go with phrasing the rule better -- I should point out that the following may not align with your interpretation of the word "whole" in the actual rule as it is, as said above, ambiguous.

"When allocating wounds to a unit which contains more than one model with multiple wounds, any wounds allocated to the multiple wound models must be allocated such that the greatest possible number of models are removed as casualties."

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Oh, while I'm still online, another favorite: The 40k rulebook contains no method for determining which Leadership value to use for a squad when taking Leadership or Morale checks.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

rryannn — GMT

I don't mean to burst your bubble Lowinor, but GW's orignal wording sounds better than yours. Your wording was too lengthy and technical.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Abadabadoobaddon — GMT

Posted By rryannn on 12/26/2006 10:46 PM
I don't mean to burst your bubble Lowinor, but GW's orignal wording sounds better than yours. Your wording was too lengthy and technical.

I don't mean to burst your bubble rryann, but you're wrong.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Wayfarer — GMT

I like:

"When allocating wounds to units which have two or more multi-wound models, you must allocate enough wounds to kill a single model before allocating remaining wounds to the next model."

Then again I'm no technical writer.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

syr8766 — GMT

One of my old favorites was the refusal to deal with the Tau Pathfinder unit's devilfish in Omega situations. Oh, man. That discussion would produce dozen+ page threads on this board, without any OT interference! Good times, man. Good times.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Posted By syr8766 on 12/27/2006 5:52 AM
One of my old favorites was the refusal to deal with the Tau Pathfinder unit's devilfish in Omega situations. Oh, man. That discussion would produce dozen+ page threads on this board, without any OT interference! Good times, man. Good times.

Oooh, good one. On a related note, the position of the Devilish in the current Tau codex is great: Maybe it's a troop choice by itself, maybe it's not.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Vero — GMT

several, ie: more than one

whole, ie: entire, complete

the rule is very straight forward as written in the book. How you or this thousand son player got something different shows that you are trying to think way to far into it.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

insaniak — GMT

Posted By Vero on 12/27/2006 2:10 PM
several, ie: more than one

Actually, 'several' is 'more than two, and fewer than many'

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Vero — GMT

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/several

Main Entry: ¹sev·er·al
Pronunciation: 'sev-r&l, 'se-v&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin separalis, from Latin separ separate, back-formation from separare to separate
1 a : separate or distinct from one another several states> b (1) : individually owned or controlled : EXCLUSIVE several fishery> -- compare COMMON (2) : of or relating separately to each individual involved several judgment> c : being separate and distinctive : RESPECTIVE several fields>
2 a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many several inches> c chiefly dialect : being a great many

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

moosifer — GMT

I dont have the WH codex on me, but using Faith points and a Faith Ability for a single IC to give them a 2+ invuln save for the majority of the game if leadership (10) is passed

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Vero, note definition 2b. Several is a terrible word to use in the rule precisely because of it; it is, by the listed definitions, ambiguous.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Okies, a few more:

Rapid Fire Weapons and Pistols: The way the rules are written, the Rapid Fire and/or Pistol firing mode is granted to the model carrying the weapon, not the weapon itself. Assault, Heavy, and Ordnance on the same page apply the rules to the weapon, but Rapid Fire and Pistol apply to the model.

Poor definition of the board: The borders of the playing field are only really mentioned with regard to deployment (setting up, Deep Strike, and Reserves) and the ability to run off the board due to morale failure. Otherwise... the rules really don't discuss the edge of the board. While most people can agree that voluntarily moving off of the board is against the spirit of the rules if not the letter, what happens when involuntary movement beyond falling back compels movement potentially off the board spawns multiple several ( ) page threads in YMTC about it.

Poor definition of force org chart slots in codices: See the Tau thing above for empty Devilfish as troop choices; Chaos has a similar thing with empty Rhinos as elite choices. How to read the army list entries is never really specified. While one wouldn't expect a veteran player to read the Tau codex and decide that empty Devilfish as a troop choice was intended, from the perspective of a new player with only the main rulebook and the Tau codex if anything it looks to go the other way. The FOC entries in the codices in general assume context that is never properly established.

I should point out that I'm not advocating using any of the above to justify play that's deviant from the "reasonable convention" that even allows 40k to be played, but that the above rules are bad and have all caused several page threads in YMTC. The first hasn't only because of its absurdity -- but absurdity doesn't stop the text from being entirely different from how the game is played.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Abadabadoobaddon — GMT

Posted By Lowinor on 12/28/2006 9:09 AM
Vero, note definition 2b. Several is a terrible word to use in the rule precisely because of it; it is, by the listed definitions, ambiguous.

I agree. They should have worded it like this:

When a unit contains a plethora of multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible.

Would you say I have a plethora of Thousand Sons?

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

I've always preferred myriad...

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Wayfarer — GMT

Any excuse to use the word cornucopia.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

beef — GMT

What about GW new rule
"If you dont like our imbalanced codex or ambigious rules go play something else but for Gods sake stop your whining"

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

nyarlathotep667 — GMT

Did you not get the memo? Or are you so incredibly dumb that you don't get a thread designed to locate rules ambiguities so they can be improved is constructive? Not to mention that this is a discussion forum, which includes complaining about things we don't like to people that actually understand what we're complaining about.

I propose a new rule "Please don't let Beef post again".

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

The Power Cosmic — GMT

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

syr8766 — GMT

I love a big pelican beak hug!

Wait, what?

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Vero — GMT

Posted By Lowinor on 12/28/2006 9:09 AM
Vero, note definition 2b. Several is a terrible word to use in the rule precisely because of it; it is, by the listed definitions, ambiguous.

the definition is still pretty clear when combined with the rules that they are referring to multiple models. Just because you choose to ignore one part of of the definition, that does not make you right.

Also: I'm not familiar with how the Tau codex reads, but in codex Chaos it clearly says Transport: Rhino

Now I relize it is still listed in the elites column, but reading "Transport:" before it makes it pretty clear to me that it is a transport vehicle, not an elites choice. All other points to the rhino then say to go to page 28(?) for more details.

So if you can't be happy with that, where would be the better place in the codex to put the Rhino?

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

fellblade — GMT

"... where would be the better place in the codex to put the Rhino?"

Not in the troops choices? Only as a purchased upgrade to a squad?

Please understand that I haven't played 40K in years, don't have a rulebook, and don't really care much one way or the other, but you did ask. Since I don't have a rulebook, I will ask what may be a stupid question: so what if the Rhino does have "Transport" in front of it? Is there somewhere in the rules that "Transport" is clearly defined as not being an elites choice by itself?

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Vero — GMT

I dont have the rulebook infront of me, but I am pretty sure that when a unit become designated as a transport vehicle then it occupies the same slot as the unit that is riding in it. ei: becomes part of your HQ slot if your lord is in it.

I think the LR was the only exception to this, but I never field one one... nor do the people I play against

But why should the Rhino go under Troop choice? my HQ and Elites can use it too. There really is no perfect section to put it. I think they did fine by just putting it right after the Verterans and then putting special notes with every squad that can take it.
The only other place I would say it should go, would be in the Chaos Armoury. Put the description/profile in the armoury section and then put notes like did with all the units saying this unit may be able to be carried in a rhino transport at +50pts, check page X of the armoury for further details."

That would make it 100% clear that it is not a sperate unit choice.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

beef — GMT

@ nyarlathotep667 Did you not get the humour?

Ok knew rule stop whining about my post and go play a game or paint something.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

insaniak — GMT

Posted By Vero on 12/29/2006 7:42 AM
I dont have the rulebook infront of me, but I am pretty sure that when a unit become designated as a transport vehicle then it occupies the same slot as the unit that is riding in it. ei: becomes part of your HQ slot if your lord is in it.

Nope, by the rulebook section on Transport Vehicles, a Transport Vehicle is simply a vehicle that has the ability to transport models.

It becomes a part of the purchasing unit if it is listed as an option in their unit entry, not through simply being a Transport.

There are no rules that say that a unit listed as a Transport can not be taken seperately. We simply assume that this is probably what they intended, based on the 'Transport' tag and the fact that some codexes have the Transport unit entry in a box.

The easy alternative, as I see it, would have been to either have Transport vehicles on a seperate page at the end of the army list, or to simply include a line under the heading stating that this vehicle may not be taken seperately.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Lowinor — GMT

Posted By Vero on 12/29/2006 7:42 AM
I dont have the rulebook infront of me, but I am pretty sure that when a unit become designated as a transport vehicle then it occupies the same slot as the unit that is riding in it. ei: becomes part of your HQ slot if your lord is in it.

Well, yes. But that's not the point -- the point is that the transports are entries within certain sections of their respective codices, and by the rules for constructing army lists... you select entries from within sections. The Devilfish is an entry in the Tau Troops section, the Chaos Rhino is an entry in the Chaos Elites section. It's not that putting a CSM squad in a Rhino makes them Elites, it's that the Rhino itself has an entry in the Elites section, and by the rules printed is therefore a valid choice to fill an Elite FOC slot.

Designation as a transport vehicle doesn't have any impact on, well, anything other than ability to, er, transport troops. Dedicated Transport is a concept with rules attached, but something merely being a transport (or having "Transport:" prefixed to its name, or having "Transport" printed vertically adjacent to its army list entry) doesn't make something a Dedicated Transport -- that happens by having the vehicle purchased as part of a unit's army list entry.

Edit: Or, basically, what insaniak said...

This to me looks like another part of a general pattern, where the 40k rules are propped up by a certain level of context which is not explicitly defined anywhere. I don't think any veteran player of 40k would look at the Tau codex and think taking an empty Devilfish as a Troops choice for Tau was expected, but if you give someone new to the game just the main rulebook and the Tau codex, it's not so clear because the context that the veteran player uses to make their decision isn't actually written down anywhere for the new player.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Wayfarer — GMT

Posted By insaniak on 12/29/2006 1:11 PM
The easy alternative, as I see it, would have been to either have Transport vehicles on a seperate page at the end of the army list, or to simply include a line under the heading stating that this vehicle may not be taken seperately.

Yes, but then it would make sense and we can't have that.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

nyarlathotep667 — GMT

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 12:33 PM
@ nyarlathotep667 Did you not get the humour?

Ok knew rule stop whining about my post and go play a game or paint something.

Are you seriously suggesting you are capable of humor? You can't even communicate coherently...

This is a discussion board. If you want to go somewhere that nobody complains and everybody agrees that everything is lovely and wonderful, go to the Bolter & Chainsword or, at the very least, take your own advice instead of whining in every thread you post in.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

whitedragon — GMT

Bolter and Chainsword
www.bolterandchainsword.com

Warseer
www.warseer.com

Just for those that didn't know.

RE: Examples of bad GW rules writing

Mannahnin — GMT

Beef, your posts in this thread are misplaced and inappropropriate. When your posts get deleted, it means a moderator is doing it. Stop posting in this thread. Full stop. This is a warning.

Nyarlathotep, you don't have to call people dumb to criticize their posting habits or misbehavior, nor to alert a moderator. You've crossed the line regarding personal attacks a few times in the last few days, and it needs to stop. This is a warning.