GW just posted the 7th Edition FAQs for the general rule book, and the new O&G books.

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/errata.htm

It's actually a pretty well written set of FAQs, too.

Well written? ulai2mi?

No. It's the usual GW garbage.

First they try to pull some jedi mind trick by explaining that the rules as they were before the FAQ didn't allow declaring charges that you knew would fail. I probably shouldn't be accusing them of any wrong doing here, as you should never attribute to malice what you can explain by incompetence. But regardless of their moronic explaination, they've definitively closed that hole.

Then they say that sliding is definitely against the rules. And if you don't do it you're a bad sport. Let me say that again: they clearly state what the rule is, then tell you that you're a jerk if you follow it.

I give it an F+. Even when they get things right, they make fools of themselves. And now before every single game of warhammer you ever play you'll have to discuss whether or not the other guy is a slider or a clipper. Bravo GW, another job well don.....well another job done.

But at least we're all another dollar richer, as you've passed us the buck!

Meh. Now I am more confused.

Ewww.... I don't really even play fantasy that much and I can tell how much that FAQ sucks. So now every WHFB player that follows the rules is a poor sport, and it's even confirmed by GW. At least in other games when you follow the RAW it's up to your opponent to act like a jerk and tell you that your unsporting, but in fantasy, GW does it for you! an F+ is generous

heh, GW at work once again.....nice....

Posted By mauleed on 12/20/2006 4:23 AM

No. It's the usual GW garbage.

 

Then they say that sliding is definitely against the rules. And if you don't do it you're a bad sport. Let me say that again: they clearly state what the rule is, then tell you that you're a jerk if you follow it.

I think you're kind of off on this.  They say that yes, technically to the letter of the rule sliding is illegal, but if sliding helps move the game along, is agreed upon by both players, and makes for a more fun sporting game, its advised to use it to negate clipping and some other awkward situations.  Sounds decently reasonable to me.

So telling people to ignore their own rules is reasonable to you? Saying following the rules is poor sportsmanship and that's the companies official stance, is reasonable to you? I suggest than that perhaps you yourself aren't particularly reasonable.

These idiots had a perfect opportunity to put the issue to complete rest and they blew it. There's no reason they could not have put this issue to bed for all time, but their either too lazy or too incompetent to do it. Or maybe they just think it's funny. regardless, a crappy job yet again.

 

wow, nice mature personal attack as a comeback as well, shows me why you find the ruling so unreasonable... guess that teaches me to try to offer a different point of view on Dakka in a civil manner

Sorry but GW-apologist bologna is going to get nothing but scorn from me.

and obviously there's not a lot of substance to your opinion on this or you'd have responded with something more substancial than "you hurt my feelings".

Hey, at least WHFB players didn't have to wait two years! "Games Workshop, incompetence is what we do!"

Is it just me, or does it seem assinine for GW to release a FAQ clarification which says that the rules do not alow a certain action, and then says that the rules as written are optional?!??

Try applying this to other situations: "It is required that drivers use their turn signals when changing lanes, however, many drivers find this step tiresome, so this step may be skipped due to convenience...!" The "clarification" kinda invalidates the reasoning behind the original ruling doesn't it.

I said nothing about you hurting my feelings, only our maturity level in attacking my opinion (instead of illiciting a civil response) which you continue to display in spades. Nor am I a GW apologist, I just read more into something than trying to find the negative first and found what they really meant. And I gave the substance of my opinion in my first post, I don't feel it needs to be defended to the death as you do with yours. If you are so angry and bitter at all that is GW, then maybe you should find other places to post, that might give you a much needed break and allow your blood pressure to come down a bit. Relax, it's a game and a hobby and nothing more.

Uh, I'm pretty sure the one that needs to be relaxing here is you and not Ed.

Well, while I agree in principle that the whole "you can clip by rules but we suggest you slide thing" is sticky, the rest of the FAQ is actually pretty helpful and clear. And really, I would rather have a FAQ/Errata released 3 months after the book is published that solved several problems but left one messy than wait a few years (like the 40k rule book FAQs.) Of course, the holy grail has yet to be achieved, but overall, I would call this a step forward from GW.

And realistically, the whole clipping issue is a miniscule one in the grand scheme of things. As a weekly WHFB player, and having attended a few tournaments in the past few months, I can say that the clipping issue has never come up. So while I agree that the issue is messy, I am confident that it will rarely (if ever) crop up and slow down a game. Good gaming!

Posted By keezus on 12/20/2006 7:56 AM
Is it just me, or does it seem assinine for GW to release a FAQ clarification which says that the rules do not alow a certain action, and then says that the rules as written are optional?!??

Try applying this to other situations: "It is required that drivers use their turn signals when changing lanes, however, many drivers find this step tiresome, so this step may be skipped due to convenience...!" The "clarification" kinda invalidates the reasoning behind the original ruling doesn't it.

the rules have always been optional. you can choose to follow them or not. the only time rules issues really come to the forefront are at tournaments where "friendly house rules" and "equally friendly decisions" are left to the side and all out rules lawyerism is brought out in spades.

It still says feel free to use or don't use whatever rules you and your friends like in the front of the book.. It has for years. 

Posted By Zoned on 12/20/2006 10:22 AM
Well, while I agree in principle that the whole "you can clip by rules but we suggest you slide thing" is sticky, the rest of the FAQ is actually pretty helpful and clear.

While I agree that the whole 'exploding gas tank thing" is sticky, the rest of the Ford Pinto is actually a pretty good car.

And I wasn't planning on getting rammed in the rear anyway, so it's not an issue.

 

better a Ford Pinto than an AMC Pacer..

Several people have said bad things about GW, and yet Toreador hasn't lept in to tell people not to buy the game. When did he die?

Got to be tough for his family, what with a death so close to Christmas. Our prayers are with you, Toreador's family.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 12/20/2006 11:32 AM

Several people have said bad things about GW, and yet Toreador hasn't lept in to tell people not to buy the game. When did he die?

Got to be tough for his family, what with a death so close to Christmas. Our prayers are with you, Toreador's family.

Ed, I agree it would be great if GW would publish a perfect, air-tight ruleset. I simply disagree that the rules are so badly written that the games (especially Warhammer Fantasy,) are no fun, and require hours of debate and argument to play. And yes, I know there are no rules on how to resolve ordnance...yadda yadda yadda, and I wish there were. But despite all the shortcommings, I can honestly say I do enjoy their games thoroughly, and feel I'm getting good value for my dollar. If that makes me a fool or a fanboy, so be it. I do play other miniature games as well, and while I find them fun, my only complaint is that they don't get supported as much compared to GW (and by support I mean things to do besides gaming with the buds.) I wish there were more tournaments, more conventions, more competitions in general, for the other wargaming companies out there. Anyway sir, I wish you good gaming!

Zoned

And I agree that a pinto is a perfectly good car, right up to the point where the other car smashes into the rear of you and you burn to death. And that's what you're saying. The rules are great, just as long as you don't get yourself into any sticky situations.

I don't care how the game works when I play my friends. I don't care that most of the time there are no arguments and the rules work. I want to be able to play strangers without having to debate how to handle commonly occuring situations.

In all the years I've been playing games GW has never, ever been able to put out any rule without including some minimum amount of incompetence, as if simply getting the job done right had some special tax on it.

It's my place in the universe to point out that the product these men are so proud of is garbage. Everything they do is a near miss. It's not like they don't have the time, or resources to do it right. They simply lack the skill. It's like the engineers took the day off so their secretaries designed the product instead. I presume they pay them like secretaries instead of engineers, so I shouldn't be suprised.

On the sliding/clipping question, what percentage of gamers, per those that you have met, are clippers instead of sliders?

I don't think I've met one yet.

I enjoy my miniature games much more now that I ignore the rules entirely. I just push my little dollies around the table and make exciting noises and sound effects. Works out much better, and there are no rules to debate!

Stupid rules.

The point I was trying to get across was: I understand the games aren't perfect. And in my gaming experience, the games are not so bad that I can't play regularly and not run into constant rules debates. I play regularly in the Canadian GW Hall or Heroes system, which means I travel a bit to get out to the local tournaments. I play strangers all the time, yet my games go smoothly 95% of the time. The times when they don't go smoothly are usually against guys who didn't know the basic rules in the first place.

I understand that this is simply my personal experience, and other gamers may consistently run into those "sticky situations." But I can only speak from personal experience, which is why I see this utter exasperation expressed at GW's FAQs/erratas as over-exaggerated and misleading.

Zoned

While we're ignoring rules...

My General is an Empire engineer lord armed with a brace of great cannons.  Once per game he also counts as a hellblaster and all misfire rolls may be rerolled because he is an Engineer.  Lord.  And his name is Kurt Beatrix VonHauptmann III.  Oh, he also has an unmodifiable 2+ ward save.  Man Nuln rules!

I can't wait.

The point seems to be GW supposedly writes rules.

To clarify a sticky situation in the rules, instead of writing rules, they tell you to ignore the rules or else you're a bad sport.

As rules, it's just not a good product.

Just for you.

If you don't like it, don't play it and don't buy it. Solves the whole having to female dog about it.

Clipping has been a problem all along, and it is a rough one to solve. We play a lot, and it does come up every so often. Just not a huge issue to us, or most of us.

What would you do to fix it Ed? Do all or nothing? Set requirements?

 All of you are ignoring the real question why did they put the sixth edition rules for clipping in the 7th edition FAQ?  Just ignore the FAQ it is completely and utterly pointless and answers no useful questions. Even the Faq says clipping is not the prefered method, if your opponent has a problem with that hit them in the head with the rule book theres a reason its a hard back

Posted By Toreador on 12/20/2006 4:24 PM


What would you do to fix it Ed? Do all or nothing? Set requirements?

It's a simple fix. The unit that charges slides the minimum required to get all the models from both sides fighting. No sliding after that first phase. If impassable terrain or other units won't allow the slide, then no slide occurs (though you may fudge the original wheel all that is required). Done.

Is that not what they are suggesting Mauleed?

Though they do it in the guise of a gentlemans agreement, which possibly has no place in a competitive enviroment.

why... for the love of all that is good and holy, are we comparing a game's ruleset to a potentially life threatening situation like an exploding Ford Pinto? That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

There are more than a few times in games where the "letter of the rule" is ignored in the interest of ease. In football it is a rare play in which holding does not occur, if they started calling it every time it happened the games would get annoying. In rpg's white wolf specifically says "if you don't like a rule, ignore it." Even in 40k and fantasy there are times when you just can't tell for sure (even if the rules were written perfectly, which being written by human beings and not divine inspiration, they aren't) and have to "wing it," or have one person just say "oh, look, it's a game, my life is not threatened by it," and let the thing go.

Or we could act as if wargames consume our entire lives, whine incesently, make comparisons that are completely illogical, ad hoc, straw man and bandwagon to our hearts content and forget all about that fun thing. Who wants to have that?

Posted By Deathwing_Adam on 12/21/2006 5:38 AM
That has got to be the most idiotic thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

So you've never seen an episode of Friends?

Yes, I have managed to avoid the scourge that is friends.

While we are on stupid analogies...

Lord:  Thou shalt not kill!

Moses:  Do you mean ratsah?  As that generally implies murder...not simply killing someone.  So say someone breaks into my tent and threatens one of my significant others...one that I don't want to be rid of.  Do I have the right to raise my staff and smite them?

Lord:  Use your judgement for the situation as you feel I would ask you!

Moses:  Uh, I'm afraid before I go presenting this to the people down at the base of the mountain worshipping the golden cow I'll need a FAQ detailing every situation that could possibly arise from that statement.  I got some rule lawyers down there...and they're going to demand we play these commandments RAW.

Lord:  Medamnit!

 

There will never be perfect rules, just perfect buddies to play a decent ruleset with.

 

 

AgeOfEgos for the win

While I agree with Ed that they should do a better job, and that it's moronic to suggest that it's good sportsmanship to break the rules, I disagree with his statement that the FAQ is garbage.

The FAQ has quite a few useful rulings and corrections in it. It will be very helpful to me and the people I play with. 7th ed could have been better, but it's still a good game and an improvement on 6th.

Warhammer is still just about the most enjoyable game I play.  Better than 40k, better than Warmachine, better even than Blood Bowl, which has the best-written rules of any of those four.

Good lord, can we get some people who actually play GW games in here, instead of people who complain for the sake of complaining?

I think the FAQs were done well enough.  I read the section, and I agree.  In an actual battle you won't have situations with troops staring into open space, the formations would shift over to engage their enemy fully.  So GW suggested something that was technically against the rules to allow for some fun and realism.  Gasp!  Let's jump them instead of commend them for doing something for us gamers.  Never mind that you have to *agree* to do it with your opponent.  Yeah, I can see most of you don't use house rules or anything.

While you're worshipping Warmachine, don't forget that it basically suggests you find new ways to bend the rules.  IIRC, it actually has situations where you're quite allowed to declare charges against opponents you can't reach to gain an advantage, and I've seen people do it.  I'm sure that's so much better than a company suggesting you "bend" the rules to allow for more fun and realism.

The bible is a very poorly written ruleset. I can't figure out where the fluff ends and the rules begin. I have a feeling that any passage with 'begat' in it is fluff though.

The 'new testament' FAQs contradict the main ruleset! The main rules say "I come not to bring peace, but a sword!" and the gospels say "turn the other cheek".

I'm gonna go play Buddhism instead. They explicitly encourage you to leave the game if you don't like it.

Posted By Kaptin Gavrin on 12/22/2006 6:01 AM

I think the FAQs were done well enough.  I read the section, and I agree.  In an actual battle you won't have situations with troops staring into open space, the formations would shift over to engage their enemy fully.  So GW suggested something that was technically against the rules to allow for some fun and realism.  Gasp!  Let's jump them instead of commend them for doing something for us gamers.  Never mind that you have to *agree* to do it with your opponent.  Yeah, I can see most of you don't use house rules or anything.

While you're worshipping Warmachine, don't forget that it basically suggests you find new ways to bend the rules.  IIRC, it actually has situations where you're quite allowed to declare charges against opponents you can't reach to gain an advantage, and I've seen people do it.  I'm sure that's so much better than a company suggesting you "bend" the rules to allow for more fun and realism.

In fairness, Warmachine is written so that it’s not “bending” the rules to declare a charge on a unit which is out of reach.  The rules are strong enough to not create dumb and unbalanced situations when you do that sort of thing. 

 

And it is lame of GW to say “this is the nice way to play it, but it’s technically against the rules”.  It would be easier and quicker to just correct the bloody rule to allow and require sliding.  This would satisfy both the people who think it looks nicer and the competitive crowd.  But they’ve just refused to do it for no apparent reason.  The FAQ is certainly usable and useful, but it also could have been better without significantly more effort.  Same with 7th, really.

I'm sticking with 6th ed for the time being. At least it's "obsolescence" means that GW won't be screwing up that edition any more than it already is (and it wasn't particularly bad to begin with, especially for a GW product).

Wasn't the retirement of Pete Haines supposed to end the patronizing remarks from FAQs? In Magic/SWCCG all I could remember were errata/addenda/clarifications - none of this wishy-washy "this feels good but this is wrong" crap. Most of what was wrong wasn't the clarifications, but the way they were conveyed. I rode on lollerskates at the "But none of our sporting players would ever do this!" part.

I enjoyed the quote from HG Wells. It's funny.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 12/22/2006 9:31 AM
I'm sticking with 6th ed for the time being. At least it's "obsolescence" means that GW won't be screwing up that edition any more than it already is (and it wasn't particularly bad to begin with, especially for a GW product).

7^th cleans up the fleeing and redirecting charges rules a lot (and the latter reins in [Ha!] cavalry a bit).  The psychology/panic rules are now significantly more consistent.  The tweaks to the magic rules definitely cut down some of the magic-hammer.  Those are the three biggest areas of positive change.  There are lots of little cleanups and fixes, like the building rules, which also give infantry another advantage, and march-blocking skirmishers, which reduces their dominance.  Overall I think it’s worth making the switch, but if you’re not playing tournaments, 6^th is a nice game too.

Posted By mauleed on 12/20/2006 4:23 AM

No. It's the usual GW garbage.

It's not perfect, really, But in a sense, it's the best FAQ ever. Its say, basically "hey guys, cool down and have some fun". Break to goddamn rule if need be.  Warhammer is a game of infinite possibilities, due to: shape of the table, terrain, armies, players, house rules, special features, etc....

No matter how many rule you write. No matter how many perfect FAQs you issue, there will be some awkward situations where you'll need to agree with your adversaries.

You want a perfect game? Play chess or go. It's not expensive unlike that crappy game those nasty thieves at GW try to pawn on us! It has perfect unbendable rules of utter clarity, unlike that swampy pile of crap GW is giving us while cackling maniacally. I don't think everything GW doest is perfect. But they have created a great hobby that thousands of people enjoy. That goes to say something. If some people live to piss on them just because they breathe, they should change hobbies.

Now, on to the Faq itself... I really think it clarified some contention points, like the ranking of raiders, the use of magic shield and HW, the storing of power dice, etc...

Phil

Except of course, what if I dont like another rule and decide to break it, for fun of course?

See where this heads?

SIlly of GW, so quickly out of the box of a new edition. But really, they havent done better, why should we expect better now?

Posted By carmachu on 12/23/2006 12:34 PM

Except of course, what if I dont like another rule and decide to break it, for fun of course?

See where this heads?

Certainly... It heads to the respect of "the most important rule", which is to have fun. So, it heads to house rules, at all levels, be it casual gaming at home, gaming at clubs, tournements, etc. What it goes to say is that there is a common problem (awkward charges), there are common solutions (clipping or sliding), both are against the rule but still make more sense than just not being able to charge in those situations ergo use the solution you as gentlemen find the best.

Agreed, GW could have taken a position on that problem, say make clipping legal and sliding illegal. People would still be saying that GW was wrong and this and that. Now, I see it as more open-ended, showing some confidence that most of us are fair gamers who like to play a game in a way that is most logical for any given situation. Slide when it fits the situation better, clip when you must, but make it fun and NICE! Yes, the concept of beauty applies to a game of WFB.

Phil

I'm amazed that so many people find it so difficult to get enjoyment out of a game they continue to play (and take so seriously).
I've been playing games for as long as I care to mention, being an old fart, and the group I play with get by perfectly well with whatever system, be that GW,PP, or whoever. I just don't want my hand holding to such an extent all creativity goes out the window, and I knew what I was getting into when I started this whole toy soldier thing and one of the downsides is people taking things far too seriously.
As an aside, I find it strange that Ed should rage so much against GW when he quite happily contributes to their monthly advert, (unless I have the wrong guy) seems a little hypocritical.

The thing is, most of us have local groups where we are able to play beer & pretzels style games with little to no problems at all. The game is really just an excuse for friends to get together and hang out while shooting the breeze. The problem comes not when playing your regular chillaximus buddy opponents, but when playing pick up games against strangers and tourneys, where both of you will have preconcieved notions and differing home rules to cover the many, many, many gaps in GWs rules.

The gripe is that these things are astoundingly simple to fix, and yet GW continually ignores to do basic proofreading and proper editing of their rules. This is an excellent example of it, where they are explicitly saying that if someone follows the rules as they are clearly written that they are being a bad sport for not ignoring them. We all know how little logic and GW rules go together, so where does one draw the line as to which rules to ignore?

I find the five wide rank rule is clearly designed to screw people over who already have units built on the old 4-wide rule and is nothing more than a blatant excuse to force people to purchase more figures (boxes of which are generally only sold in multiples of four), amongst other things. Can I ignore that? Seems unsporting to me to force them to go five wide to get rank bonuses if they don't want to! See what we're getting at?

I can, yes, and for the most part I agree with your points. Personally I avoid the tournement scene, always have, and simply play to games for fun against whoever....if they start bending rules in whatever system ('cos let's be fair, rule bending is an art form to some, and they will find loopholes in the most detailed rules, taking advantage of anything they can), I just find it a bit sad.
As for the 5 wide rank thing, yeah bit of a pain and undoubtadly done to get the likes of me to buy more models, working to. I don't hold it against them, their business depends on people like me buying more stuff.
Could they have been more upfront? Course they could, but I don't see any successful marketing campaigns based on brutal honesty...buy Big Mac's, they turn your kids into fat outcasts with heart problems.
I guess we all get out of our hobby what we want, even if all we want is angst and heartache.

I guess we all get out of our hobby what we want, even if all we want is angst and heartache.

Oh, you've played Vampire: the Masquerade?

Yeah, but I was looking to get with hot goth chicks.

Then I did larps, because they had a higher percentage of chicks.

Then I graduated to fantasy LARPs, because I got more exercise, and the chicks tended to be in better shape and somewhat (ah, how smoothly that word covers) less psycho.

Then I grew up and didn't have time for LARP anymore and spent my time indoors playing with little figures and other men and started to develop a gut. But I did manage to find a wife first, so it's all good!

Damn you & your perfect life, Ragnar!

Aside from the burgeoning gut, that is.

But nevermind; you may all continue to assume that I look the way Hellfury tells you I do:

(Actually, I'm a brunette, but otherwise it's pretty close).

It all adds up. You work with the ACLU. You have long hair. You identify with Elves.

You're a tree-hugging hippie.

Druid, actually. Come on, you had to see it coming.

You know; tree-hugging, but I take baths, am interested in the law, respect smart people and good arguments, and spend a lot of time discussing arcane subjects incomprehensible to the masses.

Oh, and I believe the moon and sun are powerful goddesses, and I worship them.

Posted By Almost Angry on 12/23/2006 4:22 PM
I can, yes, and for the most part I agree with your points. Personally I avoid the tournement scene, always have, and simply play to games for fun against whoever....if they start bending rules in whatever system ('cos let's be fair, rule bending is an art form to some, and they will find loopholes in the most detailed rules, taking advantage of anything they can), I just find it a bit sad.
As for the 5 wide rank thing, yeah bit of a pain and undoubtadly done to get the likes of me to buy more models, working to. I don't hold it against them, their business depends on people like me buying more stuff.
Could they have been more upfront? Course they could, but I don't see any successful marketing campaigns based on brutal honesty...buy Big Mac's, they turn your kids into fat outcasts with heart problems.
I guess we all get out of our hobby what we want, even if all we want is angst and heartache.

First, if you avoid the tournament scene, then what do we care what you think? Tournaments are the only place this is going to be an issue. There's nothing more annoying to me than people who only play in their basement with their friends saying "I don't see what the problem is, the rules work perfectly for us".

And there's no such thing as 'rule bending'. There's following the rules and not following the rules. If you don't know enough about the rules to know when they're being followed or not, then again, what do we care what you think? I can see how when you play someone outside the basement and they have a better understanding of the rules than you do (or you don't have a good enough understanding to know they they don't), it might seem like slight of hand or 'art', but the rules say what they say, regardless of whether or not you want to take the time to figure out what that is.

And those guys who play with their buddies in the basements and garages and have a good time don't care at all what you think either so it would seem that you've reached an impasse.

Well, I believe the point people are making is exactly what you put in your post (Albeit, not as condescending)

"Tournaments are the only place this is going to be an issue."

The nature of tournaments will always bring vague areas of the rules to light, no amount of FAQs will change that.  Can GW address the more common issues?  Well as a player I will say of course...but I also know after years of playing a variety of miniature games....the simple truth is tournaments always have these moments, be it Machine, FOW, 40K, Fantasy, Con., etc.

In honesty, if I were to experience people whom were unable to reach compromise in those gray areas during tournaments....I don't really care to play them anyway (I've actually been quite lucky, as most of my opps have been laid back and open to working it out).  Real life has enough stress, as do many a persons job...enough stress to look past gray areas in a game with toy soldiers.

I'm always with any group wanting GW to release more FAQs.  I simply don't expect...or need it.  Lighten up dude.

 

Posted By mauleed on 12/20/2006 4:23 AM

No. It's the usual GW garbage.

First they try to pull some jedi mind trick by explaining that the rules as they were before the FAQ didn't allow declaring charges that you knew would fail. I probably shouldn't be accusing them of any wrong doing here, as you should never attribute to malice what you can explain by incompetence. But regardless of their moronic explaination, they've definitively closed that hole.

Then they say that sliding is definitely against the rules. And if you don't do it you're a bad sport. Let me say that again: they clearly state what the rule is, then tell you that you're a jerk if you follow it.

I give it an F+. Even when they get things right, they make fools of themselves. And now before every single game of warhammer you ever play you'll have to discuss whether or not the other guy is a slider or a clipper. Bravo GW, another job well don.....well another job done.

But at least we're all another dollar richer, as you've passed us the buck!

Do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

According to RAW...I think we all have a bit of Asperger's Syndrome. It
explains gaming completely.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/24/2006 9:45 PM

Do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

Why does something in my gut tell me that this is a loaded question?

Everything's loaded to you.

Oh yeah, I went there.

Hahaha! You said "asperger". That word is funny to me.

Posted By mauleed on 12/24/2006 5:39 PM

First, if you avoid the tournament scene, then what do we care what you think? Tournaments are the only place this is going to be an issue.

By saying that, you take for granted that tournement are the reason GW releases FAQs. What if they don't give a gak about tournements? At tournements, there will be judges to help rule out gray areas anyways. Maybe for once GW just told themselves "Hey, how about we make it easier for casuals gamers by suggesting 1-2 solutions and have them use them with their own judgement?". Of course, there will always be the frustrated rule-lawyers who want to lord aver their perfect dominion, holding the rulebook like Moses in the ten commandments, while proclaiming "Thus the RAW spoketh".

But hey, it's an open-ended game where gray areas are inevitable, not matter how much rules they write, FAQs they publish... Might as well give players tools to resolve otherwise unresolvable situations. By the way, thats true of most of the world out there, you learn that somewhere past elementary school.

As for the 5-wide ranking thing, sure it helps them sell more minis, but then again.... Most armies with "elite" core infantry (ie chaos warriors, saurus warriors) were already fronting at 5, to benefit more from individual models' capabilities that hich-priced back ranks. As for the "cheap" core infantry (ie skellies, goblins), players already usually owned a big pile of models (like 40-60) that they can manage easily with what they have (ie making 2 block of 25 instead of 3 blocks of 20). I do agree that boxes will have to be revised (ie the 16 warriors in a TK box).

Phil

I get lots of fun out of the game.

What I DONT have fun doing is trying to figure out WTF the rules are when bad situations come up and the rules are a problem.

And then GW throws out a FAQ which says, basically, "dont follow the rules as we wrote them"

Its stupid.

I also don't think this is an issue only at tourneys. It's an issue *any* time two unfamiliar opponents face off against each other, be it at a RTT or just some regular pick up game at the LFGS or a GW Hobby Center.

Even amongst friends it's damned annoying, as Carmachu points out, when you come across some WTF situation with the rules that defies any sort of rational explanation. Why do we have to fix them again, when just about every other ruleset I've played doesn't have as many (nor as large) gaps, including several that are exponentially more complicated? And they sure as hell don't tell you "don't follow the rules as we wrote them".

GW, where incompetence is what they do best!

Warhammer is a GAME. A game has a winner and a loser. There are not two winners. When a unit charges another unit, its not so they can be the first ones to get in on the group hug.

Clipping is an issue that can be addressed. When they say, "Do whatever you want." it sort of defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place.

When they assume that the people playing can come to an agreement is where they make their first mistake.

A FAQ is suppsed to clear up issues of hazy rules concerns.

If it fails to do that, then it is a waste of time.

To be honest, I dont play WHFB, but this discussion isnt about what you play with youur friends, it is about what GW does with their resources to make the game better to a larger population of people.

Poor showing really.

Awww, c'mon guys. Why so glum? If they don't want us following their rules anyway, I see no problem.

C'mon, hug up biznatches. It's all good.

You got that right. We've VERY easy going in our club: want to proxy? Nobody cares. 3K game? Bring it. Exerimental list? Sure lets have fun.

But when you have a campaign game running, and 2 guys playing and 4 spectators and we all are scratching our heads and breaking out books because it hinges on who's getting developmental points or wins the territory....you want it clearly defined. We dont want to screw either player on something that isnt in our domian. Thats why you want a clear rule set or FAQ....

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 4:33 AM
Maybe for once GW just told themselves "Hey, how about we make it easier for casuals gamers by suggesting 1-2 solutions and have them use them with their own judgement?".

So basically instead of writing "rules" GW is writing "suggestions".  Fantastic.  So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?  Afterall I can make up my own rules for free.

So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?

No one is forcing you to. If you don't want to, don't.

The dismally whiny atmosphere on Dakka gives me the impression that a good number of people in the hobby stay with it only as a license to whine and moan.

Discernment: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure...

You see, most adults can form an opinion based on general rules. What people seem to have a hard time to grasp, is that some situations may arise where a clear and well defined rule doesn't work. Of course, GW could a ruled in favor of either clipping or sliding, thus creating EVEN MORE awkward situations. But they decided that most WFB player where mature gentlemen (and gentlewomen I guess!), which opinion they obviously didn't get by reading this forum. So, they said: in this situation (awkward charges), instead of giving you a fixed rule, we are giving you a TOOL to decide by yourselves AS ADULTS, how in a given situation it should be best resolved. We give you choices A) and B) (ie clipping and sliding). You HAVE to use one or another (thus giving little latitude really).

Now, most rule-addicts who need a perfectly defined world tend to cry in despair: yes but you say that we can do that, but you also said it's cheating!!!! Well, what can be read is that VOLUNTARILY abusing that choice (ie voluntarily creating a situation where an awkward charge is made) is cheating. Just as voluntarily declaring an impossible charge is cheating. AH! will say the rule-blinded, but how can we discern if such an act is voluntary or not? That, my friends, is where adulthood kicks in. You know by the general attitude of your opponent. If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...


You know, in life not all can be black or white, true or false. Especially in things like warhammer or boxing or life in general. Sometimes, you can't have someone decide how everything works for you, even in a game.

Now, how about we discuss what is in the FAq as a whole instead of morally debating what is really a little part of the FAQ???Any opinions on how some clarifications will influence the game as a whole?

Phil

 

Best answer ever.

If the critics of the rules and FAQ's are so smart...why don't they form their own company, and write their own rules and publish them?

That's a silly argument.

If the company I buy a TV from sells me a TV with a nonfunctional volume control, why don't I just form my own company and make my own TV?

I still think the FAQ as a whole is good, but the appendix bit is just dumb. Seriously, it would not have taken much effort to just rule it one way or the other. Give the players a consistent standard upon which we can make tactical decisions, as opposed to another thing to disagree about or have to clarify with unfamiliar opponents. Especially when part of the game's appeal is how widely played it is, and the ability to find opponents all over the world.

You've got a few problems there, boreas.

First, not everyone who plays tabletop games is an adult.  In fact, GW's target audience is not adult gamers; therefore your assumption assuming that players "AS ADULTS" can or cannot come up with a solution is not a valid argument.

No one has said that they, individually, cannot come up with a solution to any of the problems.  In fact, any good tournament organizer/judge would make a judgment for the tournament and that's how it would be played for that day.  The problem lies in the fact that there is a continual requirement for players/tournament organizers to come up with an answer to questions that the creators of the game should have answered themselves.  Heck, that's the whole point of a FAQ.  It's supposed to answer Frequently Asked Questions definitively.  This FAQ has done nothing to answer the questions.  That's where the issues come in. 

Why should players have to spend time correcting rules issues that the creators of the games should have fixed before they released the new rules?  This is the 7th time they've come out with Warhammer rules, and they still haven't gotten it right.  That's what's so ridiculous about it. 

That being said, no one is saying that anyone else's rules set is perfect.  There will always be unforeseen situations that may arise in a game.  The difference is that other companies answer questions about rules and when they release new editions, they move towards a tighter rules set that makes more sense and they answer more questions than they create.  GW with all their editions don't seem to be doing that.

That's why "rules-addicts" slam GW when they release garbage like this.  It's basically because they deserve it.  They call themselves the "Porsche of gaming" but they can't, after 25 years, release what comes close to a tight rules set.  If I'm going to pay good money to buy rules for a game that I'm investing thousands of dollars in, I expect to be able to play the game with little to no possibility of arguments arising because of shoddy rules.  That's why I don't play GW games any more and I stick with Privateer Press.

Knight

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
Discernment: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure...

You know, in life not all can be black or white, true or false. Especially in things like warhammer or boxing or life in general. Sometimes, you can't have someone decide how everything works for you, even in a game.

Now, how about we discuss what is in the FAq as a whole instead of morally debating what is really a little part of the FAQ???Any opinions on how some clarifications will influence the game as a whole?

Phil

You can't have someone decide everything for you.  But no one is arguing that you can, so that seems a bit of a straw man. 

You can have a designer tell you that when charging into contact, the attacker must maximize BOTH the attacking and the defending models in contact.  This was a significant change from 6th edition, and removes most significant clipping issues (like charging a dragon or chariot into the corner of an infantry unit so you only contact one model).  And said designer can spend a couple of extra minutes telling you what to do if other factors make that impossible (lack of charge distance, other units in the way, terrain in the way, etc).  They did part of the job- they told us that if the unit doesn't have the sufficient range to reach, go ahead and deal with the clip.  But they didn't finish it.  It's really not that hard.  Even if they didn't have time to test and finish it, they could have clarified the odd situations (like intervening units and terrain) in the FAQ.  Inexplicably, they didn't choose to do that.  It really mystifies me.  If I was a designer I'd have more pride in my work than that.  Still, at least they did tell us what is legal and that sliding requires prior consent of both players.

Anyway, the rest of the FAQ seems pretty straightforward and solid. 

I was happy they DID explicitly tell us we can't charge units which are obviously out of range.  I was happy they clarified that you can't charge into the flank of the enemy because the front is all filled up, unless you are in the flank.  I like the EITW clarifications.  I'm happy with the confirmation on charging skirmishers from two directions, as this is something I've been doing against Beastmen for a while and it's good to see it clearly spelled out.   The clarification on Skirmishers around a block unit fleeing is a great one. 

One ruling with interesting tactical ramifications is the errata of references to "man sized" and "roughly man sized" skirmishers on page 67 to "US 1".  This makes clear that Pegasus Knights and Warhawk Riders no longer benefit from the -1 to be hit by shooting, and so are a bit easier to deal with.  Given how prevalent  the RAF army is as a competitive tournament army, this is something that will be coming up a bit.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/25/2006 9:38 PM

 

Best answer ever.

If the critics of the rules and FAQ's are so smart...why don't they form their own company, and write their own rules and publish them?

Actually, I suspect that's partly the story behind Rackham, Privateer Press and Mongoose Publishing....

Posted By jojo_monkey_boy on 12/25/2006 7:13 PM
So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?

No one is forcing you to. If you don't want to, don't.

I don't.

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...

What if your opponent is just really really bad at judging distances?  Or what if your opponent has a lazy eye or is wearing an eyepatch for whatever reason (maybe he has only one eye or he's had eye surgery recently or he's dressed as a pirate)?  Then maybe he's declaring impossible charges because his depth perception isn't so good?  Ever thought of that wiseguy?

I also don't think players want to LOSE having opponents to play against.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/26/2006 1:37 AM

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...

What if your opponent is just really really bad at judging distances?  Or what if your opponent has a lazy eye or is wearing an eyepatch for whatever reason (maybe he has only one eye or he's had eye surgery recently or he's dressed as a pirate)?  Then maybe he's declaring impossible charges because his depth perception isn't so good?  Ever thought of that wiseguy?

That's where, once again, judgment comes in. If the guy makes impossible charges that half the time leave him stranded, counter-charged and slammed, he might be bad/lazy/a pirate with a patch. But if those "failed charges" or "oups I just clipped" charges or even "oups I accidentally overshot my war engine over that forest into your lord" always benefit him, then you pack your minis. That what, as a wiseguy, suggested. But then again, you might just be an awful judge of caracter and cannont do that...

Phil

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:43 PM
That's a silly argument.

If the company I buy a TV from sells me a TV with a nonfunctional volume control, why don't I just form my own company and make my own TV?

I still think the FAQ as a whole is good, but the appendix bit is just dumb. Seriously, it would not have taken much effort to just rule it one way or the other. Give the players a consistent standard upon which we can make tactical decisions, as opposed to another thing to disagree about or have to clarify with unfamiliar opponents. Especially when part of the game's appeal is how widely played it is, and the ability to find opponents all over the world.

Your counter arguement doesn't stand up. If the TV is broken or not working right, you take it back for replacement/repairs.

If the manual for how to work the TV is bad, then either figure out how things are supposed to work, write your own manual, or logon to aforum and whine.

lol. I bought a DVD recorder last year...I follow the instuctions to the letter and the thing still doesn't work right.

Incredibly Moronic Comments Posted By General Hobbs on 12/26/2006 7:12 AM

Your counter arguement doesn't stand up. If the TV is broken or not working right, you take it back for replacement/repairs.

If the manual for how to work the TV is bad, then either figure out how things are supposed to work, write your own manual, or logon to aforum and whine.

lol. I bought a DVD recorder last year...I follow the instuctions to the letter and the thing still doesn't work right.

Holy carp are you spewing a pile or retardation or what. Must be yet another EOT-fugee spewing more of their unwanted GW/Tom Kirby sock puppet fluffer mumbling in between breaks of being stuffed with the GW corporate phallus.

It is not on the *consumers* onus to fix something that they purchased broken, it is on the *manufacturers*. That means *GW* is the one that needs to fix the damned screwed up rules, not the fans. How hard is that to figure out?

People have been trying to take their shoddily written, poorly edited rules back to GW for replacement/repairs for years. Despite this GW has refused to either a) replace thier shoddy rule books with ones that are properly written edited or b) released properly written and edited fixes for them (as this FAQ amply demonstrates). It's not like they don't know about the problems, or that the problems are even all that hard to fix, but all the same they refuse to do anything meaningful about it.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 10:06 PM

They did part of the job- they told us that if the unit doesn't have the sufficient range to reach, go ahead and deal with the clip.  But they didn't finish it.  It's really not that hard.  Even if they didn't have time to test and finish it, they could have clarified the odd situations (like intervening units and terrain) in the FAQ.  Inexplicably, they didn't choose to do that.  It really mystifies me.  If I was a designer I'd have more pride in my work than that.  Still, at least they did tell us what is legal and that sliding requires prior consent of both players.

Anyway, the rest of the FAQ seems pretty straightforward and solid. 

I was happy they DID explicitly tell us we can't charge units which are obviously out of range.  I was happy they clarified that you can't charge into the flank of the enemy because the front is all filled up, unless you are in the flank.  I like the EITW clarifications.  I'm happy with the confirmation on charging skirmishers from two directions, as this is something I've been doing against Beastmen for a while and it's good to see it clearly spelled out.   The clarification on Skirmishers around a block unit fleeing is a great one. 

One ruling with interesting tactical ramifications is the errata of references to "man sized" and "roughly man sized" skirmishers on page 67 to "US 1".  This makes clear that Pegasus Knights and Warhawk Riders no longer benefit from the -1 to be hit by shooting, and so are a bit easier to deal with.  Given how prevalent  the RAF army is as a competitive tournament army, this is something that will be coming up a bit.

yep, rather than point at the one thing that didn't quite get worked out, I am rather happy with the FAQ..  Of course the one item does seem to complicate things clipping, sliding, etc.. I would suggest those of you that find it so offensive as to get worked up about it, to send in emails with better suggestions. GW may not do anything about it, but at least you will have had your say. And in the end, it's the only thing you can do, besides sit on the porch with a bit of sweet tea and a whittling knife and the other 10 old codgers saying how much better it was when the model T was the car of the decade.. cause they don't make them like they used to.. 

And everyone seems to act like it is a new thing. Clipping has been around for quite awhile, and has been talked about just like in this FAQ.

Posted By Toreador on 12/26/2006 2:29 PM
And everyone seems to act like it is a new thing. Clipping has been around for quite awhile, and has been talked about just like in this FAQ.

Actually, when they had released 7th edition, the issue of clipping was completely gone. If you clipped, you clip.

Now, due to GW desire to never get anything completely right, it's if you clip, you clip, unless both of you don't want to clip, but if one of you does, you get a free argument on GW, no charge.

I'm begining to doubt the sincerity and intellect of anyone who would agree that any game company saying 'The rules are clear, and if you follow them you're a bad person' is acceptable.

 

 

I couldn't believe it when I first read it, and hopefully they'll edit it out silently and try to pretend it was never printed.

It seems like they just mindless copied the appendix of the 6th ed. into the FAQ for 7th.

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

Posted By Asmodai on 12/26/2006 6:42 PM
It seems like they just mindless copied the appendix of the 6th ed. into the FAQ for 7th.

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

A wasted opportunity is when you have a chance to fix something and you don't try to take advantage of it.

But they did try. They just failed miserably.

 

See, I don't disagree with that:

The rules are clear.
And I am a bad person.

I'm just not clear what effect that has in game terms?

*Sigh*, at least in Warmachine, it's spelled out in p. 5.

Posted By syr8766 on 12/27/2006 5:50 AM
*Sigh*, at least in Warmachine, it's spelled out in p. 5.

I'm sure that if GW had a Page 5, it would come with disclaimers and require an FAQ for when it does or dosen't apply. And eratta...yeah...lots of eratta... :S

Posted By imthedci on 12/27/2006 6:37 AM

Posted By syr8766 on 12/27/2006 5:50 AM
*Sigh*, at least in Warmachine, it's spelled out in p. 5.

I'm sure that if GW had a Page 5, it would come with disclaimers and require an FAQ for when it does or dosen't apply. And eratta...yeah...lots of eratta... :S

I think it would just call you a bad person for trying to win by playing by their rules.  In a very snarky way.

There's nothing wrong with piles of eratta. It's inconvenient but at least problems are adressed. It's WAY better than having nothing.
I think the point is (I'll use Warmachine as an example) that in Warmachine the rules writers spell out that they expect you to use every trick and every advantage at your disposal to win at all costs. But you have to follow the rules to do it.
GW has told you that if you follow the rules you're a bad sport. The next FAQ will tell us that if we don't break the rules in order to pull off a loss we're big meanies. The one after that will tell us that realy we shouldn't play the game at all. Just buy the pretty figures and be happy that they let us buy them at all 'cuse they're way cooler than what we deserve.
The last one will tell you kill yourself and leave your estate to the company.

Posted By Zubbiefish on 12/27/2006 8:19 AM
There's nothing wrong with piles of eratta. It's inconvenient but at least problems are adressed. It's WAY better than having nothing.
I think the point is (I'll use Warmachine as an example) that in Warmachine the rules writers spell out that they expect you to use every trick and every advantage at your disposal to win at all costs. But you have to follow the rules to do it.
GW has told you that if you follow the rules you're a bad sport. The next FAQ will tell us that if we don't break the rules in order to pull off a loss we're big meanies. The one after that will tell us that realy we shouldn't play the game at all. Just buy the pretty figures and be happy that they let us buy them at all 'cuse they're way cooler than what we deserve.
The last one will tell you kill yourself and leave your estate to the company.

I await the FAQ on the method of suicide and estate leaving before taking further action.

EDIT: so back in the day, my buds and I tried to write a role-playing game, and we filled it--on purpose--with dozens of meaningless and contradictory table. My favorite result on one of them was that on a d100 roll of 100, you called Gary Gygax (phone number provided) and ask him.   

I still don't remember clipping being truly "fixed" in the last edition. I remember the big long articles on it, and what you should and shouldn't do, but I remember the same conclusion. That you shouldn't try to do it. It didn't seem to firmly state anything just like the FAQ.

A couple of weeks ago we had an issue of clipping, with a unit and two chariots. The chariots could only contact diagonally after the unit had charged. There was grumbling about it, but no real argument and in the end it was allowed. All parties involved were not exactly happy though, so it would be nice to see a fix, but it isn't absolutely necessary. But, I play for fun.

Posted By syr8766 on 12/27/2006 8:33 AM

Posted By Zubbiefish on 12/27/2006 8:19 AM
There's nothing wrong with piles of eratta. It's inconvenient but at least problems are adressed. It's WAY better than having nothing.
I think the point is (I'll use Warmachine as an example) that in Warmachine the rules writers spell out that they expect you to use every trick and every advantage at your disposal to win at all costs. But you have to follow the rules to do it.
GW has told you that if you follow the rules you're a bad sport. The next FAQ will tell us that if we don't break the rules in order to pull off a loss we're big meanies. The one after that will tell us that realy we shouldn't play the game at all. Just buy the pretty figures and be happy that they let us buy them at all 'cuse they're way cooler than what we deserve.
The last one will tell you kill yourself and leave your estate to the company.

I await the FAQ on the method of suicide and estate leaving before taking further action.

EDIT: so back in the day, my buds and I tried to write a role-playing game, and we filled it--on purpose--with dozens of meaningless and contradictory table. My favorite result on one of them was that on a d100 roll of 100, you called Gary Gygax (phone number provided) and ask him.   

oooh great idea. GW should leak all 12 of Kirby's cell phone numbers so that we might ask him how many inches movement allows in the opponents shooting phase.

They should also start installing animatronic Andy Chambers (from 1994, natch) in every game store in the world. Put in $1, have him read your (army's) fortune.

"Your Ork army is beautiful. Too bad it will lose. You should have played Chaos!"

But Andy was an Ork player!

AND a chaos player! Remember your history!

I think Sai Andy was a robot.

I'd have recommended a 'Fat Bloke' machine, but it would just be offended by the question, and I'm pretty sure you couldn't put a bacon buttie in a machine...

Not to mention that PD would scare off the "Fat Bloke" bot after asking said "offensive" question.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 12/27/2006 12:41 PM
But Andy was an Ork player!

He was not a good one.   I was undeafeated with my Orks.  They were a blast to run, shootier than any other army with the vaccine squig and a 100 strong ablative gretchin screen they were nigh unstoppable.  They were the most fun of any thing to play and caused more havoc with weird rules and support choices than any army in the history of the game.  Of course  that was before the dark times, before 3rd-4th edition.