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.

yeah,
GW doesn't produce FAQs that are good enough.
GW doesn't produce FAQs fast enough.

It would be good if as a community we were able to find and agree on the most reasonable solution to all GWs 40k rules calamities.
Things like the deffrollas interaction with Ramming... but we can't...
There is the INAT FAQ which most people just think 'who made you guys the judge?'

So what are we left with???

rolling for it!
while I agree with rolling off the first time something comes up...

But what happens if the rule problem comes up again and again...
or if like the deffrolla, people make a list purely to take advantage of it?

OK my opponent disagrees, "ok let’s roll for it..."
In my opinion this is nothing more than playing for an advantage and cheating!


Broken Rules
What happens when people are using rules loop holes to gain an advantage.
I'm thinking of things, like the Nob Biker Unit and its abuse of the wound allocation rules.
Things like this need rules clarification and/or adjustment?
a squad should not be able to have 5 wounds and not lose a model...

Sorry for the rant... but I believe GW is really dropping the ball on this one.
As a community we deserve better.
As a game system GW depends on, 40k deserves better.
So what do you think?

Panic...

These are valid points, but really what more can be said other than "You'll just have to work it out within your own
gaming community."?

We're stuck with these rules situations unless/until GW decides to do something about them.

My game store has agreed to using John Spencer rulings.

Sounds like the standard 'people who don't play the way I want to play are bad people' rant...

HI all.
And there is me thinking its a ,'why do GW get away with an apathetic attitude towards game play issues , and think its ok to expect the customers to fix thier sub standard work...' rant.

I have found the answer to all of GW lack of games support, use other companies rules that do give game support!

TTFN
Lanrak.

It's really more of a "oh my god, GW doesn't care about supporting it's rules but the people I game with are too iconoclastic to simply settle on a single rules interpretation" rant. It's painful, and I don't want to trivialize the grievances of the OP, but frankly most of us have been there, brother. the only way out is through.

GW - rules that are 98% fine. Has some holes. They might or might not get fixed in an FAQ.

PP - has a very tight ruleset with an up to date online FAQ, that when printed is something like 30 pages (maybe more). Has reversed previous rulings, so you need to be sure your printed copy is the most up to date.

Personally, I would like to see GW at least try to be a little better. I don't care if they don't answer some of the more extraneous possibilities, at least get the big ones. PP is just a nightmare, maybe WM Part Deux will help.

The INAT FAQ looks pretty good to me. My gaming group has agreed to use it as our all encompassing FAQ. It is an objective analysis based on RAW for the most part with RASCS (Rules as sodding common sense) for the rest. It doesn't favour one army over another. If we all agree to use it then it is fair.

The only ruling I don't like in the whole document is the deffrolla ruling. I think from a RAW perspective it is entirely clear that you can use a deffrolla against vehicles (and this inded is the main reson to have one in the first place). I have to ultimately agree with Yakface that it looks like GW will call it this way but I think it is a mistake to try and second guess their intentions.

Still, I don't run Battlewagons in my orks (and never will now) so this isn't a huge deal for me.

@ the OP if you have a gaming group you regularly play with then keep a record of how you call rulings and agree to use it in every game. A good basis is the INAT FAQ. If you don't agree with a call feel free to change it, just make sure everyone in the gaming group agrees to the change.

If you play at a standard GW store then this can be more of a problem.


Ironic that the worst place to play GW games is in a GW store isn't it?

FWIW, Flames uses the same 4+ rule-breaker decision-maker....

yeah,
My game group doesn't argue over rules. Every thing is sorted with a short discussion.
But from what I can tell (from reading the dakka forums) I'm lucky to be part of a good group.

The problem I have with the flaky rules and lack of proper support is I'm sure it turns people away from 40k.
Which is a problem for the community.

GW should have a person employed solely to watch the meta game and issue FAQs and update codex.
If John Spencers answers were given the offical nod from GW it would be a good start.

When something is undercosted/overpowered a codex update would quickly fix it.
If a broken army list is ruining peoples games and dominating tourneys, GW should look at why it's overpowered.
Is something undercosted.
Is a rule being abused.

???

Panic

In a setting where you're just playing with friends and you don't really care, a "roll-off" works fine, but then again, most of the time in this setting the players will often agree to play it one way, then look it up after the game.

So, in a setting where the players are more likely to actually have rules disagreements (say in a tournament or semi-casual play with strangers), saying that you should always dice off just leads to more arguments.

If a player can always break the rules half the time if they just argue the rules, or if they just have to argue a cover save to claim a 5+ cover save even when the rules say they do not get one then it simply encourages poor sports to argue at every opportunity they can.

This is why having clear-cut rules decisions is important, and while I think that Privateer Press burdens their players with too-common-and-too-frequent rules changes, GW should at least try to fix up a few of the more glaring errors and inconsistencies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:FWIW, Flames uses the same 4+ rule-breaker decision-maker....

I believe Field of Glory does the same thing. "NUTS", a WWII skirmish game does as well.
And every GW game ever made, and many homegrown rulesets I have seen.

Its just that people on the webs like to pick out GW because its like giving a fat kid crap for eating McD's. Easy target, doesn't mean its right.

I feel that 40k players as a whole are lazier than historical players.
When we have an issue with FoW or FoG, we roll off during the game, discuss after, just like GW's rules say.
But when playing 40k, we players expect the developers to have encountered every variation of a non-realistic setting TTG and to have found the perfect solution.
Given the near infinite scenery options and high armylist variability, as well as recent staff turnover, I think we are very lucky the rules work as well as they do.

And before someone tromps out the Warmachine argument, WM has grown from 4 base factions, where 40k started 3rd ed with 10+ army lists in the book.
In Warmachine terrain does not seem to be as big a factor as it is in 40k games.
Also WM seems to have been able to keep one person's rules sensibility as the driving force of everything, compared to 40k's nearconstant change in direction.

Nuu... 40k is being Jervisized... Haven't you been paying attention?!?

Hi all.
I would like to point out lots of game rules suggest 'rolling off with D6s ' to resolve odd occurances.
No developer could cover every possible interaction , occasionaly oddball stuff just happens.

Eg low flying arcraft being caught in airburst artillery beaten zone , are the aircraft effected or not?
You dont have to dice off to decide how to interprit the rules for aircraft or artillery!Just this very rare instance of 2 elements interacting in this unexpected way.

However,GW uses this generaly excepted method of dealing with rare occurances in game play, to give them a free pass to write poorly defined rules .

Many gamers think this is wrong .

TTFN
Lanrak.

Agreed. This is one of the biggest things holding me off from getting into 40k.

I don't think anyone expects them to fix every problem but there are some very obvious and easy to resolve issues that they seem to just ignore.

Every day I read another rules discussion that almost always ends up in a "did they mean this or that?" argument that we can't solve ourselves but would only take a few minutes and a couple of words for them to clarify.... and nothing.

IMO, the rules discussion questions / problems are vastly overblown. Most of them are smoke and clearly answered within the rules by any neutral party in your group.

The 5E rules are the best that GW has produced, and normal play almost never has rules questions. It's very "tight", except at the tournament level where people are actually creating problems where there aren't any.

Where one has problems is in the very old 3E Codices and early 4E Codices. If you simply outlaw the 3E stuff, 40k5 plays very cleanly indeed.

Hi,
JohnHwangDD. I agree that the main 5th ed rule book has improved in terms of clarity .It is now on a par with other companies rules books.(Not in content but clarity . )

However the clarity of the rules in GWs marketing pamphlets , er sorry Codexes , is far from acceptable concidering what you have to PAY for them,IMO.

And if the newer codexes are fine why are there so many discussions on forums about rules interpritations?And why it it left up to dedicated gamers like Yakface to sort out the FAQs .
I mean a 'multimillion pound multinational company' that can not post its own FAQs for its own customers ,and with some Codexes 2 editions behind ,this is proof of GWs lack of commitment to game play , dont you agree?

GW produce high quality sculpts art and narrative.As a company they seem to belive that if it looks and sounds cool , folks wont mind the fact the game doesnt work as well as it could.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I think they have learned over time that most of us are all about the pretty miniatures and not so much about the rules.

Lanrak wrote:And if the newer codexes are fine why are there so many discussions on forums about rules interpritations?And why it it left up to dedicated gamers like Yakface to sort out the FAQs .

Because there are too many people on the interwebs with too much time on their hands?

I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, and I actually like how the game is structured now. 2nd edition, if you took all the faqs, erratas, articles in WD, etc. was incredibly unwieldy and patched. While the lack of FAQs (or at least a lack of actual "frequently" asked questions), is frustrating, it makes the game easier to manage.

I don't want to have to carry around an 80 page INAT FAQ, or 30 pages of GW FAQs, to play the game. A couple of rule changes, points cost changes, and FAQs would be fine.

I also agree with JohnHwangDD that most of these rules issues are overblown. In addition to 10 years of 40k, I've also played in GTs since 1998. I have maybe had one or two rules issues in all of those tournaments - and those weren't an issue of the rules being bad, they were an issue of the other player's interpretation being incorrect (i.e. that in 3rd edition, you couldn't charge multiple units. Add in the fact he had highlighted relevant parts in his rulebook - and in the designer's notes in the back of the book - to support his position, and he was playing board edge to board edge conga-line orks.. you get the idea - TFG).

I think there are oddities now, but that's more the case of people intentionally looking for easter eggs and loopholes to have the rules do what they want them to - to gain an advantage. I'm a firm proponent of "if it isn't clear, take the least advantageous interpretation for yourself."

Panic wrote:Sorry for the rant... but I believe GW is really dropping the ball on this one.
As a community we deserve better.
As a game system GW depends on, 40k deserves better.
So what do you think?

Play a different game with different rules.

If you insist on playing 40k, then you have to have all the baggage that comes with it.

If you want to play the biggest selling SF wargame on the market, then you have to put up with GW's lacking in the area of rules-support.

If you want to play a tighter game, then pick something else.

Of course you'll then have to do something a bit more proactive than roll down to your local GW Battle Bunker for a game of a Friday evening, but then nothing worthwhile ever came easy.

GW aren't going to hand it to you on a spoon. They're too busy counting their money...

So the onus is on you to make the next move...

sourclams wrote:My game store has agreed to using John Spencer rulings.

That is great to hear! I think John is doing a great job so far. It could be the solution.

G

Osbad wrote:GW aren't going to hand it to you on a spoon. They're too busy counting their money...

I thought that they were too busy cackling fiendishly, or perhaps they were too busy plotting how to piss in your cornflakes.

Lanrak wrote:Hi, JohnHwangDD.

However the clarity of the rules in GWs marketing pamphlets , er sorry Codexes , is far from acceptable concidering

And if the newer codexes are fine why are there so many discussions on forums about rules interpritations?

And why it it left up to dedicated gamers like Yakface to sort out the FAQs .

I mean a 'multimillion pound multinational company' that can not post its own FAQs for its own customers ,and with some Codexes 2 editions behind ,this is proof of GWs lack of commitment to game play , dont you agree?

Lanrak.

Hi Lanrak!

The current Codices are generally quite good. The only real problems are with the very old Codices.

As I stated above, the overwhelming rules issues are tied to old Codices, or TFG trying to go beyond what is actually allowed by the rules as stated. Quite simply:
1. if the rules don't specifically say that you can do something, the answer will be NO.
2. If the rules specifically forbid something, then the answer will again be NO.
With the above 2 maxims, the overwhelming majority of all rules issues disappear instantly.

While I understand Yakface put a *LOT* of effort into the INAT FAQ, it's not desirable. It's nonsense that 40k "needs" 80+ pages of FAQ when the rules themselves are <100 pages with pictures. That is, I think the two points above can easily resolve pretty much anything very simply.

As for GW's commitment, I'm not at all convinced that there is such a problem in the first place, nor that FAQs nor Codices every edition are necessary. That is, perhaps "The GW Hobby" (tm) simply isn't for you. Perhaps you would do better to simply play Hordesmachine, with it's "superior" ruleset. Fact is, you know what you're getting into when you play 40k and when you re-up each edition and each Codex. Complaining afterwards that the donkey you bought isn't a thoroughbred is just ridiculous, especially knowing that it's father was a donkey, and it's father before that was, too.

So anyone who has a different interpretation of a rule than you is a TFG...Nice to know.

And btw, the main rulebook may be <100 pages, but adding in all the codexes together, you get much more than that.

Though, I agree that it is 'nonsense' that there needs to be a 80 page FAQ, I put the blame for that nonsense at GW's feet.

I take it you're not one for accepting personal responsibility then, are you skyth?

I agree with John: any problems people find in the current set of rules are legacy problems, or someone trying to manipulate the game to their own pathetic advantage.

Actually, I'll agree with John on what he said, but I think he missed out on ~90% of the questions asked in You Make Da Call (aside from Yakface's [p]olls): the problems that come from not reading the rules.

Seriously, how many times does someone ask a question that they could have answered by reading the damn rulebook? When people have a different interpretations it's a simple matter to show whose opinion is the correct one (here's a hint, both can be wrong, but both can never be right).

Part of the problem is people treating You Make Da Call like a god-damned debating club where you score points for rhetorical dick-tricks, instead of a forum for solving people's misunderstandings of the rules. It's like co-operative problem solving is a secret technique that's dissolved into aping rituals whose meaning has been lost in the Dark Ages. It's bizarre that it should occur in a forum where otherwise intelligent and well-qualified (statisticians, engineers, code-monkeys, etc) people come to discuss rules.

/bile

The only problem with GW's rules is that they require some common sense and integrity. They assume people won't spend hours on end searching for loopholes or easter eggs in the rulebook. They assume people play their game for fun and mutual enjoyment, as opposed to playing it like its some kind of online-RTS where only winning matters. The issue is when someone tries to take some slightly ambiguous wording and run with it. Take for example the case of people thinking bikes can assault 12". Since bikes have traditionally assaulted only 6", GW got a little lax and didn't specifically state that bikes assault 6". If GW intended to allow bikes to assault 12", they would have been much more clear on that. They wouldn't expect players to read between the lines just to get the right rules. Are the rules perfect? Of course not, but they're the best they've been. Maybe people are reading their rulebooks too damn much....

HI .
The only problem with GWs rules for 40k ,(let me be specific,) is compared to other CHEAPER rule sets that are more STRAIGHT FORWARD and INTUITIVE and easier to use.
They appear to be over priced and under developed.

I dont HAVE to 'fill in the blanks'/' use common sense to interprite poorly worded instructions,'with any of my other NON GW rule sets .

However 40k rules are just a marketing aid , and as such the dev team do thier best with the little time and resouces they have.

If the codexes rules were free down loads available from ther GW web site I wouldnt mind the poor quality .
But charging money for Codex Books with multiple typing -gramatical -even stats variations , and then blaming the customers for bieng 'too picky', is a bit of a bare faced cheek IMO.

Compared in isolation, EG 3rd to 4th to 5th ed 40k rules, the last 10 years has seen minor improvments in game play, and clarity of rules.
40k IS slowly getting better.

But compared to other companies rule sets, 40k is lagging far behind.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Here is a very simple solution to all problems with GW rules, rulings, or lack there of; It's a game, take a breather and play! Generally most players, I have found, don't mind flexing rules, viewing rules to the situation, and having fun. Players who DON'T flex aren't worth playing and that's pretty much a period AND an exclamation point.! If you NEED clarification on every gray area or problematic section of the rules, then you're either not playing it right, taking it too seriously, or time to quit gaming and start playing Halo 2, 3, Counter Strike, World of Warcraft, and most other online games where you will be amongst all those people who have nothing better to do but ruin their own time playing a game.

When I lose because of a crap rule, it IS frustrating, but it IS just a game and if I let those rules get to me, then I'm not doing myself any good and I should just quit. So, find out who is going to rules Nazi AND rules lawyer/loop holer and don't play with them. Eventually these people will ONLY be playing each other and eventually die because of all the problems with a game that almost by design has problems.

This game isn't made out of glass, it's made of jello. It has flex and yield, and if you're comparing it to something else you could be eating, it's terrible, but if you take it at face value, it is delicious! So be like jello, relax and have a good time.

HI Skinnattitter.
There is an even simpler solution to the problems with GWs lack of interest in gamplay.
Use rule set written by GAMES companies.(Not a minatures company like GW.)

And there are some FREE to down load rule sets you can modify to your own tastes.(But play fine as they are.)
So why pay GW money for inferior rules that you HAVE to fix yourself?

TTFN
Lanrak.

You're right, Lanrak. Though the hard thing is getting millions of people to adopt the same game, open stores to cater to those people, get past the often annoying part of some people knowing way more than you and crushing you and... well, pocket weight, you're right, and at my hobby shop we do try out tons of different games all the time, and have fun. But play someone fun to play in 40k, and I have an even better time.

Just this last Friday I played a guy who was an awesome sport! The game was competitive (Tau v. Guard if you can believe that), enjoyably played, and the few problems we had (what cover should be because of elevations, what would this terrain be, and the norm) we rolled for (either rolled off or 4+ works well). It was a large battle too (1850pts), which I don't usually enjoy. Game ended very close, won only by about 150pts (over the 10% rule). Really brought me back to the ol' days...