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.
For the 3294th time, it's not that there's not obvious fixes, it's that different fixes are obvious to different people. With no real "eye" someone might use a sensor, another might use the gun, another might use a different sensor, another might prefer to use the base or any part of the model. When one method gives one perosn an advantage and the other doesn't, that's when problems arise, Clear rules eliminate that problem.
Using those drone pics, with no "eye" on the model, you have one or more sensors, one or more guns, los from the base and los from any part of the model as competiing ideas for which should be used. Probably others too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/27 12:38:11
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
It's my fault GW wrote a rule that doesn't work? Cool.
I doubt anyone actually argued this, but rules as written, that's how it works. Anything else is a house rule, regardless of how much logic is applied. it's not written in the rulebook, ergo it is a house rule.
Using autistic as an insult is against rule 1 by the way.
Pretre: OOOOHHHHH snap. That's like driving away from hitting a pedestrian.
Pacific:First person to Photoshop a GW store into the streets of Kabul wins the thread.
Selym: "Be true to thyself, play Chaos" - Jesus, Daemon Prince of Cegorach.
H.B.M.C: You can't lobotomise someone twice.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
And what if the person is question was autistic? You're going to laugh at them for playing by the written rules?
And do not, ever, use autism as some form of insult or slur or derogatory comment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 12:42:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
It's my fault GW wrote a rule that doesn't work? Cool.
I doubt anyone actually argued this, but rules as written, that's how it works. Anything else is a house rule, regardless of how much logic is applied. it's not written in the rulebook, ergo it is a house rule.
Using autistic as an insult is against rule 1 by the way.
It's not an insult, I have several friends on the autistic spectrum. A hyper-logical interpritation of language is typical of asperger's syndrome, ergo to neuro-typicals it should not be a problem. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the rule "doesn't work" or is "badly written", but you are clearly in a very small minority.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
And what if the person is question was autistic? You're going to laugh at them for playing by the written rules?
And do not, ever, use autism as some form of insult or slur or derogatory comment.
No, but I haven't seen a single post saying "Well I have Asperger's so I may see things a bit differently than most people". Most people seem to be proposing that their interpretation is the majority, or the only reasonable explanation.
I wasn't saying autistic as an insult, but it's clear the anti-GW crowd like to threaten people in this thread with bans and warnings so I don't think I can win
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 12:47:06
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
Others have pointed out why you're wrong but I'll add to it: It's not specifically the "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" thing, nobody cares about that specifically. It illustrates that ambiguous rules are BAD, because there's different interpretations of how to address them. Let's say this rule was still in effect. You might say "Obviously, you draw LOS from the head", except it's not obvious, that's your interpretation. I might assume you draw LOS from the weapon, or from the base. Is my conclusion less valid than yours? No, it is not, because both are acceptable conclusions.
The point being made, which continually gets missed, is that CLEAR and CONCISE rules would not have this problem in the first place; there would be no ambiguity regarding what to do if a model doesn't have eyes, because the rules would either A) Not use "eyes" in the first place, or B) Have an addendum that says what to do if the model doesn't have eyes, rather than just leave it up to the players to decide what to do.
It is absolutely GW's fault for writing unclear rules. Yes, somebody who argues that a model without eyes can't draw LOS is a jerk and TFG, but that's not the point. Their conclusion is perfectly valid due to the way the rules are worded, which means the rules are worded in an unclear manner.
What is hard to understand about this? This discussion has been going around in circles debating minutiae about the LOS rule which wasn't even the point of bringing it up in the first place; the point of bringing it up was to illustrate how unclear rules can cause rules arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 13:08:40
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
Others have pointed out why you're wrong but I'll add to it: It's not specifically the "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" thing, nobody cares about that specifically. It illustrates that ambiguous rules are BAD, because there's different interpretations of how to address them. Let's say this rule was still in effect. You might say "Obviously, you draw LOS from the head", except it's not obvious, that's your interpretation. I might assume you draw LOS from the weapon, or from the base. Is my conclusion less valid than yours? No, it is not, because both are acceptable conclusions.
The point being made, which continually gets missed, is that CLEAR and CONCISE rules would not have this problem in the first place; there would be no ambiguity regarding what to do if a model doesn't have eyes, because the rules would either A) Not use "eyes" in the first place, or B) Have an addendum that says what to do if the model doesn't have eyes, rather than just leave it up to the players to decide what to do.
It is absolutely GW's fault for writing unclear rules. Yes, somebody who argues that a model without eyes can't draw LOS is a jerk and TFG, but that's not the point. Their conclusion is perfectly valid due to the way the rules are worded, which means the rules are worded in an unclear manner.
What is hard to understand about this? This discussion has been going around in circles debating minutiae about the LOS rule which wasn't even the point of bringing it up in the first place; the point of bringing it up was to illustrate how unclear rules can cause rules arguments.
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
So...exactly what you're doing?
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
azreal13 wrote: The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
No, since they spend a good chunk of their spare time actively seeking out and discussing loop-holes in the rules. A few dozen people on an internet forum agreeing with each other does not mean that their collective opinions are fact. You cannot objectively state that something is "unclear" or "vague", you need back up your opinion subjectively - for example by citing some sort of evidence that a chunk of people who actively play 40k consider the rules to be unclear or vague. Simply saying that something is objectively true doesn't make it so.
eye
noun
1.
each of a pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals.
When the model does not have one, it is unclear exactly what to do. Do you use the optical sensor if it has one? Do you use this other thing that could be an optical sensor? How about the antennae because it's a networked drone receiving orders from a controller? Maybe the model detects its surroundings with its tongue like a snake? Does it use echo location like a bat? Due to this ease of confustion, should you instead use the tip of the gun barrel? They've all viable alternatives, as are others. When there are multiple viable options you could say it's "unclear" of which to use.
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
So...exactly what you're doing?
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
azreal13 wrote: The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
He also claimed that brown and dog are subjective terms open to interpretation. You guys are talking to a wall, you realise this, right?
He understands perfectly, its just that he will never concede that GW somehow writes less than perfect rules because that would probably cause his pure-white armour to instantly combust...
Well, GW does not really hold tournaments anymore so airtight rules are not really their problem.
Disagreement on rules has been covered in "rolling off".
Any games at stores seem to have house rules as a matter of course.
Final weasel clause is "forge the narrative".
Final bastion of defense they do publish FAQ's to fix things they feel are important.
So I really do not see how they could "lose" from a being correct standpoint.
Yep, I really do not see how we have an argument with them.
I... cannot... do... this... anymore...
We are their customers!
We support their business and their lifestyles!
We offer helpful "suggestions" to make it a game we could be proud of if they would bloody well listen or at least engage in a dialogue.
It would not take much, it is because we can see the potential for improvement it is so maddening!
YES! I agree! It is all purely whining if the source of your ire will not listen and will have zero impact on what you want changed. It is the forlorn hope that these "suggestions", "complaints", "whining" is listened to by even a single GW employee so we can hope for a cultural change, even a slight bright spot in the design process.
Okay, think I got it under control now...
As you were, nothing to see here.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
Yeah, while I'm still open minded on deliberate vs accidental, you're essentially trolling at this point.
How many times do you need to be told the same thing, before you can at least acknowledge the point, even if you don't agree with it?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
The goalposts have not shifted, you just failed to understand them.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
It's not an insult, I have several friends on the autistic spectrum. A hyper-logical interpritation of language is typical of asperger's syndrome, ergo to neuro-typicals it should not be a problem. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the rule "doesn't work" or is "badly written", but you are clearly in a very small minority.
Regardless of your personal experiences we ask users not to bandy around terms like this on Dakka, so please bear this in mind in future. Ta.
And to everyone : debate, critique or attack the point not the poster.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
So now people are idiots because they insist that a product that has the highest price tag on the market, also should have the quality to go along with it?
You guys are hilarious, you really are. Its no wonder that GW continues to rise prices and lower quality when you guys just gobble it all up and attribute all the problems that might happen to your fellow gamers instead of the company that actually made the rules!
I think GW's assumption is that a lot of their customers, especially the new, younger ones, have never read a set of wargame rules and don't care how they are written as long as the text is carried along by a general theme of enthusiasm and fun.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Someone else who is missing the point.
RAW, the pre-7th edition LOS rules (as the primary example in this discussion) were utterly broken and unplayable, because it instructed to use a models eyes, didn't explain what to do if the model lacked eyes, and models existed which didn't have what one would conventionally call eyes.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This is fine until you get into things like artillery, which aren't given permission to use vehicle rules (use the barrel) and don't have a logical analogue for eyes, face or head.
Once again, for the I don't know how many times-th time, nobody is saying that this wasn't something that was worked around by the community at large, what people are saying, repeatedly, is that this was a badly written rule, which was open to exploitation, that required house ruling by the entire 40K community in order to function, that took 20 odd years to fix and was an incredibly easy fix once they could be arsed.
The argument isn't that it couldn't be worked with, the argument is that it should either have been caught pre-publishing, or at the minimum only taken an edition to rectify.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Someone else who is missing the point.
RAW, the pre-7th edition LOS rules (as the primary example in this discussion) were utterly broken and unplayable, because it instructed to use a models eyes, didn't explain what to do if the model lacked eyes, and models existed which didn't have what one would conventionally call eyes.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This is fine until you get into things like artillery, which aren't given permission to use vehicle rules (use the barrel) and don't have a logical analogue for eyes, face or head.
Once again, for the I don't know how many times-th time, nobody is saying that this wasn't something that was worked around by the community at large, what people are saying, repeatedly, is that this was a badly written rule, which was open to exploitation, that required house ruling by the entire 40K community in order to function, that took 20 odd years to fix and was an incredibly easy fix once they could be arsed.
The argument isn't that it couldn't be worked with, the argument is that it should either have been caught pre-publishing, or at the minimum only taken an edition to rectify.
There is nothing to understand - you are choosing to miss-interprit the rules to an hilarious extent. Even I could find a rule that seemed vague or unclear, but you keep banging the drum on that one single rule that no single person I have ever met has ever had a problem with. Unless you have actually enforced this in a game - and please god tell me you have tried to do this - your point is self-defeating. You insist that the rule doesn't work and yet thousands of people play with it every day without having a problem with it. Therefore, the problem is with you, not GW.
The dead horse that is this topic has been so thoroughly beaten in this thread, and the dozens that are identical to it (all featuring the same cast that repeat the same tired arguments almost to a T) that it is no longer recognizable and is just a fine mist on the ground.
We get it. The greater collective gets it. We just have the ability to move on.
Coffee is hot. It scalds you when you dump it on your crotch. Your coffee cups did not clearly spell out and dictate that I should not pour it on my crotch. I poured it on my crotch.
I demand you spell out the intent of your coffee to not be poured on my crotch because it will burn me.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Not surprised on that one, really.
If you let forum discussions affect your enjoyment of anything, that says much more about yourself that it says about the forums.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Not surprised on that one, really.
If you let forum discussions affect your enjoyment of anything, that says much more about yourself that it says about the forums.
Was that intended to be an underhanded insult?
If I enjoy something, and beyond interpersonal interaction with my buddies or people I randomly game with at an FLGS, cannot even begin to attempt to converse about it through the popular/regular channels without having to wade through a sea of negativity and outrageous, often completely out of touch perspectives on what should for all intents and purposes be something that is purely meant for fun and an outlet from the real stress in life, the problem is not with me. It's the community, or to be more specific, a small group of stubborn like-minded disgruntled 'veterans of the long war against GW'.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
