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.

That pic made some coworkers almost have to dodge orange juice coming out of my nose.

that burns!

Wow, I go afk for a few hours and look what happens. Good show, everyone. Maybe the intensity could go down just a bit, but it's been a great read. I have some comments, just to make sure people are on the same page.

@Arschbombe:
Whether or not the words "deployment zone" are used makes no difference to the argument, as both players are told to "deploy." Even if it did, (and, mind you, this is only from a RaI standpoint) it is quite common to use parentheses once in a paragraph to indicate that what is inside of them applies to the rest of the paragraph. Otherwise things wouldn't necessarily flow that well (and, mind you, this is only from a RaI standpoint).

@solkan (and others who support the "diagrams are rules" position):
I know for a fact that the diagrams do not accurately depict the rules all the time, as I have seen many players confused by the example given on p.30 for blast weapons. In the text it says that the center of the blast must be over the targeted model, not that it must be completely over the base of the targeted model. This is an important distinction that the example given fails to utilize, and because of that many players I've played with have been quite confused and frustrated when I've used it against them. This is one case in particular where that is so, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter because, as others have said, the diagrams questioned in this thread might just deal with the person going first.

Actually, after thinking a bit more on the subject, I've noticed that Arschbombe has pointed out something that supports the conclusion that the diagrams are only used for the player going first. If he is indeed correct about the parenthetical, then it seems likely that the diagrams were intended to mention deployment only for the player going first as well (clearly marking out the "zones"). But again, that's just RaI.

warboss wrote:

Gwar wrote:Just to add a disclaimer: I don't give a flying banana how you play it. I am just replying to viewpoints posted in this thread with a literal RaW interpretation. If this offends you, then a Rules Forum might not be the best place for you

i couldn't resist...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never noticed the difference in the rules deployments for spearhead as has no one in my local group. luckily, i'm the only one who reads 40k forums in the group!

U am Legend.

Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Arschbombe, the intent of the developers cannot be indicated by the text. It's simply not possible. You're probably interpreting what you think the intent is off of A) a completely unlabeled diagram (which does in fact correspond to something: Player 1's possible deployment options) and/or B) the way you've done it before.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

I'm not disagreeing with you, Gwar. I'm saying that there's no reason to argue anything other than what the text says, because the text is quite clear. My point was that your argument based on the meaning of half and quarter was unnecessary, because the first few lines of each deployment type (except DoW) clearly indicate what GW means (for once).

I'm just going to sit back and watch the show, for two reasons:
1. I've been playing Daemons since 5th came out, so you all are just arguing about rules for other people.
2. I've heard people complain about the lack of options in the standard missions. Well, here you go. Roll your mission, roll your deployment, and then flip a coin to see whether you stick to the text or the diagrams for deployment. Instant diversity, right?

Yep, we've just doubled our mission options!

Wehrkind wrote:I think it is worth pointing out too that just because we believe that something should be done a certain way, or that it used to be done a certain way, does not mean that is how it is done now. This is a new edition of the rules, and looking back on older editions does not help our understanding of them. In fact, as many of us continually find, knowledge of older editions limits our ability to understand the new rules as they are, rather than how we expected them to be.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the reader to base his understanding of the current rules on past rules. This version is based on 40K v4 which was based on 40K v3 and many things have carried over from the previous versions (exclusive use of D6, Close Combat To Hit and Wound charts, turn sequences, etc). In fact, during the leadup to 5th edition GW made quite a show of releasing difference reports, telling players exactly what changed from 4th to 5th (and how 5th was superior).

Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

The Green Git wrote:Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

You mean like removing Target Priority tests?
Or the ability of beasts to move up levels in ruins?

This is more logical than to assume the writers meant the words they wrote?
ummm?

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

So you have psychic powers now?

G

I bet Target Priority Tests were left out by accident and GW are just too Drunk to put out an Errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

So you have psychic powers now?

I am confused, who was that directed towards?

No, it's not reasonable to conclude that designers have inserted Easter Eggs into the rules. In fact, it's unreasonable to conclude anything about designer intent for how the rules work, unless it's in the rules.

The fact of the matter is that the rules are clear, the charts match the rules (if you read them as the options for player 1's deployment), and there's no reason to demand that we ignore every rule in 5th that wasn't either in previous editions or widely celebrated.

kirsanth wrote:You mean like removing Target Priority tests?
Or the ability of beasts to move up levels in ruins?

This is more logical than to assume the writers meant the words they wrote?
ummm?

Both of which were covered in the difference reports GW plastered all over the web. These were plainly pointed out as changes. Nowhere did I see the words "New and exciting deployment zone options" anywhere.

This whole notion of the game authors expecting every consequence of the words they penned (or more likely cut and pasted) into the new edition is ludicrous. You and I both know the best crafted documents of men have unintended meanings sometimes conveyed through poor word choices. To expect the authors of a toy soldier rules system perfectly conveyed their intentions is MORE illogical than expecting they are humans, fallible and therefore subject to error.

I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

Unless my flyers are different than yours, those changes are not on them.

Either way, even if the rules are full of mistakes and written by barricudas, they're still the rules. If you want to play W40K you must play by those rules. Otherwise you're playing some similar game based heavily upon 40K rules (such as any game incorporating house rules).

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

G

Resolution?

Edited out a double quote

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

Ok, we do not assume anything. What rules do we use? The ones in the Rulebook and Errata.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, it's not reasonable to conclude that designers have inserted Easter Eggs into the rules. In fact, it's unreasonable to conclude anything about designer intent for how the rules work, unless it's in the rules.

What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything. Your contention is the designers intended deployment to depart from previous conventions based on some word parsing. I reject the word parsing. You might uncovered a potential meaning of the words in the deployment description but you can no more assert that this is the intended meaning than I can. Only the author can confirm or deny the intended meaning.

ajfirecracker wrote:The fact of the matter is that the rules are clear, the charts match the rules (if you read them as the options for player 1's deployment), and there's no reason to demand that we ignore every rule in 5th that wasn't either in previous editions or widely celebrated.

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

No one is demanding anything be ignored. Quite the contrary, it's unreasonable to ignore established convention. You suggest that providing one side with an additional advantage in a larger deployment zone, closer deployment to the enemy or more objectives within your deployment zone is correct. I suggest that this is a language gaff. Only the author can say what was *intended*.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

The Green Git wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:I think it is worth pointing out too that just because we believe that something should be done a certain way, or that it used to be done a certain way, does not mean that is how it is done now. This is a new edition of the rules, and looking back on older editions does not help our understanding of them. In fact, as many of us continually find, knowledge of older editions limits our ability to understand the new rules as they are, rather than how we expected them to be.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the reader to base his understanding of the current rules on past rules. This version is based on 40K v4 which was based on 40K v3 and many things have carried over from the previous versions (exclusive use of D6, Close Combat To Hit and Wound charts, turn sequences, etc). In fact, during the leadup to 5th edition GW made quite a show of releasing difference reports, telling players exactly what changed from 4th to 5th (and how 5th was superior).

Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

Actually, you make my point exactly, Green Git.

The 5th edition rules are not dependant on the 4th edition rules. 5th edition is a stand alone game; no where does it say "A copy of Warhammer 40,000 4th Edition is required to use the contents of this book" for a reason, that reason being that every standard rule is contained in the book. The rules are written such that a complete newbie can pick up a copy of 5th edition and know how to play (though of course he would need a codex to build an army.)
As such, the only words that are relevant to the rules of "Warhammer 40,000, 5th Edition" are the words in that book. By looking at other games, no matter how closely related, for rules clarifications you are looking at sources that have no bearing on what the rules actually say.
That is not to say looking at how things were done in 4th, or 3rd, or Necromunda might not be a bad plan if you decide something needs a house rule, but it does not clarify what is written in the 5th edition rule book. Let me repeat that:

Text from outside of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition does not clarify the text of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rule book.

Just because they did it one way last edition does not mean they are doing it the same way this edition. Starting with the assumption that things are the same will only trip you up when the change is made in a somewhat unclear fashion. Nearly everyone has experienced this so far going from 4th to 5th. If you haven't yet, this might be your time. Relish it!

The Green Git wrote:What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything.

That is just another way of saying "They intended to do it another way but made a mistake."

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

M grey Hunters used to be able to Move 12" in a Rhino, Disembark, fire they bolters then assault. Rules change, live with it.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

I have reported this post for a breach of the Dakkadakka YMTC Rule #7, which sates that "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates." I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

Gwar! wrote:That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

Or we could assume that GW doesn't care what was intended as long as you have fun playing. Maybe there was nothing intended and you just stumbled into a word gaff. We could assume that GW already *has* defined what to do over and over again... come to an agreeable solution for both players or dice it off if you can't.

I think that assumption works too.

Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text from 5e books

Wehrkind wrote:Just because they did it one way last edition does not mean they are doing it the same way this edition. Starting with the assumption that things are the same will only trip you up when the change is made in a somewhat unclear fashion. Nearly everyone has experienced this so far going from 4th to 5th. If you haven't yet, this might be your time. Relish it!

You and I both know this is not something as fundamental as the dropping of Priority tests. You are trying to apply word parsing to effect a change in deployment zones that has gone nigh well undiscovered for about a year and a half...

Again, I know how I'll play it.

The Green Git wrote:
What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything. Your contention is the designers intended deployment to depart from previous conventions based on some word parsing. I reject the word parsing. You might uncovered a potential meaning of the words in the deployment description but you can no more assert that this is the intended meaning than I can. Only the author can confirm or deny the intended meaning.

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

No one is demanding anything be ignored. Quite the contrary, it's unreasonable to ignore established convention. You suggest that providing one side with an additional advantage in a larger deployment zone, closer deployment to the enemy or more objectives within your deployment zone is correct. I suggest that this is a language gaff. Only the author can say what was *intended*.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

A) Don't bring the most important rule into YMDC. It's a guide to remembering to be a nice guy, not how the rules should be interpreted.

B) I contend nothing about the designers intent. I contend that we should ignore their intent and play by the rules of the game.

C) I'm not adding words to the diagram, I'm telling you what the diagram represents based on the written rules. The diagram currently has no description whatsoever, so there's simply no reason to claim it represents both players deployment areas. In fact, there is a reason - the written rules - to claim that it does not represent this.

D) The wording of the rules does not allow you to demand that your opponents deploy 12" from the center or that they may deploy within 18" but past the center line. The wording of the rules is clear. It defines table halves and quarters and tells you which players may deploy with which restrictions. The fault arises when you assume the game must have been the same as previous editions (if it were, why would they print new rules?) and/or that the unlabeled diagram is all you need to understand deployment. If it were, they would not have provided a written guide as well.

E) Convention should be ignored when it contradicts the rules, which is what you are demanding be ignored. Specifically, the written rules for deployment given for each deployment type.

Gwar! wrote:I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

I would never suggest that someone bow to my interpretation of a rule or that I was somehow the infallible arbiter of intent based on word parsing. I am content to let a D6 decide for me, for I know my own understanding is human and therefor fallible.

I would also like to point out that your statement is being used to ascribe motives of selfishness and an unwillingness to compromise to me. This is a personal attack and a violation of Dakka Rules http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp.

Also, posting regarding advantages may convince some people one way or the other, but it's irrelevant to the rules discussion.

And even if it weren't one side being advantaged consists of being advantaged relative to how you assume the rules should play out, which is to say, they're better off than if the rules were different.

If that's the standard we use to determine whether or not we should follow a particular rule, then I demand a rewrite of the whole book to favor any army I personally am playing, as anything else puts me at a disadvantage relative to that outcome.

The Green Git wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

I would never suggest that someone bow to my interpretation of a rule or that I was somehow the infallible arbiter of intent based on word parsing. I am content to let a D6 decide for me, for I know my own understanding is human and therefor fallible.

I would also like to point out that your statement is being used to ascribe motives of selfishness and an unwillingness to compromise to me. This is a personal attack and a violation of Dakka Rules http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp.

If i had said "Green Git uses TMIR to Cheat" that would be a personal attack. What I stated no way constitutes a personal attack.