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.

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.