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.

I was going to ask Killcrazy if he (as a games designer) has the time/inclination to do research into exactly how many "errors" ther are in the 40k rules....

If he does, let's vote to make him the GW CEO.......

That work has already been done by others and can be found in the Yak FAQ. GW have taken note of it in compiling their UKGT FAQ list.

Posted By Da Boss on 10/18/2007 4:36 AM
You have to admit though, the image of bikers ramping out of a land raider is both ridiculous and awesome, and could only be made better if they were playing guitars at the same time.

If RAW made more sense, we wouldn't need to "interpret" the rules so much.
But hey I'm an easy going club gamer about these things. It's wholesale army neglect that bugs me about GW more than all the RAW RAI stuff.

There is one thing you must always remember about awesome...

Your post made me think of that.

Thank you. 

Posted By Saldiven on 10/18/2007 10:11 AM
GW should hire some of the former Avalon Hill rules writers. I can't think of a single rules argument I ever had playing Advanced Squad Leader. Or Panzer Blitz.

hell , the writers of candyland are putting out a much better rulebook these days.

anyway, GW has said many times they are not a rules company they are a model company (as if we dont know that) so why dont they just give up on the rules and outsource it to a company that can actually do it.

Posted By jeremycobert on 10/19/2007 1:11 PM

anyway, GW has said many times they are not a rules company they are a model company (as if we dont know that) so why dont they just give up on the rules and outsource it to a company that can actually do it.

Because they rely on changing the rules to help sell models.

GW writers also underestimate the sheer stupidity of some people who read the rules and think that anything they find is a stand alone, never refer to anything else, statement of truth.

I have heard someone say by RAW because the rules in the most current codex override the BGB that there are no rules whatsoever as the BGB wasn't included in each codex.

Orion

Every day I pray for 5th edition.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 10/18/2007 10:17 AM


Here's the magic of RAW for you:

Pg. 62 in BGB: "Only infantry may embark in transports unless the transporting vehicle's rule specify otherwise."


Pg. 44 & 101 in Chaos Codex: Land Raider Transport Capacity:

Ten Models
Models in Terminator Armor count as two models
Obliterators and Summoned Daemons even though they are Infantry, cannot be transported.

It's dumb, it's stupid, but it's RAW. 

While you are absolutely right the RAW lead to some absurd conclusions, this is not one of them.

The main rulebook has a clear restriction on the types of models that may embark on a transport, so the Chaos codex would have to specifically grant non-infantry models permission for them to be allowed to embark.

The chaos codex doesn't say anything like that. It doesn't even say "any" or "every" model. It just says "models".


When you have two conflicting rules with one of them being permissive and the other being restrictive you always must 'break no rule'.

Allowing bikes to embark on a Land Raider would be breaking the basic rulebook restriction and is therefore illegal.



This is basic stuff. It's like the rules saying: Models may fire in the shooting phase. Then another rule says: models with heavy weapons may not fire in the shooting phase if they moved in the movement phase.

You can't sit there and say: "well the first rule says my models may fire in the shooting phase so clearly that means I can move and fire my heavy weapons".

You must break no rule.

RAW does lead to some really dumb situations such as:

1) Powerklaws attacking at regular initative
2) Deepstriking Deathwatch Razorbacks
3) formerly Doomfists

What's wrong with deep striking razorbacks, anyway? What do think the phrase "when pigs fly" is all about anyway?

1. I love that Star Wars pic. I hope I have a dream tonight where I am the band's Roadie.........

2. Yak's explanation should be a disclaimer in the front of EVERY GW book, well put.

>>1. I love that Star Wars pic. I hope I have a dream tonight where I am the band's Roadie.........

Better that than a dream where you are the band's groupie.

Posted By yakface on 10/20/2007 6:59 AM

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 10/18/2007 10:17 AM


Here's the magic of RAW for you:

Pg. 62 in BGB: "Only infantry may embark in transports unless the transporting vehicle's rule specify otherwise."


Pg. 44 & 101 in Chaos Codex: Land Raider Transport Capacity:

Ten Models
Models in Terminator Armor count as two models
Obliterators and Summoned Daemons even though they are Infantry, cannot be transported.

It's dumb, it's stupid, but it's RAW. 

While you are absolutely right the RAW lead to some absurd conclusions, this is not one of them.

The main rulebook has a clear restriction on the types of models that may embark on a transport, so the Chaos codex would have to specifically grant non-infantry models permission for them to be allowed to embark.

The chaos codex doesn't say anything like that. It doesn't even say "any" or "every" model. It just says "models".


When you have two conflicting rules with one of them being permissive and the other being restrictive you always must 'break no rule'.

Allowing bikes to embark on a Land Raider would be breaking the basic rulebook restriction and is therefore illegal.



This is basic stuff. It's like the rules saying: Models may fire in the shooting phase. Then another rule says: models with heavy weapons may not fire in the shooting phase if they moved in the movement phase.

You can't sit there and say: "well the first rule says my models may fire in the shooting phase so clearly that means I can move and fire my heavy weapons".

Yakface, I agree with you completely on your rule interpretation, but your edict to "break no rule" is where the problem lies.  Just as grammar has double negatives and social etiquette double entendres; GW rules can have multiple valid contexts.  If you can present 2 interpretations where neither "breaks no rules,"  you need to start dicing for who wins.

The BGB transport loophole is "unless the transporting vehicle's rule specify otherwise."

This is called a rules-recursion. When done properly, it can be a very good thing.  However, when you make exception an integral part of the rule, you do leave the doors open to cross interpretations.

I agree with your interpretation of the transport rule, but the counterpoint can (and has) been argued and "breaks no rules."  It's silly, but the context is just as valid as your read.

All it takes is common sense. Ya oughta be playing long enough to just know that bikes can't disembark from a land raider and on that note, other land raiders can't disembark from one too. If you're confused about a rule like that just ask yourself "Will someone konk me on the noggin if I try this?" .. if the answer is yes, don't try it.

Tesseract, that's just it- the Landraider rule DOESN'T specify otherwise. It just says models. If it said ANY 10 models, you might have a point. But the rule most certainly doesn't give a specific instruction which contradicts (and thereby overrides) the basic rulebook's restriction.

Posted By Mannahnin on 10/22/2007 12:55 PM
Tesseract, that's just it- the Landraider rule DOESN'T specify otherwise. It just says models. If it said ANY 10 models, you might have a point. But the rule most certainly doesn't give a specific instruction which contradicts (and thereby overrides) the basic rulebook's restriction.

I agree that any sane goober would agree with your post. I certainly do.

The problem is that the distinction between "10 models" and "any 10 models" is lost on many.  It's the whole, is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence?     The over-riding rule could have easily been written better to avoid using "indefinite qualifiers."   How do you explain to a 12 year old kid the distinction of loading 10 models and ANY 10 models?   It's even harder explaining that to a 35 year old. 

I also acknowledge that well qualified rules can be very hard for some players to read.  I think that even with Warhammer's many rule problems,  there is enough basic consensus (in it's less formal style)  to make it a fun game.

I feel some...a little...sympathy for players who think they've found a way to do something cool.  My approach is that if they can present an argument which does not literally break a rule I'll allow it....even if I think (know) they're wrong.  Warhammer is so much more fun to play (even baddly) than argue about. 

 

Nothing wrong with RAW. The problems happen when you apply it badly or stupidly, and that it can be applied stupidly or badly. Rules as written only works when you're decoding the rules using the same system of writing.

 

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

I love this article. It really can be applied to every game I've ever played, including Warhammer 40K.

Yes, it really is the designers' fault the game is broken. Yes, it really is the designers' fault that playing to win and using the 40K rules as written would result in the universe collapsing upon itself and the world ending. GW is really trying to make it sound like it is the gamers' fault though with all this "remember this is a fun game" crap. Would the game be somehow any less fun if it had a degree of balance and a set of working rules?

I was reading one of the more recent WDs, from the last year and a half or so, and apparently one of the WD or Black Gobbo guys is a technical writer. But what does he write about? Stupid stuff for a catalog (web or print version, I forget). The magic of GW, folks.

"GW is really trying to make it sound like it is the gamers' fault though with all this "remember this is a fun game" crap. Would the game be somehow any less fun if it had a degree of balance and a set of working rules?"
From Therion.

Spot on question Therion. A point I would make to GW about this "fun" theory is...

I can have 'fun' with a $2.50 bag of plastic army men.

its not the gamers fault as such. More so its gamers who complain on forums fault. I for one am glad they are going back to the good old days when RAW counted for nothing. every GW store had varient versions of the rules. It was not universal. Every time you went to a new store they had their own interpretaions of the rules. Tournies were real FUN then.

Good call Beef. Would it be a logistical nightmare with GW Tourneys tho?

How is that fun?

Posted By Therion on 10/26/2007 8:15 AM

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

I love this article. It really can be applied to every game I've ever played, including Warhammer 40K.

"Winning is all that matters and anyone who doesn't use every single means at his disposal to win is a scrub/loser/fool/Al Gore" is a very common attitude in any competitive sport or pastime. It's what killed my love for Magic: The Gathering a few years back (that and always losing to condescending 15-year-olds with competition-level decks).  As far as logic goes, it makes sense.

For me, it goes like this. I play a substandard armylist. If I win, I'll have accomplished something better than with an optimized list because I won with a handicap, and if I lose, well, it's really not my fault per se, since my list was likely to fail me anyway. It's a cop-out, something to boost my ego on the off chance I happen to win and to absolve me of my failures when I lose.

I suppose I could make excuses that I'm only "playing for fun", or "adhering to the spirit of the game", but for me personally, all those explanations ring hollow. I don't play with plasma-spamming drop troop veteran squads because I have a suspicion I wouldn't win even if I did, and with that list, I would have nobody to blame.

If you go on to read parts 2 and 3 of the article it says that in order to improve as a player it is important not to always select the perfect tactic in order to explore the possibilities on non-perfect tactics that may one day be forced on you by circumstances.

It makes me wonder how chess has managed to survive, lo these many centuries. Same game, no rewrites, no ambiguious rules. You can go anywhere in the world, and play a game with anyone who knows the rules.

Laserbait wrote:It makes me wonder how chess has managed to survive, lo these many centuries. Same game, no rewrites, no ambiguious rules. You can go anywhere in the world, and play a game with anyone who knows the rules.

If 40K only had 6 units, the only special rules for each unit were for movement, kinging, and castling and it was played on a 8x8 grid, I could write very clear and unambiguous rules for it. I could probably fit them on a napkin.

On the other hand, 40K has hundred of units (millions of different units if you account for every wargear variation), hundreds of special rules scattered across 15 major armies, multiple scenarios, terrain and board space that varies from game to game, multiple scenarios, etc.

You're basically saying it makes you wonder how your toaster has gone for years without locking up or having a blue screen of death when your computer suffers from those problems regularly.

Spot on Asmodi. You cannot compare Chalk 'n Cheese.

I read a really good line in a book once called 'Shibumi'

"Chess is as similar to Go(japanese game) as double entry accounting is to poetry"

I have explained to a few people about this, and to make a perfectly balanced, interesting game with no-rules conflicts, with at least 8 different army types, updates/expansions would be virtually impossible. We all love it so much, yet we(myself included) try to find reasons to criticise.

If you go to HBMC's site, they have at least tried to 'fix' these issues, with Codex variants and rules streamlining.

Pro-active Solutions/suggestions is positive.
Complaining isn't.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that every 5 years or so, the game is rewritten.

I had missed out on Rogue Trader, but came into the game in 2nd edition. Were there some grey rules areas? yep. Were they easily resolvable? most times, yes.

But GW, in a bid to satisfy the great god "Profit", continually rewrites, discards, and then re-introduces the same game.
2nd edition: you had an army list. You could bring whatever units you fancied as long as it met the points cost for your army.
Wargear? yeah, you had 500 point characters, but a sound thrashing about the head & shoulders of the offender soon stopped that.

3rd edition: force organization charts. "We are eliminating all the clutter from the 2nd edition" . Big plus? Your units can shoot AND assault in the same turn. No longer facing all terminator armies. waiting years for >your< codex to be printed, just in time for....

4th edition! Still have force charts, the slow creeping introduction of special characters and abilities. Some pluses, many minuses.

Then comes the codeci. By the time they remake the wheel again, it will be time for the next edition.

And then there is Apocolypse which brings us back to 2nd edition: BRING YOUR ENTIRE COLLECTION!!!!!!

Bottom line of my little rant? GW doesn't really give a fart in a firestorm about RAW, or RAI, or anything else other than the dollar in the pocket of the next generation of GW players. Its one thing to take a product and say "Hey, its got some flaws, lets fix them". But why throw out the baby with the bathwater every single time? Why not keep what works from the previous, and fix what is broken or unclear?

My only prob with that, My Klingon Fan(Drat you! Go the Fed!! lol ) is that there will be no next Gen of GW fans if they don't at least try to make a 'fun' and popular Wargame. I am by no means a HUUUGE fan of rule issues. I am a big fan of the Game though, and it would be a logistical nightmare trying to work out all of the variables. All things considered, they do OK.
So if that RAW vs RAI is such a BFD, why play anything else other than Chess or Checkers?