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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If GW published something half this good and this comprehensive we'd both be singing their praises.

I wouldn't.

One thing I hated about GW's FAQs was that they constantly changed rules rather than clarifying them, the classic example bwing the SW Acute Senses vs GK Shrouding answer. I hate FAQs that change rules rather than making them clear. Rules should be changed only when absolutley necessary (ie. the rule doesn't say what you intended it to say or says something in such a poor way that an opposite or different meaning is given).

But that shrouding answer is a classic example of a FAQ neither half as good or half as comprehensive as this one. That change was in direct contradiction to a clear rule. And it wasn't necessary.

All the changes in this FAQ were necessary to fill in a blank where the rules simply didn't cover something, or to clarify/make consistent a conflict/problem. The one about attaching ICs to units in reserve, and putting units in non-dedicate transports, pre-game is an example. I was initially uncomfortable because it seemed to make certain armies (like mech Eldar Harlie spam) more powerful. When Yak explained the reasoning behind it (to allow BA, DA, and BT to field a podding army without their HQ standing on the field like an idiot), I agreed that it was a good change.

I see two sides to it.

I think that the goal of making games between strangers more easily playable and enjoyable (without arguments) is a good thing. And I think the FAQ does a good job of this.

However, I don't think that changing game rules in order to create a balance that the FAQ writer(s) prefers is the job of a FAQ writer. The number of places in the FAQ that denote [rules change] instead of [RAW] is somewhat disturbing to me. It means that those of us who can actually read English and apply logic now have to unlearn things in order to play at Adepticon (and any other tournament that opts to use these rules). I'm sure these things were done in order to prevent fights between adults playing with toy soldiers, but it should be just as easy to make a clarification that's backed up by the RAW and distributed that to the gaming populace as it is to add the writer's personal preferences into their re-written rules.

Redbeard wrote: It means that those of us who can actually read English and apply logic now have to unlearn things in order to play at Adepticon (and any other tournament that opts to use these rules).

It is quite funny that everyone states that they can read English and apply logic better than anyone else - yet, these problems persist. It is a falacy to think that your understanding of English and application of logic is far or even above the other intelligent players that play 40K.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

So I'd rather GW err on the side of caution before forcing the world to play with one specific set of rulings.

So....you're saying that you'd rather GW write craptastic rules and have us "figure" it out and argue over obscure ambiguous rules rather than being able to just play the game on the same page? Unfortunately, GW already forces us to play with one specific set of rulings, THE 40K RULEBOOK. And how many rules disputes have you had playing with people that aren't in your normal gaming group? And how many times do you walk away from the table thinking the guy is a tool because of it, and never play him again. (Him thinking the same thing.) When really you might have made a new friend if you hadn't argued over whether psycannon's ignore cover saves!

So since GW already makes us play one way, why not all play the SAME way, since they can't be bothered to write tight rules. We are all one big gaming community, and we are not out to screw you, we are just trying to make it better for everyone. I mean, we all have invested lots of time and money.

Redbeard wrote:However, I don't think that changing game rules in order to create a balance that the FAQ writer(s) prefers is the job of a FAQ writer. The number of places in the FAQ that denote [rules change] instead of [RAW] is somewhat disturbing to me. It means that those of us who can actually read English and apply logic now have to unlearn things in order to play at Adepticon (and any other tournament that opts to use these rules). I'm sure these things were done in order to prevent fights between adults playing with toy soldiers, but it should be just as easy to make a clarification that's backed up by the RAW and distributed that to the gaming populace as it is to add the writer's personal preferences into their re-written rules.

Check out the main thread for the reasons behind this. I can summarize though.

1. Re: the sheer number of things labeled [Rules Change]. They made a conscious decision to err on the side of caution here. For issues where they genuinely weren’t sure whether they were making a change, they labeled it as a change. This inflates the number immediately. Second, they were more honest than most people are in rules discussions. They owned up to every place where they had to fill in a blank left uncovered by GW. In rules discussions, most people don’t admit it when they’re filling in a gap. If it’s close, they’ll usually claim that their interpretation is RAW, to give their position more validity or because they genuinely can’t see where they’re filling in a gap. I believe most players are genuinely unaware of how many gaps/holes in the rules they gloss over in regular play, and thus are unaware how many house rules they're using. Until they run into someone who plays it differently.

2. Re: Making clarifications backed up by RAW and distributed to the populace to educate them. This is a more usual approach, but it has a couple of major drawbacks. First is that it often means living with a stupid outcome. Like DA, BA, and BT armies having to have their HQs stand around like idiots waiting for their army if you try to make a pod list with those codices. Second, the people least likely to read FAQs and educate themselves are the very same players most likely to gloss over subtle issues in the rules and get caught out in a tournament by a non-intuitive rule. For example, Chaos Terminators not being able to fire their combi-bolters 24” while moving. The RAW is pretty clear on this, but it’s non-intuitive and possibly unintentional. A player who doesn’t read the rulebook carefully will probably miss it. The same player is also probably the guy who doesn’t read the FAQ closely, and will be unpleasantly surprised if a more rules-savvy player tells him he can’t do it during the tournament. The way this FAQ is written, it’s designed to make things easier for the people who don’t closely read the text and adhere to the RAW even when it gives a strange result. Those of us who DO read the rules carefully are far more likely to actually read the FAQ and see the ruling.

You make the assumption that the Adepticon's "change preferences" are done for wrong or bad reasons.

I am afraid various things that are clear in the BBB for people who can read English and use logic (e.g. SMF vs AP1 weapons) get clarified to match the understanding of the majority of players even if it is technically incorrect.

Mannahnin wrote:
1. Re: the sheer number of things labeled [Rules Change]. They made a conscious decision to err on the side of caution here. For issues where they genuinely weren’t sure whether they were making a change, they labeled it as a change. This inflates the number immediately. Second, they were more honest than most people are in rules discussions. They owned up to every place where they had to fill in a blank left uncovered by GW. In rules discussions, most people don’t admit it when they’re filling in a gap. If it’s close, they’ll usually claim that their interpretation is RAW, to give their position more validity or because they genuinely can’t see where they’re filling in a gap. I believe most players are genuinely unaware of how many gaps/holes in the rules they gloss over in regular play, and thus are unaware how many house rules they're using. Until they run into someone who plays it differently.

And I agree with this - as I stated above, I am of two minds about the FAQ, and I think it does the above very well.

2. Re: Making clarifications backed up by RAW and distributed to the populace to educate them. This is a more usual approach, but it has a couple of major drawbacks. First is that it often means living with a stupid outcome. Like DA, BA, and BT armies having to have their HQs stand around like idiots waiting for their army if you try to make a pod list with those codices.

Yes, yes - so maybe people shouldn't try to make drop-pod DA/BA/BT lists. I mean, I want to run a doom farseer in a mech eldar list. Should I whine and complain that my farseer has to stand outside a skimmer because he can't use his powers inside it, or when he dismounts, or should I just not do that? Wait, maybe the FAQ could make it so that farseers who start the turn inside a falcon can cast fortune or doom after getting out.

See the difference here? Maybe it is stupid that Bob the marine boss can't get in the drop-pod. But it's also stupid that Joe the farseer can't cast doom when he hops out of the bus. Why did one get fixed?

The point of an FAQ should not be to make some armies work.

Second, the people least likely to read FAQs and educate themselves are the very same players most likely to gloss over subtle issues in the rules and get caught out in a tournament by a non-intuitive rule. For example, Chaos Terminators not being able to fire their combi-bolters 24” while moving. The RAW is pretty clear on this, but it’s non-intuitive and possibly unintentional.

Yeah, and some of us realized what the rules said, and built our chaos terminators with lightning claws instead of nerfed bolters...

A player who doesn’t read the rulebook carefully will probably miss it. The same player is also probably the guy who doesn’t read the FAQ closely, and will be unpleasantly surprised if a more rules-savvy player tells him he can’t do it during the tournament. The way this FAQ is written, it’s designed to make things easier for the people who don’t closely read the text and adhere to the RAW even when it gives a strange result.

It is always good to see that tournament rulings are aimed at the lowest common denominator. In some circles it is considered the responsibility of the players to know the rules of a game they're playing at a tournament. I don't go to a chess tournament and expect the judges to outlaw en passant because most casual players don't know about it.

Sometimes you just have to choose the lesser evil. I think the problem DA, BA, and BT players have with using pods is a substantially worse issue than my Farseer not being able to cast Fortune from inside his ride.

And this is coming from a guy who from May 1999 to October 2002 started basically every turn of every game by saying "The Farseer casts Fortune on...", and whose Farseer was in a Wave Serpent with a unit of Banshees.

It is always good to see that tournament rulings are aimed at the lowest common denominator. In some circles it is considered the responsibility of the players to know the rules of a game they're playing at a tournament. I don't go to a chess tournament and expect the judges to outlaw en passant because most casual players don't know about it.

The thing is, there are many issues in the game where a vast majority of people play the opposite of what the rules clearly state. In addition, no one (not a single person in this world) plays the game completely RAW. You may think you do, but if we were really to break things down closely enough I guarantee there are a whole LOT of situations where each and every player ignores the RAW sometimes without knowing it but other times simply because in their opinion the RAW are absurd on that particular issue.

Worse still, is that there a plenty of issues where two reasonably intelligent people can read the exact same rule, both claim that it is perfectly clear and still come up with two differing ideas of what the rule said. It is a simple fact that I have seen time and time again.

People keep saying that they don't want to play with someone else's "version" of the rules but what they can't admit to the world is that every player shows up to the table with their own interpretation of what the RAW mean and then it is essentially becomes a negotiation with your opponent to determine what actual rules you will be following in that game. If you and your opponent agree on what the RAW say you have no issues. If you disagree but are amicable you work out your negotiations. If you strongly disagree then the game totally breaks down and argument ensue.

No matter which way your game goes, you have to realize that the "RAW" are not an iron-clad set of ideals that everyone agrees on coming to the table and the only arguments that occur are because one side doesn't understand the "RAW" as well as the other side.


Now, when it comes to a TOURNAMENT, where the goal is to have a smooth event without arguments and issues, if you have a rules situation where 60-90% of the players play it one way what does it accomplish to rule against the way those people play? What possible good outcome does that bring to the tournament? It can only bring arguments and a dissatisfying tournament for more players.

It isn't about pandering to the lowest common denominator, its about accepting the fact that if everyone reads the same rules and decides to play one way, then for the sake of a smooth tournament, that is going to be the best way to make the "official" tournament ruling.

Yes, I agree with you about all these things.

My contention is not the rules that were changed because there may have been some disagreement, but those where everyone seems to read the rules the same way, but some people don't like them. The combi-bolters on chaos terminators, as an example, where everyone who has posted so far on this thread acknowledges that the rules read the other way.

At some point, isn't it better to educate people rather than change the rules to accomodate those who are bound and determined to go against what they say?

To go back to my chess analogy, en passant isn't a rule that's frequently used, in tournament or casual play. If someone goes to a tournament, though, and their opponent makes that move, the judges will uphold that it is legal. Just because the player didn't know or like the rule doesn't mean they get their way. And, yes, this can ruin a game for the player who didn't know the rule, as obviously the board position will be much different after the play than they expected it to be. But, they learn from it, and that's that.

And, while I can accept the premise that we do not all read rules the same way, I cannot get behind the idea that the tournament FAQ should be tailored to the players who don't read FAQs. It's a tournament, not a pick-up game in the basement. The players attending should have the responsibility to read the rules that will be in place for the tournament. As long as the holes in GWs rules are addressed in the FAQ, that should be enough. Players should be expected to have some responsibility for familiarizing themselves with the rules for the event they're playing in.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
It is quite funny that everyone states that they can read English and apply logic better than anyone else - yet, these problems persist. It is a falacy to think that your understanding of English and application of logic is far or even above the other intelligent players that play 40K.

I fell asleep during my logic class. No one can teach that damn class at 7 am in the morning.

a 3rd party faq might not be an optimal solution, but...

GW is not able to write clear rules.

even if they were, there would still be some debate about something somewhere.

GW is unwilling to produce faqs that are either timely or comprehensive.

so if a faq with the weight of an event like adepticon behind it is the best that we're going to get then i'm happy to have it.

The additional thing to note with regard to the IC's attaching to units pre-deployment is that by design, with the work that has been done since Jervis took over, it fits with the direction and rule change for 5th edition when it will be allowable. ( yet again)

The change only allows that armies that had the design philosophy not changed would have had the same options as everyone else to buy a command squad in "4th". But because that dynamic is going away the option no longer exists for the transition work.

Knowing that this is the way things are headed made my decision on the matter.

I still don't see any reply yet on why army rules are being changed, and altering the army list itself.

Since so many 'mistakes' have not been corrected, it feels like pandering. Feels like meddling.

The more you ignore this point I'm making, the longer these stupid threads are going to continue--is there a valid reason you are taking on the role of game designer?

Making tournaments run smoother is one thing, and is a fine goal. Changing army lists so the amount of complaints received "because GW wrote poor rules we must abide by, you cannot do that" goes down?

This is the very thing that Jervis is doing, and look how well that's been accepted by the community.

Redbeard wrote:Yes, I agree with you about all these things.

... ...

At some point, isn't it better to educate people rather than change the rules to accomodate those who are bound and determined to go against what they say?

Yes, but not always. Take the AP1 vs SMF rule. The rulebook is absolutely clear that an AP1 weapon that rolls equal to the SMF's armour causes a penetrating hit. Yet no-one believed it, for various reasons, for example that it meant that rolling 4 was worse than rolling 3, and more sensibly that it made melta guns worse when they got closer to the target.

The issue was resolved by a GW FAQ. All hits become glancing, no exception. It was simply not worth the argument with people to try and play it by RAW. It didn't make a lot of difference to the game and probably it is what GW originally intended but managed to mess up with their cack-handed writing skills.

Redbeard wrote:
To go back to my chess analogy, en passant isn't a rule that's frequently used, in tournament or casual play. If someone goes to a tournament, though, and their opponent makes that move, the judges will uphold that it is legal. Just because the player didn't know or like the rule doesn't mean they get their way. And, yes, this can ruin a game for the player who didn't know the rule, as obviously the board position will be much different after the play than they expected it to be. But, they learn from it, and that's that.

...

The rules of chess are far simpler than the rules of 40K and much clearer and more easily understandable. Also, if rules changes are announced in advance (as with these FAQs) it gives the public the opportunity to decide not to attend that particular tournament.

whitedragon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

So I'd rather GW err on the side of caution before forcing the world to play with one specific set of rulings.

So....you're saying that you'd rather GW write craptastic rules and have us "figure" it out and argue over obscure ambiguous rules

And how many rules disputes have you had playing with people that aren't in your normal gaming group?

No. As I've said before, I'd rather GW write unambiguous rules that don't require "figuring". If that means that the ruleset becomes hyper-streamlined back to the 40k3 rulebook lists, I'm OK with that as a consequence.

Of course, I'd also rather that GW add a rule that rules exceptions are stated as minimalist - that is, rule interpretation must always be adjudicated in favor of the smallest change that is explictly stated, and that implied changes are not allowed. GW should also add a rule that the opponent my stomp his boot up the backside of any tool who insists that following a single part of a rule allows him to ignore the rest of the rules in the game under the argument that "it doesn't say that I can't".

And while the Adepticon FAQ does a great job at solving things for Adepticon, I don't think that it should be looked at as something to be mandated to save the world.

If it does a great job for Adepticon, why shouldn't it see more universal use?

You know for a bunch of house rules you guys must like to swing with in Chi-town that FAQ is not bad at all. You do know it will soon be obsolete as soon as the new 5th edition ruleset is released.

- G(onzo baby)

I think that was mentioned previously Flyman. I like that phraseology "for a bunch of house rules"

Aw, don't slap yourself again, Malice.








Let the rest of us do it for you. Why should you have all the fun?

Laserbait wrote:Let the rest of us do it for you. Why should you have all the fun?

Just use a pillow to cushion the blow so there are no bruises and marks. With my wife being a lawyer now, people have to watch out for these things.

Green Blow Fly wrote:You know for a bunch of house rules you guys must like to swing with in Chi-town that FAQ is not bad at all. You do know it will soon be obsolete as soon as the new 5th edition ruleset is released.

- G(onzo baby)

Here's the really funny thing:

The FAQ Committee:
Jeff Chua (Chicago, although I'd say at least 50% of the games he play occur somewhere else in the country, since his wife forgets what her husband looks like he's on the road so much).
Hank Edley (Downstate IL) - and for those who don't know, there's a heck of a lot of difference between downstaters and Chicagoans.
Joe Adams - Honestly, I'm not sure.
Jon Regul - Los Angeles
Bill Kim - Michigan


So calling it a bunch of Chicago house rules is kinda inaccurate. But yes, you're right - when 5th ed comes around, its obsolete. Which makes all the moaning about it kinda funny too, don't you think?


B

The FAQ Committee:
Jeff Chua (Chicago, although I'd say at least 50% of the games he play occur somewhere else in the country, since his wife forgets what her husband looks like he's on the road so much).
Hank Edley (Downstate IL) - and for those who don't know, there's a heck of a lot of difference between downstaters and Chicagoans.
Joe Adams - Honestly, I'm not sure.
Jon Regul - Los Angeles
Bill Kim - Michigan

Hank Edley (Peoria,IL)

Joe Adams ( Some cornfield south of Bloomington, IL )

heck of a lot of difference between downstaters and Chicagoans.

Your right Downstaters are better looking.

The FAQ is voluntary unless you are attending Adepticon.

A lot of players think a single FAQ would be beneficial for reasons of consistency and to be able to query/appeal/influence decisions made by the committee that wrote it.

Since GW are unable or unwilling to provide the service, Adepticon have made themselves bearers of the flame.

People who like that can swing with it and the nay-sayers can swing the other way.

muwhe wrote:
Your right Downstaters are better looking from a distance.

Fixed your typo.

Thanks .. Malfred ..

We like to keep those Chi-town boys at a distance. No telling what some city slicker might pull up close and personal like ... Especially since as I have stated above the better looking part.

muwhe wrote:Thanks .. Malfred ..

We like to keep those Chi-town boys at a distance. No telling what some city slicker might pull up close and personal like ... Especially since as I have stated above the better looking part.

You should be reviewing Adepticon's Friday night table layout that I sent to you like a good little tournament organizer. But nooooooooo - instead you are posting here, there and everywhere.

As far as I'm concerned, FAQ's of the quality that the adepticon people put out are a god send. I really wish these sorts of things would become official or at least that more people would use them. I have no idea how many times I've had games grind to a halt over a very unclear rule. And a good number of those times me and my opponent have just kind of sat there with a shrug and gone "well I guess this sounds like a good way to deal with it" rather than having anything definative. That really sucks.

I mean, what do you do when you start an assault and you find out that right as you move your second to last model that it hits difficult terrain (when none of the other models have)? I've had it happen many many times and I still don't know what to do about it. Having an answer to that question, and to have that answer before the game starts and before I get stuck in that situation would go a long long way to making me a happier gamer. This is even more of an issue in tournaments where time is the limiting factor of play rather than game turns (raise your hand if you've played in a tournament game that actualy completed all 6+ game turns).

So again, clear and consise ruleings on what to do with unclear rules is something I always welcome. Even if I don't completely agree with all the rulings, at least I know ahead of time that they are comming rather than getting blind sided by a judge's call or a d6 roll.

Haveing a FAQ (or list of house rules) for an event posted in advance is always a good idea. Just don't get upset when people decide not to play because they don't care for the posted rules (once again a good idea).

corinth wrote:a 3rd party faq might not be an optimal solution, but...

GW is not able to write clear rules.

even if they were, there would still be some debate about something somewhere.

quote]


Its easy to critise things after they have been done. Saying people can come up with better rules than GW is a fallacy. They have done the hard work and the basics. Improving on thier rules or clarifing them is easy. We can always find way to improve something once its made but making it from scrathc most people cant do.

Anyway i personnally dont see the point of these faq if they are not officicial. What the point??