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.

Orlanth wrote:From what I can gather your overseers will all be able to get the extra order only heroes can use. techically vehicle hero overseers can survive their vehicles destruction. however most do not have a profile and thus do not exist outside their vehicle and thus will die. There is a logical precedence to this. Tiamat (assuming she cannot body hack) cannot eject because she is the vehicle. Urash can as he is a driver for Nimit-Urash, but a Golgoth alpha cannot as he doesn't have a seperate profile and like Tiamat is the vehicle.
At first glance I am seeing no conflicts with this advantage, am I missing something?

Apart from the fact that they are not heroes H/Babel Overseers benefit from the hero rules as stated on page 76 but they are not heroes.
This means they don't take hits till the last model in their unit is killed. They can not use "Fire at Will".

The "Eject" Combat Drill is only for Heroes with the Heroic Pilot ability.

This means there is hardly any advantage to the H/Babel platoon pattern.

Orlanth wrote:Is it unclear to you that a special advantage overrides the core rules.

Again, you are stretching and adding your interpretation to things. Special advantages override core rules WHEN THE RULES SAY THEY DO.

Your Frontline example proves my point. It specifically says that their vehicles may contest objectives. Therefore, they may contest objectives. We don't need to get into a game design discussion of what faction advantages do or do not, the advantage is spelled out in stone for us.

There's no logical connection between a specific faction advantage and any sort of "universal" condition you are trying to cite. It's bad logic. Therefore, you can "explain" all you want but the argument is still false any way you phrase it. Your Frontline "example" doesn't prove your point. At all.

You may as well "explain" why the sky is actually green until you're blue in the face.


Orlanth, you have a thing for making up rules when you don't like the rules as written. Just say that. "If I don't like the rules, I am going to make up my own."

No one should give you guff for that. It's your game, play it as you wish - but when you try to justify doing so for any reason other than personal aesthetic taste for how rules "should" or "should not" work, it just turns into these philosophical arguments which never go anywhere.


In terms of H/Babel, the advantage is pretty clear, UK. H/Babel Overseers benefit from Hero rules. Unless the faction advantage then goes on to specific which, if any Hero rules, are exempt from this then they get ALL of them.

Which effectively makes them Heroes. This is extremely clear.

Cairnius wrote:H/Babel Overseers benefit from Hero rules. Unless the faction advantage then goes on to specific which, if any Hero rules, are exempt from this then they get ALL of them.

Correct, but the ONLY "Hero rule" is that Heroes die last unless the attack specifically targets them.

Cairnius wrote:Which effectively makes them Heroes.

If the advantage said "H/Babel overseers BECOME heroes", then they would become heroes and be allowed to issue "fire at will", but as the advantage only says "they benefit from the hero rules on page XX of the rule book", they do not get to issue fire at will.
This again is from Rackham.

I don't have any of my rulebooks with me here at work.

If the advantage references a specific page number then I don't know why anyone would bring this up as an issue. Seems clear to me.

Orlanth wrote:Again you fail to understand. The point was this particular error was so enormous the game was unplayable from the utter start without it. It was an indicator of how much the rules require a rewrite, which was my point. I was already aware that this had been FAQed. I already had this FAQ.

Orlanth (first) wrote:The unit organisation cards need changing, it is very unclear what happens if you have duplicate units , sure we get officially unofficial fixes, but no clear FAQ.

Would you like me to go on?

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Dash twice a total of 80cm.

Dash gives an exact amount of movement, it does not add to the movement. So no matter if you found a way to run AFV dash on a unit 20 times, it would still only move 50CM.

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:My 'not point' was that you can Dash 50cm and then Dash 30cm.

Incorrect. The dash routine tells you the maximum distance the unit may move if it performs a rush. It does NOT add to the existing distance. That is why both medusas and golems dash 30cm. Because it is an absolute, not an addition. If you paid for infantry dash and moved 30cm, then paid for AFV dash, you would then get a new absolute maximum of 50cm. If you paid for AFV dash first and moved 50cm, then paid for infantry dash, you would either get no effect having already exceeded the 30cm limit, or perhaps, you would be required to take 20cm off of your move.

Orlanth wrote:Besides I was not adding norfmal movement to the Rush move. i was adding two different Rush moves xcast one after the other in the same movement sequence. Which is a grey area.
A i am saying is that the rules are sufficiently ambiguous and NEED REWRITING.

Do you really find Dash's absolute movement value to ambiguous?
Or do you just find it ambiguous to justify your Cypher house rule?
Do you really think that infantry dash says "Infantry Dash: add 6cm to all Therian infantry movement when performing a normal 24cm rush movement, but add 14cm to Medusas normal 16cm rush movement"?
Do you really find the absolute nature of AFV Dash to be ambiguous?
Do you find that your copy of the Therian army book says "AFV Dash: Add 10cm when rushing a Hekat or succubus, add 15cm when rushing a Wraith, Incubus or Poltergeist. Add 20cm When rushing a Baal. Add 10cm when rushing Tiamat. Add 15cm when rushing a Kraken"?

I think you'll find it's an absolute value. You have argued that IF (yes, I know you don't believe it) you could find a way to run both routines on a single unit, it could move 80cm.
Having read my argument that Dash is absolute, do you still find that situation to be a grey area?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:If the advantage references a specific page number then I don't know why anyone would bring this up as an issue. Seems clear to me.

Because it's another case of people reading one thing "babel overseers BECOME heroes", wanting it to be true, then being gutted when it is pointed out them what it really says.

By the way, I'm not suggesting this of you.
I know you have been around the AT43 block enough times now to know the score.
We have ALL been tripped up by Rackham's rules.

Yup, I know the deal. It's not the rules which are problematic it's the syntax, like St. Maniac says.

Supercollider wrote:
Would you like me to go on?

Not really, it doesnt seem like you are listening. The comment was about how long it took to get a FAQ for something that is going to hasppen twice a turn in the Damocles boxset, once for the two Steel Troopers once for the two Storm golems.
This is so elementary to the basic game that it should never have been ambiguous to begin with let alone take so long to FAQ. Technically the game is unplayable without house rules even in its most basic form without this fix. How long did it take for Rackham to fix it? Years.

Supercollider wrote:Do you really find Dash's absolute movement value to ambiguous?

Ambiguous enough when there are two dash moves a Cypher overseer can legally use.
However you are failing to grasp the essential point AGAIN. The entire, 100% reason this is brought up is to show how by using literalism the rules get into an even deeper quagmire and thus need rewriting.

Supercollider wrote:
Or do you just find it ambiguous to justify your Cypher house rule?

Supercollider, there isn't much point in continuing. You are making up house rules no less than I. You see it one way, I see it another. Your argument basically hinges on an Assumption of Authority Fallacy based on the deluision that your HOUSE RULES had any greater weight than others of themselves..

Beause the Cypher rules dont work as written, interpretation is needed. This much we ought to agree on.
This situation will not change until the rule is rewritten.

Beyond that it is only a matter of balance. You house rule to take away the Cypher advantage in order not to interfere with the routines rules. I house rule to keep to the spirit of what the faction advantage implies and adjust the rules to best fit the description given for the advantage.

Supercollider wrote:
Do you really think that infantry dash says "Infantry Dash: add 6cm to all Therian infantry movement when performing a normal 24cm rush movement, but add 14cm to Medusas normal 16cm rush movement"?
Do you really find the absolute nature of AFV Dash to be ambiguous?
Do you find that your copy of the Therian army book says "AFV Dash: Add 10cm when rushing a Hekat or succubus, add 15cm when rushing a Wraith, Incubus or Poltergeist. Add 20cm When rushing a Baal. Add 10cm when rushing Tiamat. Add 15cm when rushing a Kraken"?

<Sigh> That wasnt what I was on about. I tried to explain several times but you insist I mean something other than I actually did.
To explain again for the hard of thinking: The only reason Dash abuse is brought up is to show why the rules need rewriting - even if you take Cairnius's interpretation of the Cypher advantage to try keep within the letter of the rules the rules still end up broken. There is nothing in the RAW to prevent a 50cm infantry Dash for Cypher, check the rulebook entry for routines word for word and you will find this to be true..
However I dont agree with doing that. Got it yet?
Try reading the thread.

Rather than have a literalist approach and end up with 50cm rushes, I go for the spirit of the rules. This is where your assumption of authority is insulting. Comments such as this:

Supercollider wrote:
Or do you just find it ambiguous to justify your Cypher house rule?

You made similar comments earlier, all strongly imply I am trying to twist the rules to my 'advantage'. Instead I am acting within the spirit of the rules, that is to say fairly trying to recreate what the rules plainly mean no more no less. It is interesting to note that far more often than not I am playing against my Therian army.

The Cypher rules aren't broken, Orlanth. They don't make any sense in a lot of ways, but they DO function. Broken means "doesn't work."

Orlanth wrote:The comment was about how long it took to get a FAQ

No, your question was why haven't they erratad it at all. It's only since being proved wrong you have back tracked.

Orlanth wrote:You are making up house rules no less than I. You see it one way, I see it another. Your argument basically hinges on an Assumption of Authority Fallacy based on the deluision that your HOUSE RULES had any greater weight than others of themselves..

It's not a house rule, it's how Rackham say it works.

Orlanth wrote:There is nothing in the RAW to prevent a 50cm infantry Dash for Cypher, check the rulebook entry for routines word for word and you will find this to be true..
However I dont agree with doing that. Got it yet?
Try reading the thread.

Nah, you quite clearly originally thought that two Dash routines could stack. You said so. Yeah, you never thought you could actually do that, nor would you have ever tried to do that. But you thought that if it was possible to run both on a unit, they would stack.
That's why you said 80cm at the start. And that is the only point I have contested all along. It's only since being proved wrong on that that you have suggested that you were trying to point out holes in the rules, and that I have been arguing that point when I haven't.

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:
Or do you just find it ambiguous to justify your Cypher house rule?

You made similar comments earlier, all strongly imply I am trying to twist the rules to my 'advantage'.

No, I strongly implied that you were misinterpreting anything you can to justify your house rule as something other than a house rule. There is nothing wrong with house ruling stuff, and I have never said there is.
I simply started out by pointing you in the correct direction when it was obvious that you had misunderstood, and had accidentally house ruled how the Cypher advantage should work.
Ever since then, you have taken it upon yourself to try to prove that you are right, and Rackham are wrong.

Oh and yes, you are correct; the restriction on running routines only on the correct type of unit is not in the rules, and it is in an errata:
http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=2330

Also, here's the official Rules forum question on how Cypher advantage works in terms of Routine usage:

http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=2913&highlight=creation

Such is the law, whether it makes sense or not.

Supercollider wrote:

Oh and yes, you are correct; the restriction on running routines only on the correct type of unit is not in the rules, and it is in an errata:
http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=2330

Cairnius wrote:Also, here's the official Rules forum question on how Cypher advantage works in terms of Routine usage:

http://en-forum.at-43.com/viewtopic.php?t=2913&highlight=creation

Such is the law, whether it makes sense or not.

Very well. I withdraw what I say in essence, but not in principle.

We shouldnt have to trawl through two year old posts on a forum for the answers. I cannot be faulted for not knowing this.
I still hold to the principle that the damn rule needs rewriting in a FAQ, and sooner rather than later. If Rackham fixed this rule two years ago why not FAQ it, Rackham makes Jervis look like a paragon of competence.

Orlanth wrote:I still hold to the principle that the damn rule needs rewriting in a FAQ

There is MUCH which Rackham would do well to sit down and spell out clearly.
Failing that, lets just hope that the time they could be using to do that is instead being well spent on V2 of the rule book and army books.....

If they ever bother with a 2nd Ed. rulebook.

I am collecting AT-43 for archival purposes, so that if the game dies in a year or two I own it all and can play with friends or teach my kids to play it in the future. I like it, so I want to own a copy of it.

The paint quality on the minis has dropped across the board, now. It's not just the Army Box minis which are missing the tampography and the extra paint steps. The Cog regular boxes are the same quality as the Army Box, I heard that the Oni Detonator Zombie unit box is the same minis as the Army Box versions...I know that Baron Samedi wasn't of high quality and was even missing basic paint steps like the orange stripes on his legs, and this was a Hero Box...this trend is slightly unnerving.

I think AT-43 is pretty much done growing. It'll get a few more people here and there, but it's not going to explode into the mainstream like I once hoped it would. It's just not a contender like PP and BF are. It's like someone said to me recently:

"...someone has to work really hard to drag people away from the Big Product, the one that has the momentum of many years to hold everyone's ongoing attention. Any new product in this market will need to be either extremely innovative, backed by a tireless team to meet the development needs of an already-satisfied-with-something-already-out public, or feature a very successful marketing campaign that needs to go longer than the initial release...."

I don't think AT-43 meets any of these criteria. The closest thing is the ruleset, but there's enough bad press out there to keep people from looking at AT-43 that they don't delve into the rules...and even when they do, they're going to encounter the sorts of rules-questions-ignored-by-FAQ that just make RE look sort of incompetent. It's not that we can't suss out the meaning of rules, but I agree with Orlanth - we have to try WAY too hard in order to do so. Not when FAQs could do the work for us if they were consistently updated and kept as robust as they would need to be for AT-43.

Keeping rules queries and questions of import locked to the forums has never been acceptable to me, either, Orlanth. Maybe if I saw major gaming companies doing it, but I've never had to do so for any other game I've played. I think there are certain standards a company has to meet in order to compete. RE keeps themselves out of the top tier for a couple reasons, this being one of them.

Cairnius wrote:If they ever bother with a 2nd Ed. rulebook.

I agree here. Rackham is approaching the level of moron-ness/cretinity/muppethood/Jervisdom or whatever to actually believe they have done a good job. Thus the 2nd edition, which is what they should be doing right now, as well as arranging backstock with their Chinese puppetmasters.

It would help if they updated their website too.