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.

Corrode wrote:

Elessar wrote:Really? Huh. I thought that event had been reasonably competitive, but when they aren't actually PLAYING 40k...

One slightly idiosyncractic rules decision in a document that spanned some 200+ questions is '[not] actually PLAYING 40k'?

My checklist for that crap is:

1) Does it affect my ability to play my army - yes
2) Does it prevent me utilising tactics otherwise perfectly legal - yes
3) Does it grant my opponent an advantage not within the ACTUAL rules - yes
4) Does it essentially cripple my army by doing all of the above - yes

Then it is no longer ACTUAL 40k.

Corrode wrote:

Elessar wrote:Really? Huh. I thought that event had been reasonably competitive, but when they aren't actually PLAYING 40k...

One slightly idiosyncractic rules decision in a document that spanned some 200+ questions is '[not] actually PLAYING 40k'?

Or more accurately, one rules decision on an issue that has been a matter of much debate and can go either way depending on personal interpretation?

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, a lot of rules issues are down to things that people have read and assumed work the way they interpreted them, right up until they run into someone who interprets the same rule differently. The fact that your interpretation is clear to you doesn't mean it's clear to everyone else... or automatically correct.

I find the best way to argue rules, is to assume to other one is right, and try to prove their interpretation using the rules. If you find something contradicting the other interpretation, keep in mind that this does not automatically prove you right, you might both be wrong. Try proving you own interpretation right before jumping to conclusions. The real problem starts if you have found rules stating a solution, and the other side tells you "Is not!" without any further explanation.

Jidmah wrote:Though the point I was trying to make, was not how awesome m:tg is, but that it is possible to create solid, working rules without conflicts. GW simply doesn't want to, with their only excuse being laziness called "focus on something else".

No offense, but if you can't find a rules inconsistency or vague rule in a rule set then you're not looking hard enough. It's possible to construct a situation for any set of rules where those rules don't answer the question.

GW is particularly bad at correcting their rules (wasn't there an IG FAQ for 4th edition that (in)famously didn't answer the question posed), and MTG is probably better at looking at those issues.

But then again, WOTC is a "game company" and GW is a "model company." I'm sure if WOTC called themselves a "card company" who produced rules for a fun way to use their products, they could get away with a lot more.

insaniak wrote:

Corrode wrote:

Elessar wrote:Really? Huh. I thought that event had been reasonably competitive, but when they aren't actually PLAYING 40k...

One slightly idiosyncractic rules decision in a document that spanned some 200+ questions is '[not] actually PLAYING 40k'?

Or more accurately, one rules decision on an issue that has been a matter of much debate and can go either way depending on personal interpretation?

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, a lot of rules issues are down to things that people have read and assumed work the way they interpreted them, right up until they run into someone who interprets the same rule differently. The fact that your interpretation is clear to you doesn't mean it's clear to everyone else... or automatically correct.

Of course. I don't claim 'magic' or 'voodoo' as reasons though. I claim 'reason', 'evidence' and 'the rules' to the stand.

It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Though the point I was trying to make, was not how awesome m:tg is, but that it is possible to create solid, working rules without conflicts. GW simply doesn't want to, with their only excuse being laziness called "focus on something else".

No offense, but if you can't find a rules inconsistency or vague rule in a rule set then you're not looking hard enough. It's possible to construct a situation for any set of rules where those rules don't answer the question.

GW is particularly bad at correcting their rules (wasn't there an IG FAQ for 4th edition that (in)famously didn't answer the question posed), and MTG is probably better at looking at those issues.

But then again, WOTC is a "game company" and GW is a "model company." I'm sure if WOTC called themselves a "card company" who produced rules for a fun way to use their products, they could get away with a lot more.

I dare you to find one in the m:tg rules, there are none I've played over a thousand games under the current rules, I never failed to find an answer to any given situation within seconds.
The core rules have been refactored to contain no inconsistencys or vaguessnes, any word used in the comprehensive rules has only one meaning, and every word is defined. So magic rules work much like a programming language. Any new cards made are made to work with the core rules, if a card doesn't it is either scrapped and never printed or the rules expanded to make it work. Also any cards are extensivly playtested for rules and balance issues, so lots of weird things are eliminated about a year ahead. If any card ever manages to get through the whole process and still have rules issues, they will be caught a prerelease events, and it is errataed the day they are released. Also, FAQs are published at the same time as any new cards, not three months later of everybody being confused.
By the way, this is a common phenomen of long term players playing GW tabletops. GW rules are so bad, that their customers don't belive good rules exist anymore.

But don't make GW worse than they are, there are game systems (tcg, P&P and tabletops) with much worse rules. GW at least puts some effort into the rules, though not much.

So, how is magic any less fun than Warhammer40k? You don't have miniatures to paint and build, but that's it. You can still build lists, read fluff, play games and muse over tactics, as you can with 40k. I have yet to see a Codex consisting of nothing but silly models, magic has done entire editions of cards forcing you to continue the game unter the table, doing the hokey-pokey to activate abilities, make you talk in rhymes in order to keep them alive and the like. Of course none of those were legal in tournaments, but who cares?
And belive me, simply typing in a card's name into WotC's webpage to solve all rules issues and continue playing, is way more fun than endless rules arguments in warhammer, be it after games, before games, in YMDC or someone refusing to roll off during games. Typing in "deff rolla" into GW's page and getting a perfectly worded rule for it would be great, wouldn't it?

@Elessar

Are you talking about a particular rule or are you claiming that every 40k rule can be understood in only one way using 'reason', 'evidence', and 'the rules'?

A lot of problems come from people being snarky

"hmm, well it doesn't say I can't move back and forth and say it was 24 inches for moving flat out, so I guess I can, hurr"

Thank god they errated that

Thanks for all the replies, It is very interesting to read. Seems that GW rules are a double edge sword frustrating and enjoyable in equal measure. Maybe this is the point?

Samus_aran115 wrote:A lot of problems come from people being snarky

"hmm, well it doesn't say I can't move back and forth and say it was 24 inches for moving flat out, so I guess I can, hurr"

Thank god they errated that

Wait, what? You're wrong. They did no such thing. Look for yourself, it isn't there (because it's legal) - http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manimal wrote:@Elessar

Are you talking about a particular rule or are you claiming that every 40k rule can be understood in only one way using 'reason', 'evidence', and 'the rules'?

I am talking about one example. 'Magic' and 'voodoo' however, are no more valid than 'because that's how I play'.

Although the VAST majority are very clear, and require morons to screw them up.

Instead of writing a full essay, I'll try to sum up it in this paragraph:

There are many reasons 5ed rules are debated. Old Armies are THE BIGGEST imo. Until GW goes into overdrive, coming out with a rulebook and updates all armies, clarifying all the rules, there where always be debates and rolloffs. New armies sometimes ignore and nullify Rulebook rules. (Remove from play GK and Teleport during scout move) Why? Mostly for profit, to give the rich and new customers a slight edge. A theory I have is sometimes GW gives the rule creators a deadline and they run out of time to playtest rules so they just release it and hope for the best then release a faq once debates come in a couple months later. Everytime a new army or edition comes out, it sometimes nullifies the RAW or allows for rules abuse because it was never updated until the next codex release and is missing from the faqs.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:BoW don't usually say they try to explain the rules.
Darrell's videos are usually trying to exploit ceratin aspect of the rules but are generally about tactics.

There have been a few videos answering members' questions.
It is worth reading the comments below which usually have any clarification.

I do, thank the Emperor, read the comments below. I've only been playing 3 or so months now, and i am very serious about learning the RAW. No offence to the guy (I think the site is great) but normally when Darrell starts discussing tactics and how to use them, he it screwing the rules up left and right, which made it even harder for me to learn a considerably simple game.

As for the OP. Even the smartest people who love the game are going to screw-up a rule from time to time, or just plain not be able to get there head around some idea. It has happened to everyone with something (maybe not 40k related) but you just needed someone to explain how simple of an idea it is, and help you not over think it. Thats why I started posting in DakkaDakka, and i am really glad i did. Thats probably why the people whom you mention in the OP asked questions as well.

OP wrote:Why are so many well writen rules in 5ed miss understood????[SIC]

Because they are, for the most part, really bad.

Elessar wrote:It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

...and that 'my interpretation is the only possible correct one' is exactly where a lot of the issues people have with the rules come from.

insaniak wrote:

Elessar wrote:It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

...and that 'my interpretation is the only possible correct one' is exactly where a lot of the issues people have with the rules come from.

Yeah I have a hard time imagining the incredible scale of cognitive dissonance Elessar has to experience to post an opinion like "There is only one true reading of the rules and the rest are shenanigans" in the middle of a 300+ page message board specifically dedicated to debating the rules.

It’s conclusive that some rules are vague and some rules are just badly written etc. So what is the impact of concrete rules that cannot in anyway be misinterpreted, disputed or changed. Are there rules in the 5ed rule book that are so solid they actually lessen the experience of playing 40K. For instance I would say all standard infantry have the same movement is somewhat silly?????

Pob82 wrote:It’s conclusive that some rules are vague and some rules are just badly written etc. So what is the impact of concrete rules that cannot in anyway be misinterpreted, disputed or changed. Are there rules in the 5ed rule book that are so solid they actually lessen the experience of playing 40K. For instance I would say all standard infantry have the same movement is somewhat silly?????

If that's how you feel, I'd recommend playing Rogue Trader or Warhammer Fantasy (There's still variable moves in WHFB right?).

Xca|iber wrote:(There's still variable moves in WHFB right?).

Aye, and random charge range too.

Oh dear....

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/

Emperor preserve us!

I think mechanical rules are generally quite clear. The things I see most arguements over are the strange special rules that go beyond the standard game mechanics. Mostly, they seem like common sense interpretations, but a good rules lawyer can somehow convince someone that a one-shot weapon only shoots once according to the rules, but that could mean once per turn unless it is written that it is specifically once per game, or argue about what constitutes the "beginning of the game" for certain rules, or a meltabomb does not count as a melta weapon. Those rules do need much more specific wording that isn't in any way contradictory for the vultures to jump on and exploit, like the "pair" of weapons nonsense, or Marneus Calgar's powersword for a head arguement I have seen.

That would be an evil rules lawyer. Except for the meltabombs. A good rules lawyer would mention they really are not melta--they have their own rules.

The 40k Kangaroo Court - I can see it now with the dreadknight being in the Dock!

liam0404 wrote:Oh dear....

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/

Emperor preserve us!

Wow, a website claiming to explain RaW saying that Tau have to take target priority tests to use their target locks, even though there's no longer such a thing as terget priority tests? This is almost as stupid as the GW FAQ ruling that Templars still have to take target priority tests, except the FAQ is official...

liam0404 wrote:Oh dear....

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/

Emperor preserve us!

Looking at their site, they don't seem half bad...I actually like their idea for rules interpreting.

ChrisWWII wrote:

liam0404 wrote:Oh dear....

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/

Emperor preserve us!

Looking at their site, they don't seem half bad...I actually like their idea for rules interpreting.

Oh they get some stuff right alright, it's just that they fail at stuff like my example above, which is clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

liam0404 wrote:The 40k Kangaroo Court - I can see it now with the dreadknight being in the Dock!

Don't be silly. Karamzov is the Judgement Dread.

kirsanth wrote:That would be an evil rules lawyer. Except for the meltabombs. A good rules lawyer would mention they really are not melta--they have their own rules.

Indeed, it's very clear.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Elessar wrote:It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

...and that 'my interpretation is the only possible correct one' is exactly where a lot of the issues people have with the rules come from.

Yeah I have a hard time imagining the incredible scale of cognitive dissonance Elessar has to experience to post an opinion like "There is only one true reading of the rules and the rest are shenanigans" in the middle of a 300+ page message board specifically dedicated to debating the rules.

Most threads in here are on the same handful of things, posted by idiots who choose not to check to see that their completely obvious question hasn't already been answered, like on any forum.

insaniak wrote:

Elessar wrote:It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

...and that 'my interpretation is the only possible correct one' is exactly where a lot of the issues people have with the rules come from.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that people have an issue because I am telling them the rules, and telling them that they ARE the rules, with no room for discussion?
These would be the kind of people who struggle to get to grips with the education system in any meaningful way, I assume? Because life is full of people telling you how it is, and they need to get used to it.

Add me to the list of people who constantly confuse the rules with the previous edition. I have less than a dozen 5th edition games under my belt, and am still in a 4th edition mindset (I actually tried to add +1 to my regrouping roll one game because my unit was in cover, my opponent's face was priceless).

Combine that with the idea that my group usually plays rules as intended (intended to us, at least) and it sounds like I'm one of those 'idiots'.

To quote myself from another forum:

I have come to notice that on the internet there are five kinds people who argue about rules.

1) The librarian type. They apply rules as they are written, without any thought for balance, fluff, common sense or how it should work. Unless everyone agrees or loses interest they will continue to post rules and arguments. They will try to find a rule countering any arguments brought forth, but will admit when they can't. Those guy argue for pure RAW, but most of won't ever start those arguments during a game, and rather roll-off quickly.
2) The inquisitor type. They have a clear idea how something works, and sometimes don't even bother to check the rules. They will defend their position to the death by either repeating the same arguments over and over or by grasping for all sorts of straws, but rarly the rules. They will ignore counter-arguments and will try to gather a crowd to burn the heretic opposing them.
They argue for neither RAI nor RAW, but for who is right. Those players will continue to argue indefenitly, even if proven wrong, which will cause the librarian type to respond indefenitly. This kind of player will often start arguments during games and some severe cases even refuse to roll-off.
3) The grotz type. They found a sneaky trick in the Rules and want to check whether it works. As soon as any real resistance arises, they run away. That won't stop them from trying the sneaky trick in a real game though.
4) The Yarrik/Ghazghkull type. Actually they are two kinds of players, but they argue the same way. Both want to play the game how it's supposed to be played, but Ghazghkull because he thinks a rule has to fit the fluff, Yarrik because he wants the rule to be balanced in the context of tournaments. Both will lose interest in the argument really quick compared to the librarian and the inquisitor, but often offer house rule solutions, which are shot down by librarians, because they don't care about anything but RAW. In games both will only question a rule when it seems really wrong.
5) The ork type. They want to know which way the pointy end of da choppa goes. Will ask again if not sure. Happy if everything is clear. Confused when rules argument breaks out. Confused when told they have been smashing enemys with the wrong side of their choppa for years. Always confused by librarians. They will never question rules during a game, but inquisitors and gretchin will try to cheat them because of that.

If you put a librarian, an iquisitor, a grotz, Yarrik, Ghazghkull, and an ork in the same place, are you really supprised it always ends in flames?

Elessar wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Elessar wrote:It CANNOT go either way depending on interpretation - it can be ignored, if that is the wish of the players. However, if my opponent wishes to ignore that rule, I wish to ignore the rule that says my Fast Skimmers can't shoot all their weapons after moving Flat Out.

...and that 'my interpretation is the only possible correct one' is exactly where a lot of the issues people have with the rules come from.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that people have an issue because I am telling them the rules, and telling them that they ARE the rules, with no room for discussion?
These would be the kind of people who struggle to get to grips with the education system in any meaningful way, I assume? Because life is full of people telling you how it is, and they need to get used to it.

Just out of curiosity, since you know what all the rules are, could you explain how the following situation would work?

A unit of 10 Chaos Chosen includes 2 plasma guns. Both plasma guns rapidfire. One plasma gunner rolls 2 s. Both armor saves are failed.

How many models are removed?

I make mistakes with the rules---and most times it's due to my experience playing the game---which sounds completely backwards. However, after you go through a few editions of the game---you'll find yourself "Reverting to 4th", etc.