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.

On the bright side, at least they've well-published any such "variations" (and I use that term very loosely, given that several aspects of the game are unplayable, RAW), and done so well in advance of Adepticon.

If you're savvy enough to register for Adepticon, I hope you've also been checking in, at least periodically. If not, see the published FAQ, which addresses how several issues will be dealt with there.

Its rewarding lazy behavior on GW's part, actually.

While this stance is appropriate to YMDC, it's a damn hard principle to uphold in the middle of a giant tournament, at least if you want games to finish.

Posted By Janthkin on 03/21/2006 3:12 AM
Its rewarding lazy behavior on GW's part, actually.

While this stance is appropriate to YMDC, it's a damn hard principle to uphold in the middle of a giant tournament, at least if you want games to finish.

Actually, I'd think the simplest thing would be to simply follow the rules as written. That certainly seems alot easier than writing and maintaining an FAQ with rules changes in it.

While this stance is appropriate to YMDC, it's a damn hard principle to uphold in the middle of a giant tournament, at least if you want games to finish.

then roll a d6 for it.....*grin*

Just play it as written.

Some of this is shooting from the hip since I don't know what some of your Doctrines do. I have the latest guard codex for the rules on my Looted Tanks, and I gave the doctrines a quick run though and couldn't find anything on Abhumans or slave levies so I'm not too sure on what they'd do. Where are these things, in a WD or on the UK site for download?

Anyway, I would think the new Mech Tau would give you a good bit of trouble. 2 or more units of Fish of Fury and all the skimmers would prove troublesome, especially w/ SMS on the Devilfish. The mobile Hammerheads are a problem since both the solid shot minces your one (visible) tank and the submunitions mince up troops untill they get into position to fire at your basalisks. Also Indirect fire is nice, but it's easy to counter since you're setting them up early in deployment and the tau player can get his suits into your minimum range pretty easily. Crisis suits are tough to do that with, but at most you'd get one round of firing at them before they moved forward into more cover up the board.

Seraphim are good for the counter charge but they can't be everywhere at once and can be FOF'ed before other units.

I don't think it's a guaranteed win for the Tau, but it's definitely going to be a tough fight.

I agree with you Ed. In a perfect world we could follow the rules as written, however the rules themselves aren't perfect by any means. So instead, why not adopt a convention that was suggested by the one who actually wrote the rules (and pretty much universally accepted by a large mass of people)? It seems like a good idea to me. Official or not, it really doesn't matter. Do DP use similar methods to enter play on the table compared to deepstrikers? Yes. So it isn't that much of a stretch to include DP on the list of things a Mystic can attempt to sense. So carrying that forward into a tourney that is huge (300+ players)where there is going to be players that play it in many different ways and interpretations, it is reasonable to have some form of clarification. Official or not. Afterall it's their tournament and the ruling doesn't break game balance. I really don't think a DP list like yours would suffer much with that ruling, so I don't really see why there is such a resistance of it? I have a DP in my gladiator list an I fully expect to see someone have a Inquisitor and 2 msytics as a tactic to defend against DP and my deepstriking units. No big deal. Capt K

Sweet. If we ever play I can make up rules too?

There is simply no reason this rule needs to be made up. This is not a case where the rules don't tell us what to do and we are at an impasse. We can simply play the rules as written and everything works out fine.

I'm curious why anyone would ever be for people making up their own rules for the game.

Actually if we ever were to play either interpretation would be fine by me. Again, it's not matter of "making up" rules. It's a matter of dealing with interpretations other people may have and being able to adopt a convention that satisfies both sides. Big deal, so you have to bend a little. I don't see it as game breaking. So this is one of the reasons you avoid Adepticon? It's too bad. The skill level that you are at would be a great addition to the numerous others that are just as skilled. I would greatly enjoy having a beer with ya and rolling some dice. Capt K

It's a matter of dealing with interpretations other people may have and being able to adopt a convention that satisfies both sides.

So in that case, why not play them as writtenm, instead of interrpretations?

"Actually if we ever were to play either interpretation would be fine by me."

???????

There is no ambiguity on the issue. It's not a matter of interpretation. The rules do not let you do what you say you want to do, period. It's making up the rules as you go, pure and simple. And I'm never a fan of ignoring the rules.

(It's not a factor in me not going to adepticon. I can't fit it in my schedule regardless).

I'm curious why anyone would ever be for people making up their own rules for the game.

I take it this means that when you play, then, your Terminators don't move and shoot heavy weapons and don't get 5+ invulnerable saves?

Carmachu: Because not all people look at it the way you do that's why. So instead, why not adopt a convention, that was suggested BY the creator of the DP rules himself? The confusion that players see in the DP rules is that it enters play the same way as Deepstrikers. i.e. 2D6 plus the scatter die. Since DH codex was written before the DP rules, no such explanation needed to be included. Now that those rules are in place and function very similiar to Deepstrike, it isn't that unreasonable to have a Mystic be able to use his ability on a DP. So instead you'll mock the people that use that convention? I don't get it. why such a resistance?

Capt K

Ed: the point I made in the last statement was to point out that right or wrong (in how someone wants to interpret the Mystic being able to fire on a DP or not), I'm not going to gripe about how an event organizers mandate rule clarifications. You want to play in it? Then follow what they say. Plain and simple. That's all. But in a friendly game, I wouldn't care what interpretation we agreed to either way. If I were to play you or your playing group read it where the mystics abilities doesn't work that way, cool, game on. I don't use them anyways. I'd still have a great game with a great player either way.

Capt K

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Relic_OMO on 03/21/2006 2:18 PM<br>

I'm curious why anyone would ever be for people making up their own rules for the game.

I take it this means that when you play, then, your Terminators don't move and shoot heavy weapons and don't get 5+ invulnerable saves? </div><br><br>

Once I see an argument that says "terminators are not models in terminator armor" that carries, I will.

CaptK: I'm not worked up over it either way, but I do think that having any house rules, particularly needless ones like this, is bad because invariably you're going to suprise some visitors with it, or at least insisting on playing under house rules will tip the balance of power in favor of locals.

Obviously the same thing happens when a midwesterner comes out here and plays me and tries to shoot my pods with his mystics and we don't let him. But I have the moral highground because I'm actually following the rules. Out west you are not.

All of these sorts of things to create a local "environment", while fun, have a negative side effect: visitors are at a disadvantage, and when you go visiting you're at a disadvantage.

But I do give the adepticon guys alot of credit for actually writing up their house rules.

Hmm. The basis of this army, aside from the pie plate array, is your LD bubble + unusually tough line squads. The cannoness is probably easily protectable, but the Command HQ has problems. You don't have enough fieldworth vehicles to block LOS easily, so keeping the HQ alive is going to depend on terrain. Canny opponents will see that and know that the 12" bubble is essentially chained to a LOS blocking terrain piece. This creates manuvering problems. Riders are dead weight against anything but pods, I think. Possible problem armies would be footslogging Orks. You won't get that much fire into them on the approach as compared to infantry or mech IG, and they're still gonna clean your clock in melee. Eldar could be a problem, as once again you are short of AT weaponry. It's possible that grav tanks could remove most of your line squads and the Demolisher while vipers take out the basalisks, at which point you'd have real problems hurting them back. Necrons could also suck, as Destroyers munch those slave levies. I'm just not generally impressed by this list, but I've also not played a whole lot of v4.

However, anybody who depends on HBs for anti-infantry is going to get a rude shock. It should destoy podders, except perhaps in escalation where the pie plates have to move in and possibly be killed before they can fire.

Comments on the list. MLs? For the love of God, why? I have never, ever seen a point to MLs in IG, and with the blast placement nerf there is even less now. I'd put plasma in the command squads if you take Drop Troops. Worse if you can get in 6", but better at over 12" and kinda equal inbetween. I'd reconsider the Riders. So special purpose, and close to free VP's against anybody with shooting. Are these missing HB squads line squads?

Once I see an argument that says "terminators are not models in terminator armor" that carries, I will.

One could say that the rules are permissive, and hence you need to be told you can count the Terminator armour rules for Terminators before you can use them. Or that 'Terminator armour' is a game term, and thus any rule that attempts to use the game term 'Terminator armour' for something that does not explicitly have that game term can only be made up. But this isn't really the point of the argument, since arguing over the existence or not of Terminator armour is patently stupid.

The point is that the rules stink. Yes, in an ideal world, we should play what the rules say, and not make it up as we go along. But we don't have an ideal situation. We have to deal with a company that, fundamentally, writes bad rules and expects us to work it out amongst ourselves and agree upon conventions. Some conventions that people come up with are patently against the rules, such as allowing Reserves to be optional. These should be stamped out whenever seen. Some conventions are used to cover holes in the rules, such as how many hits Ordnance weapons get, and, from what I see from the arguments presented, how Mystics and Drop Pods interact. Getting excessively precious about a widely accepted and codified convention, particularly one which is pretty much as official as we will ever get out of GW (which is, sad to say, not official at all), does no one any good.

We should not make up rules, no question. But the rules also have holes, and since GW flatly refuses to patch those holes, we are left to work out the conventions for ourselves. Otherwise, nobody's Terminators are moving and shooting, everybody's Basilisks only score one hit per shot, Epistolarys pay triple cost for their first and second powers, and mortars snipe passengers out of transports.

My pod army does not really rely on fear at all vs. IG, since they're almost all ld10 across the board anyway. I rely on setting them on fire. Seems to work pretty well.

So instead, why not adopt a convention, that was suggested BY the creator of the DP rules himself? The confusion that players see in the DP rules is that it enters play the same way as Deepstrikers. i.e. 2D6 plus the scatter die. Since DH codex was written before the DP rules, no such explanation needed to be included. Now that those rules are in place and function very similiar to Deepstrike, it isn't that unreasonable to have a Mystic be able to use his ability on a DP. So instead you'll mock the people that use that convention? I don't get it. why such a resistance?

2 reasons:

1) It rewards GW's laziness for lack of getting it right or correcting it PROPERLY. ie- a FAQ, a chapter approved blurb in white dwarf, a correction in the second printing of the space marine codex, SOMETHING proper.

2) Because its a game of rules. And if its not it not in the rules, in black or white, or the proper context of a FAQ or something, it doesnt count. I dont care WHAT the designers intent is, if they failed to put it the proper way, what they say in some random board doesnt count.

Remeber "intent" on ATSKNF when they said everyone was playing it wrong, including themselves, FOR 3 YEARS! All of a sudden a change from left field.

I could list a host of others, from various books.

There's the proper way to do things, and an improper way. Yours and the deisgners is the improper one at the moment. They HAVE a method of proper implimentation of rules clarification. THey have a method and have choosen to ignore or abandon it. Too bad.

Relic, you keep posting and posting that terminators aren't models in terminator armor, yet you never actually provide the argument.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

The thing that bugs me about the mystic rule is that it's tough to say whether they shoot the pods or the dudes. The obvious answer is the pod, because it's what is doing the deepstriking/podding.

However, until it hits an FAQ I will continue to deny mystics the right to shoot me because that's what the rules say and it's pretty clear that podding is not deepstriking. I'll play a tourneys that play it the other way too provided I get notified in advance of all of their special bullsquat.

I lay the blame for all the house rule business on GW squarely, however, in that honestly they should have the staff to keep EVERY SINGLE BOOK fully faq'd. Bretonnians have been without a faq for what, 2 or 3 years?

They have the staff. It just isn't or can't do it.

I don't care what the rule is either. Mystics should be able to shoot the pods. And I should get to sleep with Rebecca Romijn, but without the proper paperwork neither is going to happen.

I'm still floored that GW still has this atmosphere of incompetence in their management where this level of quality (or lack thereof) is not only acceptable, but encouraged and supported.

They have the staff. It just isn't or can't do it.

Allesio Cavatore is the man responsible for checking various sources and getting the FAQs up to date. He is in the process of doing this."


we'll see.

He's been in the process for about 2 months and has yet to post a single revision. Just start posting them one at a time and you'll get a much more positive reaction, and you'll be able to use the input to influence other faqs.

The issue is they always want to put them all up at once, but then the unholy crapstorm that follows is unbearable. You can't afford to break everyone's rulebook at the same time.

But that's what they do, and we all know how well it works.

They should just Dakka do it. We'd faq every book for them in a week and for free.

<div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By Longshot on 03/21/2006 7:26 PM<br>They should just Dakka do it. We'd faq every book for them in a week and for free. </div><br><br>

I'm sure for a very small (relatively) fee Yak or Flavius would do a fantastic job.

They couldn't afford me, haha!

Relic, you keep posting and posting that terminators aren't models in terminator armor, yet you never actually provide the argument.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

What a funny little man you are. By all means, ignore the point of the argument presented and try to single out a small part for ridicule. It won't make you any smarter, but perhaps you might appear so.

But sure, I'll bite. The argument is up in the appropriate forum.

In case you missed it, the point, of course, was that because the rules are so poor, some level of accepted convention is required to play the game. Being excessively precious about a bad set of rules just means that you're trying to stick verbatim to something that everyone knows is crap, which is not only foolish, but also hypocritical when we all use said conventions. After all, I'm sure that when you use this Guard list, those Basilisks will use some entirely made up rules to determine how many hits they get under their Ordnance template, as will the Demolisher. Using the Blast template rules to determine how many hits an Ordnance weapon gets can't be anything but a convention, since it's clearly not a rule. So draw the line on conventions where you will, but don't pretend that you don't use any at all.

I would like to be the poor sucker sticking up for the rules not being "crap". Poorly-edited, yes. Poorly-supported, yes. But it's still one of the most popular wargames in the world, and it's not just the models or the fluff. WH40k is fun to play. Period. You can get a good, competitive game out of it, with tactics and maneuver, and a mix of shooting and assault.

I know it's in fashion to dump all over the rules, but considering that most of the folks doing the dumping are still playing and still posting about the game, I think it just looks dumb.

Sadly, I'm playing 40k from inertia, as are a number of people I know. Far more have switched to Warmachine, and some to SST.

2nd edition, when I started, was interesting, tactical, rather broken, and too long. 3rd edition was fun, so long as you didn't ponder the rules too closely. 4th edition...I don't really understand why they did what they did. They had a funcitonal ruleset, they had actually instituted some mass playtesting (TAR/TVR) - it would have been nice if they had taken everything they had (including the FAQs) that made 3rd ed mostly work, gotten a really good editor to put it together, and published a single, updated set of rules.

Instead, they dumped a ruleset with inherent problems and poor editing on us, and have steadfastly refused to do anything to update or fix it. I'll cheer for Allessio, but I'll believe in his new FAQs when I see them. Until then, kudos to the tournament organizers who try to make the game work by doing GW's job for them.

Ed, what happened to your army list? Were any of the on-topic comments useful to you? Maybe you should post again, and I'll avoid off-topic comments.

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I still haven't seen another game that honestly competes. Warmachine is a whole different scale. Much smaller forces armies, much more focused on special moves, powers, and tricks. The game is dominated by the characters and you really need to memorize all their special tricks and powers to be competitive. SST is a fun system, but has a fraction of the army choices and no vehicles. Flames of War is fun, so people tell me, but 15mm historical fits my wargaming palate about as well as liver suits me when I'm looking for dessert.