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.

nekooni wrote:
That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.

Exactly. And not only did FW write something different from the GW AA rule for this one particular unit, they copy/pasted the same GW AA rule for every other AA unit/weapon, including units in the same book. Someone very deliberately made a different rule here, and the only argument against the obvious interpretation is "I don't like how easily this hits my units".

 Peregrine wrote:

nekooni wrote:
That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.

Exactly. And not only did FW write something different from the GW AA rule for this one particular unit, they copy/pasted the same GW AA rule for every other AA unit/weapon, including units in the same book. Someone very deliberately made a different rule here, and the only argument against the obvious interpretation is "I don't like how easily this hits my units".

That sounds like an awful lot like my "Rules didn't come from the æther, they were intentionally written, thus RaW is RaI" argument. You sure you want to be agreeing with me? That seems to set some people off, dontchaknow!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That sounds like an awful lot like my "Rules didn't come from the æther, they were intentionally written, thus RaW is RaI" argument. You sure you want to be agreeing with me? That seems to set some people off, dontchaknow!

Don't think that I agree with you as a general principle. For example, the Tau Tigershark issue (which was eventually changed to exactly what everyone understood it was supposed to be) was a case where RAW was literally "this unit has a weapon that can not be fired under any circumstances", a clear case where RAW can not possibly be correct and the only acceptable solution is to play by the best guess at RAI. This just happens to be a case where no such absurdly dysfunctional RAW outcome exists. Nothing breaks the game, a unit is just more powerful than some people want it to be.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

nekooni wrote:
That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.

Exactly. And not only did FW write something different from the GW AA rule for this one particular unit, they copy/pasted the same GW AA rule for every other AA unit/weapon, including units in the same book. Someone very deliberately made a different rule here, and the only argument against the obvious interpretation is "I don't like how easily this hits my units".

That sounds like an awful lot like my "Rules didn't come from the æther, they were intentionally written, thus RaW is RaI" argument. You sure you want to be agreeing with me? That seems to set some people off, dontchaknow!

What, because that argument is so hilariously wrong, no matters how many times you post it or how many salt Orkmoticons you add? You are amusing sometimes.

Anyway, peeps disagree with my take. That’s totally fine. I don’t own or play against said unit so it’s in-game power wasn’t a consideration. I just gave my appraisal of the rule. Feel free to disagree.