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.

Andykp wrote:
The game is massive. Hundreds of unit all with strange rules. I forgive sloppy rules writing when it’s easily overcome. I’d prefer that to strict inflexible rules. Impossible to break a game with bendable rules.

That's fine for D&D or GURPS, when you have a DM and everyone is supposed to cooperate.

Not so good on a system that's specifically competitive.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The game is massive. Hundreds of unit all with strange rules. I forgive sloppy rules writing when it’s easily overcome. I’d prefer that to strict inflexible rules. Impossible to break a game with bendable rules.

That's fine for D&D or GURPS, when you have a DM and everyone is supposed to cooperate.

Not so good on a system that's specifically competitive.

Also dnd and gurps dont have these problems. Their rules just work.

Also ff games dont have these problems. Their rules just work. There are over 100 unique named characters in descent. Rune wars is building up. X wing. Armada.

Being big isnt an excuse.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The game is massive. Hundreds of unit all with strange rules. I forgive sloppy rules writing when it’s easily overcome. I’d prefer that to strict inflexible rules. Impossible to break a game with bendable rules.

That's fine for D&D or GURPS, when you have a DM and everyone is supposed to cooperate.

Not so good on a system that's specifically competitive.

Also dnd and gurps dont have these problems. Their rules just work.

Also ff games dont have these problems. Their rules just work. There are over 100 unique named characters in descent. Rune wars is building up. X wing. Armada.

Being big isnt an excuse.

There are a lot of rules dysfunctions in D&D, at least. But it's not as big a deal, because everyone is working together, so it can just be talked out and determined what makes the most sense.

That doesn't work as well in a competitive game, when people are directly trying to beat the other.

Bearer suffering mortal wound supercedes the general rule for allocating wounds as he weapon profile specifically targets who takes the wound.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The fact a rules system doesn't explicitly address every possible eventuality doesn't make it flawed or defective. Feels like claiming this specific inconsistency must be spelled out in exact language or the game is completely broken is overly pedantic.

So why fix it for Tau then? Why bother issuing errata at all if people are just going to ignore the rules when they feel like it?

RAI is that you apply wounds to already wounded models in a unit. RAW assumes you only have one wounded model, but it's not hard to work out what to do if another model get's wounded (choose one as that's what you would do if there weren't any wounded models in the unit). I suppose the other option is to pack up your miniatures and go home saying the game's broken

 JNAProductions wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The game is massive. Hundreds of unit all with strange rules. I forgive sloppy rules writing when it’s easily overcome. I’d prefer that to strict inflexible rules. Impossible to break a game with bendable rules.

That's fine for D&D or GURPS, when you have a DM and everyone is supposed to cooperate.

Not so good on a system that's specifically competitive.

40k isn’t specifically competitive. You can play it lots of ways. If you are in a competion setting a ref or judge will decide but otherwise just figure it out. This one isn’t difficult. Some are trickier. I maybe should’ve said that I’ll forgive sloppy rules because the background is so good. Personally I love how loose 8th is, I’m having a great time inventing units and whole armies because I use power levels not points and it’s so much easier to cost units.

Andykp wrote:
40k isn’t specifically competitive. You can play it lots of ways. If you are in a competion setting a ref or judge will decide but otherwise just figure it out. This one isn’t difficult. Some are trickier. I maybe should’ve said that I’ll forgive sloppy rules because the background is so good. Personally I love how loose 8th is, I’m having a great time inventing units and whole armies because I use power levels not points and it’s so much easier to cost units.

He doesn't mean "competitive" in the vernacular, which would suggest tournament play, he means "competitive" in a technical, semantic sense.

Chess is a competitive game, it's two players playing against each other to win. It doesn't matter if it's two 5 year olds playing for the very first time or two Grandmasters going at it with all their might. Tiddlywinks is a competitive game. Even Pooh-Sticks is a competitive game. Something like the Pandemic card game is not competitive, it's a co-operative game where you try to reach a win state against the game rules itself with the help of other players.

40k is, unquestionably, a competitive game. You have two players, who have the goal to win the game by whatever the rules laid out require, whether it's the mission at play or just by killing more things than the enemy. Even "Open" play without any structure still has the inherent rule that if you kill all the enemies models, you win the game, at the expense of your opponent who loses a game.

DnD meanwhile is another example of a cooperative game, unless the DM is being a massive tool in which case it becomes 5 ants vs a vengeful god who can make rocks fall and kill everyone at a whim.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
The fact a rules system doesn't explicitly address every possible eventuality doesn't make it flawed or defective. Feels like claiming this specific inconsistency must be spelled out in exact language or the game is completely broken is overly pedantic.

So why fix it for Tau then? Why bother issuing errata at all if people are just going to ignore the rules when they feel like it?

Great question, and again, let me express my admiration for your ability to ask probing questions.

It's not clear to me what that has to do with the matter at hand. I laid out my argument for why the rule should work a certain way in my last post, along with my concern over the language about the "game being broken."

The fact a game designer saw fit to address a similar issue with Tau doesn't really have much to do with this issue. There's enough differences between Tau and other armies to justify a distinction on a fluff basis alone. I'm not sure it's constructive to guess at what GW was thinking or obscure the point with non-sequiturs.

Back to the point: sometimes the rules are explicit, sometimes they act guidelines for common sense, and sometimes they are just a terribly-worded mess that should embarrass the poor parents of the writer for not instilling the value of a quality education. This falls more into the second category, it's reasonable to expect people can figure it out without escalating the issue to the level of disaster.

When we pay the people for rules, it's not really acceptable for them to be "a terribly-worded mess that should embarrass the poor parents of the writer for not instilling the value of a quality education."

 JNAProductions wrote:
When we pay the people for rules, it's not really acceptable for them to be "a terribly-worded mess that should embarrass the poor parents of the writer for not instilling the value of a quality education."

GW have only been writing rules for 43 years, cut them a bit of slack! The 8th edition rules are, by any objective standard, a tire fire when it comes to proper rules writing. I'm not saying the system or rules at large, I mean HOW they are written. Just look at the Space Wolf Rules, the list of errata is almost longer than the amount of actual units they have unique to them! It's one thing to be thankful GW actually have issued errata (although they still haven't fixed day 0 issues, see my sig) but the fact is the amount of errata that has happened shouldn't have been needed in the first place if they had written and edited the rules properly. It's just worse because of the "Most Playtested Edition" meme they spouted off prior to launch.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
When we pay the people for rules, it's not really acceptable for them to be "a terribly-worded mess that should embarrass the poor parents of the writer for not instilling the value of a quality education."

GW have only been writing rules for 43 years, cut them a bit of slack! The 8th edition rules are, by any objective standard, a tire fire when it comes to proper rules writing. I'm not saying the system or rules at large, I mean HOW they are written. Just look at the Space Wolf Rules, the list of errata is almost longer than the amount of actual units they have unique to them!

Just as an example of this GW quality standard. The 6th (and by extension 7th) ed Tyranid codex had a rule for pyrovores that blew up the entire table because of how poorly it was written. At the end of 7th when they released their errata/faq documents for every codex they did NOT correct this. Officially, including FAQ/Errata, if you play a 7th ed game of 40k with Pyrovores and they die from Instant Death then every unit on the table suffers a number of str 4 ap- wounds equal to the number of models within d6" of the pyrovore.

fething ridiculous.

Y’all wanna take this off topic soapboxing over to a Discussions sub forum not YMDC? It’s repetitive and off topic...

As I said. Their background setting is so good that I can live with the rules. They work if you don’t try to be too picky about stuff. The rules are a frame work to have fun by and tell great stories. The game is as competitive as you make it.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.

That approach works well enough for units of 2W models but would let you distribute wounds to keep models alive for units with more than 2 (are there any that have this issue?)

Deffkoptas are 4 wounds apeace and each can take a Kustom mega-blasta, so it's a theoretical problem because Deffkoptas are utter trash.

@BaconCatBug, I absolutely love your ability to spot inconsistencies / contradictions. But there are times I find your tendency to escalate these problems to the level of 'game breaking' to be hyperbolic and extreme.

The rules around wound allocation are clearly premised on the idea that one and only one model in a unit is taking wounds at a time. Rules that affect the bearer create a situation where more than one model has taken a wound.

Additional wounds to the unit would need to be allocated to the wounded models. The only real question is do the rules tell us which one would take the wound first.

The answer is no. In the case, the best the rules can do is offer us guidance about putting wounds on models who have already taken some. Most reasonable people would take that to mean the controlling player chooses what model takes the wounds, so long as that model has already been wounded.

The fact a rules system doesn't explicitly address every possible eventuality doesn't make it flawed or defective. Feels like claiming this specific inconsistency must be spelled out in exact language or the game is completely broken is overly pedantic.

My gut feeling is BaconCatBug is thinking about this from the technical point of view of a computer program. He's talking about a runtime error, which does indeed break the program that is the game, but thankfully humans are usually not so literally autistically literal that they can improvise, hence the game does not "break."

So while BaconCatBug is technically correct; the best kind of correct. He is practically wrong.

 Ratbarf wrote:

My gut feeling is BaconCatBug is thinking about this from the technical point of view of a computer program. He's talking about a runtime error, which does indeed break the program that is the game, but thankfully humans are usually not so literally autistically literal that they can improvise, hence the game does not "break."

So while BaconCatBug is technically correct; the best kind of correct. He is practically wrong.

You are correct, language is never literally autistically literal, which is why BCB is incorrect most of the time.

Fragile wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

My gut feeling is BaconCatBug is thinking about this from the technical point of view of a computer program. He's talking about a runtime error, which does indeed break the program that is the game, but thankfully humans are usually not so literally autistically literal that they can improvise, hence the game does not "break."

So while BaconCatBug is technically correct; the best kind of correct. He is practically wrong.

You are correct, language is never literally autistically literal, which is why BCB is incorrect most of the time.

You are incorrect. Rules language IS like programing language in that it is absolute statements and literal. Its why BCB is correct in pretty much all his statements about what does and does not work within the structure of the game. You may not find it all "the sky is falling" because you can fudge the rules for ease of play. But it doesnt make the language of the rules any less broken.

8 billion people on this planet disagree with your opinion. We do not talk or write like that. At best, lawyers do.

Fragile wrote:
8 billion people on this planet disagree with your opinion. We do not talk or write like that. At best, lawyers do.

Right back atcha

This is the benefit of being a RaW purist. You can't ever actually be wrong. Either GW erratas it, thus proving you right, or GW Special Snowflake FAQs it, proving you right! (Disclaimer: This is what is known as "humour" or "a joke".)

Fragile wrote:
8 billion people on this planet disagree with your opinion. We do not talk or write like that. At best, lawyers do.

That would be why i said rules language and not conversational language.

 Ratbarf wrote:


My gut feeling is BaconCatBug is thinking about this from the technical point of view of a computer program. He's talking about a runtime error, which does indeed break the program that is the game, but thankfully humans are usually not so literally autistically literal that they can improvise, hence the game does not "break."

So while BaconCatBug is technically correct; the best kind of correct. He is practically wrong.

Are you suggesting that because we can improvise something to keep the game moving when the rules fail that failure should not be corrected?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

You are correct, language is never literally autistically literal, which is why BCB is incorrect most of the time.

Rules language needs to be that literal so that both players agree on what the rules mean. If you have to fudge and improvise to make it work then different people end up playing the game differently which leads to problems when they play each other (you just need to look at folks on here who pitch a fit when it's pointed out that how they think it ought to work is not what the rules say).

Plenty of other games manage this and they often do read like they were written by a lawyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
Bearer suffering mortal wound supercedes the general rule for allocating wounds as he weapon profile specifically targets who takes the wound.

I guess you didn't read the thread? That is correct and that is why it is a problem. Where do you allocate the next regular wound when several models have taken a wound from their gun? The rules assume that there can never be more than one wounded model.

I don’t think anyone saying the problem is not insurmountable is saying they prefer badly-worded rules. Don’t try and start that spat again!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I don’t think anyone saying the problem is not insurmountable is saying they prefer badly-worded rules. Don’t try and start that spat again!

Likewise, nobody saying the problem exists is saying you and your friends are incapable of reaching an agreement on hywpi.

They are just stating the fact that it is a problem, and dismissing that fact or making excusses for why its okay is a silly thing to do.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I don’t think anyone saying the problem is not insurmountable is saying they prefer badly-worded rules. Don’t try and start that spat again!

Likewise, nobody saying the problem exists is saying you and your friends are incapable of reaching an agreement on hywpi.

They are just stating the fact that it is a problem, and dismissing that fact or making excusses for why its okay is a silly thing to do.

Which (once again) I’m not sure anyone has done. In this situation there is only HIWPI, so lamenting broken RAW is pointless. Agree a solution and move on. Email GW. Don’t fill pages just literally saying it’s broken. Yuh-uh, we spotted that. Go tell GW.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:


My gut feeling is BaconCatBug is thinking about this from the technical point of view of a computer program. He's talking about a runtime error, which does indeed break the program that is the game, but thankfully humans are usually not so literally autistically literal that they can improvise, hence the game does not "break."

So while BaconCatBug is technically correct; the best kind of correct. He is practically wrong.

Are you suggesting that because we can improvise something to keep the game moving when the rules fail that failure should not be corrected?

No, I was attempting to explain how something could be broken in theory and still usable in practice because humans are flexible and autism is rigid.

BCB reminds me quite a bit of GWAR, he was always going on about RAW broken things that worked fine RAI.

 Ratbarf wrote:

BCB reminds me quite a bit of GWAR, he was always going on about RAW broken things that worked fine RAI.

I've had that same thought more than once...

Even suggested mini-gwar, as not so directly offensive to others. Mostly.