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.

"RAW is an unfortunately widespread house-rule variation of the 40K that willfully ignores some of the highest-order rulings in the book... "Spirit of the Game"; "Forging the Narrative", "The Golden Rule". "

In this respect, the players can override the wishes of the developers.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Try playing the game as the game designers intend it to be played, before making a judgement whether the rules are good or bad.

How the designers intended it to be played: go to www.gamesworkshop.com, buy one of everything. When it arrives, buy another copy of everything. Continue buying until you have no more money. Bothering to open your boxes is optional, as long as you buy more stuff.

The designers can hardly be held accountable for your silly RAW-variation that purposefully ignores central tenets of the game.

The central tenet of the game is "we publish rough drafts and charge you $50 for them instead of investing sufficient development time and effort to make a high-quality product". I see no reason to give any legitimacy to a "tenet" which effectively says that the author isn't going to finish their work so you're obligated to do it for them if you want to play the game.

Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.

This is just insane. It's like if I cut all of your arms and legs off and then you were happy because I gave you so much help in meeting your weight-loss goals. Only you could think that intentionally sabotaging the quality of your product so that your customers have to negotiate about fixing it is even remotely close to a good idea.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


And why do both sides have the same budget?

That is a rather tough thing to answer. It's generally one of the things that just gets waved off. Like why would an army have to harvest resources and train fresh recruits on the frontline of a battle like we see in RTS games.
Or why the majority of aliens are humanoid in size, shape, and their technology seems to be completely operational with human hands and feet as we see in FPS and many other genres.
Or why we see incrementally stronger and stronger enemies at the same time a character becomes stronger and gets better equipment like we see in RPGs.

The best answer is that it's a game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Try playing the game as the game designers intend it to be played, before making a judgement whether the rules are good or bad.

How the designers intended it to be played: go to www.gamesworkshop.com, buy one of everything. When it arrives, buy another copy of everything. Continue buying until you have no more money. Bothering to open your boxes is optional, as long as you buy more stuff.

The designers can hardly be held accountable for your silly RAW-variation that purposefully ignores central tenets of the game.

The central tenet of the game is "we publish rough drafts and charge you $50 for them instead of investing sufficient development time and effort to make a high-quality product". I see no reason to give any legitimacy to a "tenet" which effectively says that the author isn't going to finish their work so you're obligated to do it for them if you want to play the game.

Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.

This is just insane. It's like if I cut all of your arms and legs off and then you were happy because I gave you so much help in meeting your weight-loss goals. Only you could think that intentionally sabotaging the quality of your product so that your customers have to negotiate about fixing it is even remotely close to a good idea.

Wrong, you need to open the box to remind yourself to buy their sanctioned clippers, glue, and eventually their paints.

I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

RAW players bother me. I'm not an expert at the game, and maybe I'm just wrong and naive, but I really think the game is designed to be enjoyed casually amongst friends. That's how I like to play anyway.

I once had a tyranid player come out of reserves, point out that his drop pod or whatever the thing was called was right next to impassale terrain, which I wouldn't have even known at the time.

And then he puts his models on the opposite side of what he just told me is impassable. I asked about it and he went into some long ass explanation of how the RAW is you deploy anywhere up to 6".

That might be true, but why point out the problem before you do it? It would seem reasonable to me, that the models wouldn't be able to teleport from their transport to the other side of dangerous terrain. But thats not how we were going to play.

The guy pummeled me, was a rules expert, and was absolutely no fun to play at all. Spent more time lecturing than playing. 3 other players actually came over to our game and rather aggressively scolded him for how he was playing. I saw him months later and he laughed at me for buying the new space marines codex. I hope he's enjoying the new tyranids book.

I'm not saying this as an absolute truth, but just from getting back into the hobby in the past year or so... its so negative from people that just want to obsess over the rules and the game.

I understand people spend a lot of money and time learning the rules and then dislike changes, and I realize GW is price gouging their customers to death, but after spending months pouring over advice on this site, which was good advice, no doubt, I finally just came to the conclusion that I should just build a fluffy list and play for fun.

Its a trap to constantly try to beat the rulebook. Just IMO.

I believe, RAW, the Nid player was correct, I don't believe there is any other requirement for deployment other than the bases are wholly within 6" of an access point.

If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will correct me, but my basic point still remains that this is exactly the sort of stuff we would like eliminated from the game. Rules lawyering only exists because the wooly language and inconsistent terminology, coupled with rather lax play testing and what has become a very, very poor FAQ/Errata support procedure gives enough space for these sorts of players to wriggle and twist their way around what, to many, is a clear spirit of a rule.

What most of us would like is a system that was well written, thoroughly play tested and efficiently supported enough to make this go away.

Weird, outlying opinions aside, I don't see how there's even a debate about this.

VanHallan wrote:
I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

RAW players bother me. I'm not an expert at the game, and maybe I'm just wrong and naive, but I really think the game is designed to be enjoyed casually amongst friends. That's how I like to play anyway.

I once had a tyranid player come out of reserves, point out that his drop pod or whatever the thing was called was right next to impassale terrain, which I wouldn't have even known at the time.

And then he puts his models on the opposite side of what he just told me is impassable. I asked about it and he went into some long ass explanation of how the RAW is you deploy anywhere up to 6".

That might be true, but why point out the problem before you do it? It would seem reasonable to me, that the models wouldn't be able to teleport from their transport to the other side of dangerous terrain. But thats not how we were going to play.

The guy pummeled me, was a rules expert, and was absolutely no fun to play at all. Spent more time lecturing than playing. 3 other players actually came over to our game and rather aggressively scolded him for how he was playing. I saw him months later and he laughed at me for buying the new space marines codex. I hope he's enjoying the new tyranids book.

I'm not saying this as an absolute truth, but just from getting back into the hobby in the past year or so... its so negative from people that just want to obsess over the rules and the game.

I understand people spend a lot of money and time learning the rules and then dislike changes, and I realize GW is price gouging their customers to death, but after spending months pouring over advice on this site, which was good advice, no doubt, I finally just came to the conclusion that I should just build a fluffy list and play for fun.

Its a trap to constantly try to beat the rulebook. Just IMO.

Then why have rules?? If people who actually want to USE the rules "bother you" because they want to use the rules... I can't even understand that logic. The rules exist for a reason, otherwise there wouldn't be any rules at all, just the "4+ it" rule. So it's now wrong to play the game by following the rulebook that costs $75 and the codex that costs $50, because why, the designers are too fething lazy and/or stupid to actually write rules that work, or worse just kind of ignore their own rules but never publish "Hey this is Rule X, but we've found that treating it like Rules Y works better off in narrative games" to help.

The designers seemingly guess at how their own rules work, so by extension we should too.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Points are like resources or currency allowed to each side much like a budget. It's a set value to determine what your limit is to units and equipment without exceeding your budget.

Sure. And what's the relationship between points and units/equipment?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


And why do both sides have the same budget?

That is a rather tough thing to answer. It's generally one of the things that just gets waved off. Like why would an army have to harvest resources and train fresh recruits on the frontline of a battle like we see in RTS games.
Or why the majority of aliens are humanoid in size, shape, and their technology seems to be completely operational with human hands and feet as we see in FPS and many other genres.
Or why we see incrementally stronger and stronger enemies at the same time a character becomes stronger and gets better equipment like we see in RPGs.

The best answer is that it's a game.

Right it's a game but that doesn't explain why both sides have the same budget. You could have a game where one side has a bigger budget, but when playing 40K that usually isn't the case.

The simple answer is because both sides having an equal budget makes the game fair. It's only hard to explain if you don't want to use the term fair or balanced (or are not allowed as was in this case).

And the only reason to not use the term fair or balanced in normal conversation is if you know that some 2000pt armies are more powerful than other 2000pt armies (and you don't want to lie to the person you're explaining this to). Which kind of goes against the whole point of having a points limit to your game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

RAW players bother me. I'm not an expert at the game, and maybe I'm just wrong and naive, but I really think the game is designed to be enjoyed casually amongst friends. That's how I like to play anyway.

I once had a tyranid player come out of reserves, point out that his drop pod or whatever the thing was called was right next to impassale terrain, which I wouldn't have even known at the time.

And then he puts his models on the opposite side of what he just told me is impassable. I asked about it and he went into some long ass explanation of how the RAW is you deploy anywhere up to 6".

That might be true, but why point out the problem before you do it? It would seem reasonable to me, that the models wouldn't be able to teleport from their transport to the other side of dangerous terrain. But thats not how we were going to play.

The guy pummeled me, was a rules expert, and was absolutely no fun to play at all. Spent more time lecturing than playing. 3 other players actually came over to our game and rather aggressively scolded him for how he was playing. I saw him months later and he laughed at me for buying the new space marines codex. I hope he's enjoying the new tyranids book.

I'm not saying this as an absolute truth, but just from getting back into the hobby in the past year or so... its so negative from people that just want to obsess over the rules and the game.

I understand people spend a lot of money and time learning the rules and then dislike changes, and I realize GW is price gouging their customers to death, but after spending months pouring over advice on this site, which was good advice, no doubt, I finally just came to the conclusion that I should just build a fluffy list and play for fun.

Its a trap to constantly try to beat the rulebook. Just IMO.

Then why have rules?? If people who actually want to USE the rules "bother you" because they want to use the rules... I can't even understand that logic. The rules exist for a reason, otherwise there wouldn't be any rules at all, just the "4+ it" rule. So it's now wrong to play the game by following the rulebook that costs $75 and the codex that costs $50, because why, the designers are too fething lazy and/or stupid to actually write rules that work, or worse just kind of ignore their own rules but never publish "Hey this is Rule X, but we've found that treating it like Rules Y works better off in narrative games" to help.

The designers seemingly guess at how their own rules work, so by extension we should too.

You don't understand my example? That if a transport lands 3" right of impassable terrain, that it doesn't make any logical sense that the encased models can pass thru it just because the rule book says up to 6"?

That doesn't make sense to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think you're expecting too much out of a rule book to handle EVERY POSSIBLE scenario that might come up. We have judges and juries because of the many gray areas that "the rules" inherently create.

It specifically says in the rule book that spirit of the game, forging a narrative, and golden rule are the right ways to play. Is that not true?

I simply think people that treat the rulebook as a biblical document, while they complain that the game doesn't work as written, are missing the point of the game.

VanHallan wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

RAW players bother me. I'm not an expert at the game, and maybe I'm just wrong and naive, but I really think the game is designed to be enjoyed casually amongst friends. That's how I like to play anyway.

I once had a tyranid player come out of reserves, point out that his drop pod or whatever the thing was called was right next to impassale terrain, which I wouldn't have even known at the time.

And then he puts his models on the opposite side of what he just told me is impassable. I asked about it and he went into some long ass explanation of how the RAW is you deploy anywhere up to 6".

That might be true, but why point out the problem before you do it? It would seem reasonable to me, that the models wouldn't be able to teleport from their transport to the other side of dangerous terrain. But thats not how we were going to play.

The guy pummeled me, was a rules expert, and was absolutely no fun to play at all. Spent more time lecturing than playing. 3 other players actually came over to our game and rather aggressively scolded him for how he was playing. I saw him months later and he laughed at me for buying the new space marines codex. I hope he's enjoying the new tyranids book.

I'm not saying this as an absolute truth, but just from getting back into the hobby in the past year or so... its so negative from people that just want to obsess over the rules and the game.

I understand people spend a lot of money and time learning the rules and then dislike changes, and I realize GW is price gouging their customers to death, but after spending months pouring over advice on this site, which was good advice, no doubt, I finally just came to the conclusion that I should just build a fluffy list and play for fun.

Its a trap to constantly try to beat the rulebook. Just IMO.

Then why have rules?? If people who actually want to USE the rules "bother you" because they want to use the rules... I can't even understand that logic. The rules exist for a reason, otherwise there wouldn't be any rules at all, just the "4+ it" rule. So it's now wrong to play the game by following the rulebook that costs $75 and the codex that costs $50, because why, the designers are too fething lazy and/or stupid to actually write rules that work, or worse just kind of ignore their own rules but never publish "Hey this is Rule X, but we've found that treating it like Rules Y works better off in narrative games" to help.

The designers seemingly guess at how their own rules work, so by extension we should too.

You don't understand my example? That if a transport lands 3" right of impassable terrain, that it doesn't make any logical sense that the encased models can pass thru it just because the rule book says up to 6"?

That doesn't make sense to you?

Honestly makes as much sense as models being removed from the front at all times, plasma weapons not being picked up when they die, psykers only knowing their spell once the game begins, and how somehow FMC get cover saves whilst flying and why there isn't a model for both when they are in flight and when they are stationed on the ground (not sure if I should give them any ideas or not). That said, I do agree that I would never do such a thing but people are different and what is acceptable and not varies from person to person. Anyways, the charm of RaW was it it was well written things like this wouldn't occur really and if they did a faq would come in to fix it soon enough.

It's not really a bible. The problem is what should we do when it isn't? Where can we place the line before it extrapolates? The problem is the books aren't worth the money they cost. They aren't well written yet cost 75 on top of 50 on top of any supplement for another 50. It's overpriced for what you get and in the end rewriting it can't solve the bane of the issue for units that are just terrible all the time.

I agree with most of that... 75 bucks for a book that has to be faq'd every 2 weeks is annoying. Everything about GW's prices are absolutely absurd.

...but why shouldn't models be removed from the front? That is logical most of the time. 100%? Of course not.

As a BA player I dislike over watch, but I think it makes sense that an assaulted squad will shoot at attackers.

I guess what it is to me is what you're looking to get out of the game. Honestly I think the rules experts should just go to law school and do something where you can actually get paid to BS over the definition of words.

VanHallan wrote:
I also think you're expecting too much out of a rule book to handle EVERY POSSIBLE scenario that might come up.

MTG does exactly that.

VanHallan wrote:
I agree with most of that... but why shouldn't models be removed from the front? That is logical most of the time. 100%? Of course not.

As a BA player I dislike over watch, but I think it makes sense that an assaulted squad will shoot at attackers.

I guess what it is to me is what you're looking to get out of the game. Honestly I think the rules experts should just go to law school and do something where you can actually get paid to BS over the definition of words.

Not quite. Some examples, a flamer spews out before you yet kills the individuals to the side. A battlecannon fires into the enemy but instead of taking enemies out of the explosion zone it slaughters everybody else that is closer to the tank. Along with that, gunfire isn't as precise as it might seem and will sometimes pick off individuals from the middle or back. Not really if lined side by side but if spaced out 3" it seems unlikely the shots would always pick off from the front. Along with that, this forgets abstraction. The perk of 5th edition's removal rules was that it represented losing models from everywhere as a combination of two things. One, the unit isn't standing still whilst being shot at. Shooting forces are likely either filling the place of a former soldier, retreating, or getting into better cover. Assaulting armies are either nearing cover or are continuing to charge forth furiously with little regard for the petty lasgun shots. Then there's the whole entire somebody else picks up the flag or plasma gun that was represented by it. Finally, this game has always had a very fictional piece in it where men lead and duel with swords in close combat. There's a reason many criticize it for being unrealistic which falls to it's sci fantasy roots. In this manner, it is often considered that leaders are at the front inspiring the men but in this game such a matter is actually punished.

As for overwsatch, problem with it comes from the fact that it doesn't matter where you charge from nor who you are shooting at previously. If it's assummed everything is happening in order, it seems somewhat silly a unit will turn to overwatch despite whether the enemy is raving zerkers or quiet and stealthy deathleapers or something else that doesn't make noise when creeping in.

Those are all good points, man. IMO it further illustrates the complexity of what theyre trying to make rules for. I can't even imagine how convoluted the rulebook would be to take ALL of what you just said into consideration.

I'm nowhere near as experienced with this game as you guys... I've played like 4 6th edition games and being a BA player, and inexperienced, obviously I'm losing a lot.

I'm not trying to tell you guys whats what. I'm just saying, as a player that is somewhat of a perpetual beginner, I think of all the games I had growing up with friends and the ridiculous stuff we did.

One game I recall we made a bridge out of toilet paper and knew it was going to break, making it a part of the game to see who would survive. Obviously that is beyond dumb and I can't imagine doing that with the way I paint now....but it was fun.

I just think it sucks the life out of everything to play 100% off of what a rulebook says. Its like music. Who wants to hear someone play the piano like a robot? You can make the performance totally flawless, and miss the mood and feeling of the entire piece.

I guess that is why I look at life the way I do. I like different interpretations. I like to create a narrative. I like creating stuff with people, not telling them how to do things.

There's a great quote about rules from coach K of Duke(I dislike duke for anyone who cares!)

Something to the effect of rules screwing up the way people do things. 'rules are for people who don't like to make decisions' I think it is.

I always liked the quote. Not sure how it applies to this discussion, but seriously, lets have a fun game.

I watch bat reps on youtube that look fun as hell and then read the comments where everyone badgers the hell out of the guys for rules mistakes....

MISSING THE POINT OF THE GAME! haha well anyways, that's what I think. I might not be right.

The thing is that balanced games don't have that problem; balanced games let you play 100% to the rules without issues (or any issues are quickly fixed) while still allowing flexibility. 40k fails in that regard.

VanHallan wrote:
I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

The only problem with "rules as written" players is the rules AREN'T written well. If the rules were written well, there'd be no problem with RAW players, because you'd be able to play a proper balanced game without arguments simply by following the rules. Some rules are written as such that it equally could go one way or the other and so many rules are written in such a way as to think "wait, is that right? Surely it should have been intended that XXXXX happen instead".

The whole RAI vs RAW thing is stupid IMO, how the hell are we supposed to know what was actually intended when the rules have more holes than swiss cheese. You can't think "oh that's too powerful, they must have meant blah" when there are so many CLEARLY written rules that are already stupidly powerful. You can't think "oh, that's not how this unit should work, they must have meant blah", when there are so many CLEARLY written rules that don't work anything like how you think a unit should work.

It makes the whole RAI vs RAW argument a bunch of intellectual masturbation.

I'd probably be what a lot people consider a "RAW" player, because I don't like to guess at what might have been intended. I'm more than happy to invent my own rules so that I can have a more fluffy game with an opponent or have interesting scenarios and such... but I like to START from where the rules are written and work from there, especially since the RAW affects how I actually construct my army in the first place... unfortunately that requires you to actually be able to decipher the rules to begin with, which is where the RAW vs RAI debate begins and why we have a YMDC forum.

For those of us who from time to time like to play themed games and forge a narrative there is no better tool than the original (3rd or 4th ed?) Last Chancers mission.
For those of you who may not be familiar with it, one player has a 1500 point army, while the other has, well, the last chancers, all 12 of them.
the battle is always brutal, and if you are lucky one or two of the last chancers will survive, if you are even luckier they complete the mission!

The thing about playing with the last chancers though is that it throws out the window the whole concept of 'game balance' because you just know that its not really fair on the plucky convicts and most of them will die, its a rare battle where both sides aren't rooting for the Colonel and his band of convicted criminals.

It's fun because there isn't even a pretense of balance between the two sides, and most of the time you don't even need to work out the points for the enemy force either! points values in this scenario are in fact irrelevant, and that's what 'Forging a narrative' is all about!

The issue at hand is that players don't need permission, or rules or whatever to decide to play games with a narrative, they can do it already. Players don't need rules on how to have super heavies in 'normal' games, they don't need to be given permission to take allies and so forth, because a narrative gamer will just do it anyway. legal or not, force organization chart or not. want to have mind controlled humans in your necron force, go right ahead. tamed (????) tyranid creatures in your Dark eldar force? why not? Narrative gamers will always play the game the way they want to, when they want to, and rules be damned! If thats how you are going to play, you don't need points values, or FOC's, or an allies matrix or anything like that at all. Random psychic powers? no way! Random warlord traits? forget it!

If GW wanted to create a narrative wargame, they wouldn't have points values, they wouldn't have any random tables (except for the GM because rolling dice and smiling with an evil glint in your eye is always fun) and they would state in the rulebook, at the very very start that the way the game was meant to be played is to make fun stories. guess what? thats not what it says, they have points values and having to randomly roll powers and traits and so forth in the game goes totally against the whole concept of forging a narrative. Why does your head librarian have different powers every game? why does your Captain keep changing his mind about what warlord trait he has? its totally not forging a narrative.

GW did release a narrative game called inquisitor, that game threw the whole concept of game balance out the window, and Gav Thorpe, in the developers notes said:

'For years, successive designers and developers have honed each edition of warhammer and warhammer 40,00 to a razors edge, forever striving towards that holy grail of games design - game balance...'

I guess they gave up

What they have now is a game where the rules are bloated, inconsistent and badly written. balance both within codices and between them is poor to non existent, to the point that a playing a PUG is hit and miss as to whether it will be fun. and while GW claim its not intended to be a competitive game, its not a narrative one either.

But the models are nice....

VanHallan wrote:
Those are all good points, man. IMO it further illustrates the complexity of what theyre trying to make rules for. I can't even imagine how convoluted the rulebook would be to take ALL of what you just said into consideration.

Yes it's difficult - that's why we pay them lots of money. Many games do it far better. GW doesn't have to get it perfect (which is basically impossible), but they could easily get it far higher up the "good" scale that was posted earlier if they tried.

Look at how often PC games like Starcraft are patched to adjust units to get them closer to balanced. GW could easily put out 3-monthly updates to tweak units to be closer to balanced based of of in-house playtesting and high-profile tournament results. The nerf to Vendettas could have come long ago with a simple "patch" to 40k published online for example. It didn't need to wait years for a new codex.

can't disagree with either of the last 2 posts. Good points throughout.

I'm seriously considering just using the 3rd edition rulebook once i finally get my army painted. Obviously I have to play 6th at the store, but my whole goal with getting back into 40k was to paint 3 or 4 1-1.5k armies and have friends check out the game with me.

I definitely feel overwhelmed with the rulebook myself. I'm not a dumb person but I am easily distracted and there is just soooo much to think about and keep track of in this game I can understand why people hate the rules.

I just don't understand why people who hate the rules want to use them as written i guess.

VanHallan wrote:
I just don't understand why people who hate the rules want to use them as written i guess.

If you play pick up games or tournaments (and the thread was about competitive play to begin with) you generally don't have a lot of choice. It's either play the game as is, or play something else.

And for all its flaws, 40K is currently the only scifi game with any sort of player base that allows for larger battles... Everything else currently on the market is a smaller scale skirmish game.

VanHallan wrote:
can't disagree with either of the last 2 posts. Good points throughout.

I'm seriously considering just using the 3rd edition rulebook once i finally get my army painted. Obviously I have to play 6th at the store, but my whole goal with getting back into 40k was to paint 3 or 4 1-1.5k armies and have friends check out the game with me.

I definitely feel overwhelmed with the rulebook myself. I'm not a dumb person but I am easily distracted and there is just soooo much to think about and keep track of in this game I can understand why people hate the rules.

I just don't understand why people who hate the rules want to use them as written i guess.

Combination of things. For starters, despite it's gradual fall, it has, for the longest time, been the top dog. In fact, GW is much like the Imperium. It's still the top dog but it is certainly crumbling. Still, you have individuals that have spent thousands upon this hobby and enjoy it for numerous reasons. One being friends playing it, another being the fluff and lore that draws many in, and so on. To add to this, it's one of the only Sci Fantasy games out there and is the only sci fi game that provides large battles. None of the others really reach its scale. Finally, if one attends tournaments or pick up games, even if one dislikes the rules, it is far less complicated to simply play a game than to have to housrule everything and back as well as get into an argument when two people disagree.

EDIT: Darn it insiniak why must you ninja me.

VanHallan wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I can sympathize with both sides of this debate. But as far as what works for me, without taking up for GW, I think its true that the hardcore RAW people are missing the point of the game.

RAW players bother me. I'm not an expert at the game, and maybe I'm just wrong and naive, but I really think the game is designed to be enjoyed casually amongst friends. That's how I like to play anyway.

I once had a tyranid player come out of reserves, point out that his drop pod or whatever the thing was called was right next to impassale terrain, which I wouldn't have even known at the time.

And then he puts his models on the opposite side of what he just told me is impassable. I asked about it and he went into some long ass explanation of how the RAW is you deploy anywhere up to 6".

...
...

Its a trap to constantly try to beat the rulebook. Just IMO.

Then why have rules?? If people who actually want to USE the rules "bother you" because they want to use the rules... I can't even understand that logic. The rules exist for a reason, otherwise there wouldn't be any rules at all, just the "4+ it" rule. So it's now wrong to play the game by following the rulebook that costs $75 and the codex that costs $50, because why, the designers are too fething lazy and/or stupid to actually write rules that work, or worse just kind of ignore their own rules but never publish "Hey this is Rule X, but we've found that treating it like Rules Y works better off in narrative games" to help.

The designers seemingly guess at how their own rules work, so by extension we should too.

You don't understand my example? That if a transport lands 3" right of impassable terrain, that it doesn't make any logical sense that the encased models can pass thru it just because the rule book says up to 6"?

That doesn't make sense to you?


...
...

To "forge a narrative", the models were so keen to deploy that they jumped out of their pod while it was floating down, instead of obeying correct safety procedure, and were thereby able to spring over the impassable fence.

The reason why the player told you about the rule was because he wanted you to know that he was following the correct rule, not making things up for an unfair advantage.

To "forge a narrative", the models were so keen to deploy that they jumped out of their pod while it was floating down, instead of obeying correct safety procedure, and were thereby able to spring over the impassable fence.

But IG transport doors or drop pods don't have the option to open before they stand still . It would also wouldn't explain how those models aren't on top floor of a building , but in a room out of LoS with the nearest crack in the wall or door 5" away from where they can deep deploy.

We had a guy here who would always build terrain his own games . He would always use small WFB buildings without windows or doors and he would always place them near where objectives would end up and then deploy 5 man DA squads inside . they were always out of LoS , couldn't be charged , couldn't be shot unless weapons ignored LoS too , but they should would score . He once even put the building on top of the relic in relic mission and claimed it the whole game . Since then we had to house rule that relics can't be placed inside any terrain .

Makumba wrote:
We had a guy here who would always build terrain his own games . He would always use small WFB buildings without windows or doors and he would always place them near where objectives would end up and then deploy 5 man DA squads inside . they were always out of LoS , couldn't be charged , couldn't be shot unless weapons ignored LoS too , but they should would score . He once even put the building on top of the relic in relic mission and claimed it the whole game . Since then we had to house rule that relics can't be placed inside any terrain .

So why didn't you just destroy the building (it's obviously occupied, so you're free to attack it)? If this guy was making buildings and declaring that they're not buildings and therefore can't be destroyed then you just have a TFG, and the solution is to refuse to let him play again until he stops being TFG.

IMO if you're going to play anything other than RAW you have to discuss changes before the game, and since there are so many things that you might want to change, it makes it difficult. It's a bit much to spring something on your opponent halfway through a game that you think shouldn't be played as written.

VanHallan wrote:
Those are all good points, man. IMO it further illustrates the complexity of what theyre trying to make rules for. I can't even imagine how convoluted the rulebook would be to take ALL of what you just said into consideration.

I'm nowhere near as experienced with this game as you guys... I've played like 4 6th edition games and being a BA player, and inexperienced, obviously I'm losing a lot.

I'm not trying to tell you guys whats what. I'm just saying, as a player that is somewhat of a perpetual beginner, I think of all the games I had growing up with friends and the ridiculous stuff we did.

One game I recall we made a bridge out of toilet paper and knew it was going to break, making it a part of the game to see who would survive. Obviously that is beyond dumb and I can't imagine doing that with the way I paint now....but it was fun.

I just think it sucks the life out of everything to play 100% off of what a rulebook says. Its like music. Who wants to hear someone play the piano like a robot? You can make the performance totally flawless, and miss the mood and feeling of the entire piece.

I guess that is why I look at life the way I do. I like different interpretations. I like to create a narrative. I like creating stuff with people, not telling them how to do things.

There's a great quote about rules from coach K of Duke(I dislike duke for anyone who cares!)

Something to the effect of rules screwing up the way people do things. 'rules are for people who don't like to make decisions' I think it is.

I always liked the quote. Not sure how it applies to this discussion, but seriously, lets have a fun game.

I watch bat reps on youtube that look fun as hell and then read the comments where everyone badgers the hell out of the guys for rules mistakes....

MISSING THE POINT OF THE GAME! haha well anyways, that's what I think. I might not be right.

Not everyone is friendly or of sound mind.
you dont Always gets to choose your opponent.

Clear rules allows the majority of people to enjoy the game better, irrelevant of their personal deficiencies, clear rules does not stop anyone from having a funny "narrative" game of their own agreement, but a game with fuzzy unclear rules ruins it for everyone since it lacks a clear framework to begin with.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The thing is that balanced games don't have that problem; balanced games let you play 100% to the rules without issues (or any issues are quickly fixed) while still allowing flexibility. 40k fails in that regard.

QFT

Wamahordes is a good example, apart form the odd issue, which is sorted in a flash, the rules always run smoothly. Plus they allow you to pull off all sorts of stunts and shenanigans, you just have to get used to the idea that some things are best done in sequence... That actually can pull victory from the jaws of defeat, especially when the opponent gets cocky with their caster and gets close enough for a well timed assassination run to win the game. Unless that is you bounce off then hilarity ensues, moreso if the opponent cocks up as well

It is why it kicks 40k back to the stone age: you can have a good bash win or lose and you won't feel rage at the silly rules, unless you forgot to ask what the enemy feat does

 Art_of_war wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The thing is that balanced games don't have that problem; balanced games let you play 100% to the rules without issues (or any issues are quickly fixed) while still allowing flexibility. 40k fails in that regard.

QFT

Wamahordes is a good example, apart form the odd issue, which is sorted in a flash, the rules always run smoothly. Plus they allow you to pull off all sorts of stunts and shenanigans, you just have to get used to the idea that some things are best done in sequence... That actually can pull victory from the jaws of defeat, especially when the opponent gets cocky with their caster and gets close enough for a well timed assassination run to win the game. Unless that is you bounce off then hilarity ensues, moreso if the opponent cocks up as well

It is why it kicks 40k back to the stone age: you can have a good bash win or lose and you won't feel rage at the silly rules, unless you forgot to ask what the enemy feat does

Not even getting into Warmahordes vs. 40k from an aesthetic perspective, but rules-wise there is little or no ambiguity in Warmahordes, and a lot of ambiguity in 40k. Rules are explicitly stated in Warmahordes, to the point where two rules that sound similar are different in how they work and are not the same thing. In 40k you have various wording that mean the same thing, tons of USRs and then things that ignore those USRs, to the point where you have a jumble of rules thrown together versus a well-designed rules framework. The irony is that 40k lends itself a lot more to having a rules framework being a narrative game, as said rules framework would allow much more creativity in creating your own units/characters, which is a hallmark of a narrative game - with a solid rules framework you could create your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment and give them meaningful special rules for narrative games; things like creating Chaos Legion rules would be easy as the rules framework would support various explicit rules that you could apply.

Makumba wrote:

To "forge a narrative", the models were so keen to deploy that they jumped out of their pod while it was floating down, instead of obeying correct safety procedure, and were thereby able to spring over the impassable fence.

But IG transport doors or drop pods don't have the option to open before they stand still . It would also wouldn't explain how those models aren't on top floor of a building , but in a room out of LoS with the nearest crack in the wall or door 5" away from where they can deep deploy.

...

It was a Spore Pod. They are giant living creatures that are physically capable of using their tentacles to grab their passengers and throw them over intervening terrain, or beat a hole in a wall, and so on. They do mighty farts to slow their landing and the overpressure caused a bubble of gas that broke a hole and squirted the passengers through it.