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.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/24/2006 9:45 PM

Do you have Asperger's Syndrome?

Why does something in my gut tell me that this is a loaded question?

Everything's loaded to you.

Oh yeah, I went there.

Hahaha! You said "asperger". That word is funny to me.

Posted By mauleed on 12/24/2006 5:39 PM

First, if you avoid the tournament scene, then what do we care what you think? Tournaments are the only place this is going to be an issue.

By saying that, you take for granted that tournement are the reason GW releases FAQs. What if they don't give a gak about tournements? At tournements, there will be judges to help rule out gray areas anyways. Maybe for once GW just told themselves "Hey, how about we make it easier for casuals gamers by suggesting 1-2 solutions and have them use them with their own judgement?". Of course, there will always be the frustrated rule-lawyers who want to lord aver their perfect dominion, holding the rulebook like Moses in the ten commandments, while proclaiming "Thus the RAW spoketh".

But hey, it's an open-ended game where gray areas are inevitable, not matter how much rules they write, FAQs they publish... Might as well give players tools to resolve otherwise unresolvable situations. By the way, thats true of most of the world out there, you learn that somewhere past elementary school.

As for the 5-wide ranking thing, sure it helps them sell more minis, but then again.... Most armies with "elite" core infantry (ie chaos warriors, saurus warriors) were already fronting at 5, to benefit more from individual models' capabilities that hich-priced back ranks. As for the "cheap" core infantry (ie skellies, goblins), players already usually owned a big pile of models (like 40-60) that they can manage easily with what they have (ie making 2 block of 25 instead of 3 blocks of 20). I do agree that boxes will have to be revised (ie the 16 warriors in a TK box).

Phil

I get lots of fun out of the game.

What I DONT have fun doing is trying to figure out WTF the rules are when bad situations come up and the rules are a problem.

And then GW throws out a FAQ which says, basically, "dont follow the rules as we wrote them"

Its stupid.

I also don't think this is an issue only at tourneys. It's an issue *any* time two unfamiliar opponents face off against each other, be it at a RTT or just some regular pick up game at the LFGS or a GW Hobby Center.

Even amongst friends it's damned annoying, as Carmachu points out, when you come across some WTF situation with the rules that defies any sort of rational explanation. Why do we have to fix them again, when just about every other ruleset I've played doesn't have as many (nor as large) gaps, including several that are exponentially more complicated? And they sure as hell don't tell you "don't follow the rules as we wrote them".

GW, where incompetence is what they do best!

Warhammer is a GAME. A game has a winner and a loser. There are not two winners. When a unit charges another unit, its not so they can be the first ones to get in on the group hug.

Clipping is an issue that can be addressed. When they say, "Do whatever you want." it sort of defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place.

When they assume that the people playing can come to an agreement is where they make their first mistake.

A FAQ is suppsed to clear up issues of hazy rules concerns.

If it fails to do that, then it is a waste of time.

To be honest, I dont play WHFB, but this discussion isnt about what you play with youur friends, it is about what GW does with their resources to make the game better to a larger population of people.

Poor showing really.

Awww, c'mon guys. Why so glum? If they don't want us following their rules anyway, I see no problem.

C'mon, hug up biznatches. It's all good.

You got that right. We've VERY easy going in our club: want to proxy? Nobody cares. 3K game? Bring it. Exerimental list? Sure lets have fun.

But when you have a campaign game running, and 2 guys playing and 4 spectators and we all are scratching our heads and breaking out books because it hinges on who's getting developmental points or wins the territory....you want it clearly defined. We dont want to screw either player on something that isnt in our domian. Thats why you want a clear rule set or FAQ....

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 4:33 AM
Maybe for once GW just told themselves "Hey, how about we make it easier for casuals gamers by suggesting 1-2 solutions and have them use them with their own judgement?".

So basically instead of writing "rules" GW is writing "suggestions".  Fantastic.  So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?  Afterall I can make up my own rules for free.

So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?

No one is forcing you to. If you don't want to, don't.

The dismally whiny atmosphere on Dakka gives me the impression that a good number of people in the hobby stay with it only as a license to whine and moan.

Discernment: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure...

You see, most adults can form an opinion based on general rules. What people seem to have a hard time to grasp, is that some situations may arise where a clear and well defined rule doesn't work. Of course, GW could a ruled in favor of either clipping or sliding, thus creating EVEN MORE awkward situations. But they decided that most WFB player where mature gentlemen (and gentlewomen I guess!), which opinion they obviously didn't get by reading this forum. So, they said: in this situation (awkward charges), instead of giving you a fixed rule, we are giving you a TOOL to decide by yourselves AS ADULTS, how in a given situation it should be best resolved. We give you choices A) and B) (ie clipping and sliding). You HAVE to use one or another (thus giving little latitude really).

Now, most rule-addicts who need a perfectly defined world tend to cry in despair: yes but you say that we can do that, but you also said it's cheating!!!! Well, what can be read is that VOLUNTARILY abusing that choice (ie voluntarily creating a situation where an awkward charge is made) is cheating. Just as voluntarily declaring an impossible charge is cheating. AH! will say the rule-blinded, but how can we discern if such an act is voluntary or not? That, my friends, is where adulthood kicks in. You know by the general attitude of your opponent. If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...


You know, in life not all can be black or white, true or false. Especially in things like warhammer or boxing or life in general. Sometimes, you can't have someone decide how everything works for you, even in a game.

Now, how about we discuss what is in the FAq as a whole instead of morally debating what is really a little part of the FAQ???Any opinions on how some clarifications will influence the game as a whole?

Phil

 

Best answer ever.

If the critics of the rules and FAQ's are so smart...why don't they form their own company, and write their own rules and publish them?

That's a silly argument.

If the company I buy a TV from sells me a TV with a nonfunctional volume control, why don't I just form my own company and make my own TV?

I still think the FAQ as a whole is good, but the appendix bit is just dumb. Seriously, it would not have taken much effort to just rule it one way or the other. Give the players a consistent standard upon which we can make tactical decisions, as opposed to another thing to disagree about or have to clarify with unfamiliar opponents. Especially when part of the game's appeal is how widely played it is, and the ability to find opponents all over the world.

You've got a few problems there, boreas.

First, not everyone who plays tabletop games is an adult.  In fact, GW's target audience is not adult gamers; therefore your assumption assuming that players "AS ADULTS" can or cannot come up with a solution is not a valid argument.

No one has said that they, individually, cannot come up with a solution to any of the problems.  In fact, any good tournament organizer/judge would make a judgment for the tournament and that's how it would be played for that day.  The problem lies in the fact that there is a continual requirement for players/tournament organizers to come up with an answer to questions that the creators of the game should have answered themselves.  Heck, that's the whole point of a FAQ.  It's supposed to answer Frequently Asked Questions definitively.  This FAQ has done nothing to answer the questions.  That's where the issues come in. 

Why should players have to spend time correcting rules issues that the creators of the games should have fixed before they released the new rules?  This is the 7th time they've come out with Warhammer rules, and they still haven't gotten it right.  That's what's so ridiculous about it. 

That being said, no one is saying that anyone else's rules set is perfect.  There will always be unforeseen situations that may arise in a game.  The difference is that other companies answer questions about rules and when they release new editions, they move towards a tighter rules set that makes more sense and they answer more questions than they create.  GW with all their editions don't seem to be doing that.

That's why "rules-addicts" slam GW when they release garbage like this.  It's basically because they deserve it.  They call themselves the "Porsche of gaming" but they can't, after 25 years, release what comes close to a tight rules set.  If I'm going to pay good money to buy rules for a game that I'm investing thousands of dollars in, I expect to be able to play the game with little to no possibility of arguments arising because of shoddy rules.  That's why I don't play GW games any more and I stick with Privateer Press.

Knight

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
Discernment: the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure...

You know, in life not all can be black or white, true or false. Especially in things like warhammer or boxing or life in general. Sometimes, you can't have someone decide how everything works for you, even in a game.

Now, how about we discuss what is in the FAq as a whole instead of morally debating what is really a little part of the FAQ???Any opinions on how some clarifications will influence the game as a whole?

Phil

You can't have someone decide everything for you.  But no one is arguing that you can, so that seems a bit of a straw man. 

You can have a designer tell you that when charging into contact, the attacker must maximize BOTH the attacking and the defending models in contact.  This was a significant change from 6th edition, and removes most significant clipping issues (like charging a dragon or chariot into the corner of an infantry unit so you only contact one model).  And said designer can spend a couple of extra minutes telling you what to do if other factors make that impossible (lack of charge distance, other units in the way, terrain in the way, etc).  They did part of the job- they told us that if the unit doesn't have the sufficient range to reach, go ahead and deal with the clip.  But they didn't finish it.  It's really not that hard.  Even if they didn't have time to test and finish it, they could have clarified the odd situations (like intervening units and terrain) in the FAQ.  Inexplicably, they didn't choose to do that.  It really mystifies me.  If I was a designer I'd have more pride in my work than that.  Still, at least they did tell us what is legal and that sliding requires prior consent of both players.

Anyway, the rest of the FAQ seems pretty straightforward and solid. 

I was happy they DID explicitly tell us we can't charge units which are obviously out of range.  I was happy they clarified that you can't charge into the flank of the enemy because the front is all filled up, unless you are in the flank.  I like the EITW clarifications.  I'm happy with the confirmation on charging skirmishers from two directions, as this is something I've been doing against Beastmen for a while and it's good to see it clearly spelled out.   The clarification on Skirmishers around a block unit fleeing is a great one. 

One ruling with interesting tactical ramifications is the errata of references to "man sized" and "roughly man sized" skirmishers on page 67 to "US 1".  This makes clear that Pegasus Knights and Warhawk Riders no longer benefit from the -1 to be hit by shooting, and so are a bit easier to deal with.  Given how prevalent  the RAF army is as a competitive tournament army, this is something that will be coming up a bit.

Posted By General Hobbs on 12/25/2006 9:38 PM

 

Best answer ever.

If the critics of the rules and FAQ's are so smart...why don't they form their own company, and write their own rules and publish them?

Actually, I suspect that's partly the story behind Rackham, Privateer Press and Mongoose Publishing....

Posted By jojo_monkey_boy on 12/25/2006 7:13 PM
So tell me, why should I spend good money on "suggestion books"?

No one is forcing you to. If you don't want to, don't.

I don't.

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...

What if your opponent is just really really bad at judging distances?  Or what if your opponent has a lazy eye or is wearing an eyepatch for whatever reason (maybe he has only one eye or he's had eye surgery recently or he's dressed as a pirate)?  Then maybe he's declaring impossible charges because his depth perception isn't so good?  Ever thought of that wiseguy?

I also don't think players want to LOSE having opponents to play against.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/26/2006 1:37 AM

Posted By boreas on 12/25/2006 8:13 PM
If, after a calm and mature judgment, you decide the opponent is voluntarily declaring impossible or awkward charges, you take your minis, you pack them in your case, and you play with somebody else...

What if your opponent is just really really bad at judging distances?  Or what if your opponent has a lazy eye or is wearing an eyepatch for whatever reason (maybe he has only one eye or he's had eye surgery recently or he's dressed as a pirate)?  Then maybe he's declaring impossible charges because his depth perception isn't so good?  Ever thought of that wiseguy?

That's where, once again, judgment comes in. If the guy makes impossible charges that half the time leave him stranded, counter-charged and slammed, he might be bad/lazy/a pirate with a patch. But if those "failed charges" or "oups I just clipped" charges or even "oups I accidentally overshot my war engine over that forest into your lord" always benefit him, then you pack your minis. That what, as a wiseguy, suggested. But then again, you might just be an awful judge of caracter and cannont do that...

Phil

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:43 PM
That's a silly argument.

If the company I buy a TV from sells me a TV with a nonfunctional volume control, why don't I just form my own company and make my own TV?

I still think the FAQ as a whole is good, but the appendix bit is just dumb. Seriously, it would not have taken much effort to just rule it one way or the other. Give the players a consistent standard upon which we can make tactical decisions, as opposed to another thing to disagree about or have to clarify with unfamiliar opponents. Especially when part of the game's appeal is how widely played it is, and the ability to find opponents all over the world.

Your counter arguement doesn't stand up. If the TV is broken or not working right, you take it back for replacement/repairs.

If the manual for how to work the TV is bad, then either figure out how things are supposed to work, write your own manual, or logon to aforum and whine.

lol. I bought a DVD recorder last year...I follow the instuctions to the letter and the thing still doesn't work right.

Incredibly Moronic Comments Posted By General Hobbs on 12/26/2006 7:12 AM

Your counter arguement doesn't stand up. If the TV is broken or not working right, you take it back for replacement/repairs.

If the manual for how to work the TV is bad, then either figure out how things are supposed to work, write your own manual, or logon to aforum and whine.

lol. I bought a DVD recorder last year...I follow the instuctions to the letter and the thing still doesn't work right.

Holy carp are you spewing a pile or retardation or what. Must be yet another EOT-fugee spewing more of their unwanted GW/Tom Kirby sock puppet fluffer mumbling in between breaks of being stuffed with the GW corporate phallus.

It is not on the *consumers* onus to fix something that they purchased broken, it is on the *manufacturers*. That means *GW* is the one that needs to fix the damned screwed up rules, not the fans. How hard is that to figure out?

People have been trying to take their shoddily written, poorly edited rules back to GW for replacement/repairs for years. Despite this GW has refused to either a) replace thier shoddy rule books with ones that are properly written edited or b) released properly written and edited fixes for them (as this FAQ amply demonstrates). It's not like they don't know about the problems, or that the problems are even all that hard to fix, but all the same they refuse to do anything meaningful about it.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 10:06 PM

They did part of the job- they told us that if the unit doesn't have the sufficient range to reach, go ahead and deal with the clip.  But they didn't finish it.  It's really not that hard.  Even if they didn't have time to test and finish it, they could have clarified the odd situations (like intervening units and terrain) in the FAQ.  Inexplicably, they didn't choose to do that.  It really mystifies me.  If I was a designer I'd have more pride in my work than that.  Still, at least they did tell us what is legal and that sliding requires prior consent of both players.

Anyway, the rest of the FAQ seems pretty straightforward and solid. 

I was happy they DID explicitly tell us we can't charge units which are obviously out of range.  I was happy they clarified that you can't charge into the flank of the enemy because the front is all filled up, unless you are in the flank.  I like the EITW clarifications.  I'm happy with the confirmation on charging skirmishers from two directions, as this is something I've been doing against Beastmen for a while and it's good to see it clearly spelled out.   The clarification on Skirmishers around a block unit fleeing is a great one. 

One ruling with interesting tactical ramifications is the errata of references to "man sized" and "roughly man sized" skirmishers on page 67 to "US 1".  This makes clear that Pegasus Knights and Warhawk Riders no longer benefit from the -1 to be hit by shooting, and so are a bit easier to deal with.  Given how prevalent  the RAF army is as a competitive tournament army, this is something that will be coming up a bit.

yep, rather than point at the one thing that didn't quite get worked out, I am rather happy with the FAQ..  Of course the one item does seem to complicate things clipping, sliding, etc.. I would suggest those of you that find it so offensive as to get worked up about it, to send in emails with better suggestions. GW may not do anything about it, but at least you will have had your say. And in the end, it's the only thing you can do, besides sit on the porch with a bit of sweet tea and a whittling knife and the other 10 old codgers saying how much better it was when the model T was the car of the decade.. cause they don't make them like they used to.. 

And everyone seems to act like it is a new thing. Clipping has been around for quite awhile, and has been talked about just like in this FAQ.

Posted By Toreador on 12/26/2006 2:29 PM
And everyone seems to act like it is a new thing. Clipping has been around for quite awhile, and has been talked about just like in this FAQ.

Actually, when they had released 7th edition, the issue of clipping was completely gone. If you clipped, you clip.

Now, due to GW desire to never get anything completely right, it's if you clip, you clip, unless both of you don't want to clip, but if one of you does, you get a free argument on GW, no charge.

I'm begining to doubt the sincerity and intellect of anyone who would agree that any game company saying 'The rules are clear, and if you follow them you're a bad person' is acceptable.

 

 

I couldn't believe it when I first read it, and hopefully they'll edit it out silently and try to pretend it was never printed.

It seems like they just mindless copied the appendix of the 6th ed. into the FAQ for 7th.

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

Posted By Asmodai on 12/26/2006 6:42 PM
It seems like they just mindless copied the appendix of the 6th ed. into the FAQ for 7th.

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

A wasted opportunity is when you have a chance to fix something and you don't try to take advantage of it.

But they did try. They just failed miserably.