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.

TBH, I don't think I've ever had a rules dispute that lasted more than a minute. Over a gaming table. My group and I WILL 'benchtest" rules to death away from the game, but we are all pretty much in line with each other and the rules.

Laserbait wrote:TBH, I don't think I've ever had a rules dispute that lasted more than a minute. Over a gaming table. My group and I WILL 'benchtest" rules to death away from the game, but we are all pretty much in line with each other and the rules.

I had an arguement back in the days when I was a redshirt, with a coworker regarding the effect of a multimelta on a monolith. My position that a special rule doesnot equal a bonus was met by another employees opinion that anything that made it easier to penetrate was a bonus was an arguement that the manager eventually felt needed to be settled by rolling a d6. I hate that sort of garbage.

No-one expects a perfect set of rules. Our gripe is that the current set is far worse than it need be. To help fix this, GW only need to take a few, simple measures.

1. Clean up the language and stop being so ambiguous. Where necessary, use clear picures, diagrams, charts and flow-charts to explain the complex bits like multi-toughness, multi-wound target groups.

2. There should be a definition of terms, and a proper index.

3. Collate rules together, for example, there are something like 6 different sections containing rules to do with movement. These should be collated into a core movement section and a special circumstances section.

4. When problems occur they should be answered via properly done, timely FAQ sheets.

5. In relation to 4, there should be a rules governing committee that has official responsibility for reviewing rules and queries.

You'll never get rid of the problem of spreading rules out among the codexes. That is the way the game works.

winterman wrote:

Stupid things like that exist via RAW, because GW is not Privateer Press, they don't write things consistently in their books or with serious thought to cover all the angles of use.

To be fair, PP makes mistakes. They just rectify the situation in a timely manner.

I can not believe someone just said that privateer press, the creators of erratamachine, write consistently in their books. This is the company that had a block of errata documents about the rule books rules that was actually longer than the rule set in the book. A fact that while I was still playing erratamachine blew my mind.

I personally think RAW is the only way anyone should play, especially if one is in a tournament. Unfortunately, GW tends to write rules so badly that frequently RAW doesn't provide a "clear and unambiguous solution," which sort of makes everything go to hell. Then you're stuck trying to decipher what the designer intent was, despite the designer intent apparently being to play RAW.

As much as I believe in the concept of RAW and I admit its the way the game should be played it always needs to be taken with an ounce of common sense. Otherwise you get things like land raiders holding land raiders holding land raiders holding land raiders, which in theory could all disembark eachother to reach the other side of the table in a single turn. Hell, if you paid enough points in an apoc game for land raiders and had enough models you could coat every square inch of the board in land raiders and tank shock/autokill every infantry model first turn. Situations like this are created by RAW alone. RAW needs common sense to keep the idiots and powergamers at bay.

Yes, and the reason RAW needs that common sense is that the rules are badly written. . . which is the point that was made in the post you quote as if to rebut it.

I can not believe someone just said that privateer press, the creators of erratamachine, write consistently in their books. This is the company that had a block of errata documents about the rule books rules that was actually longer than the rule set in the book. A fact that while I was still playing erratamachine blew my mind.

And guess what? All those FAQs? Yeah, that means they actually PAY ATTENTION and FIX PROBLEMS in their rules. And periodically they update the actual book to incorporate those fixes.

Janthkin wrote:I can not believe someone just said that privateer press, the creators of erratamachine, write consistently in their books. This is the company that had a block of errata documents about the rule books rules that was actually longer than the rule set in the book. A fact that while I was still playing erratamachine blew my mind.

And guess what? All those FAQs? Yeah, that means they actually PAY ATTENTION and FIX PROBLEMS in their rules. And periodically they update the actual book to incorporate those fixes.

They only updated it once with remix and even that now has an errata pile itself. They fix problems in a semi timely fashion yes, but not everyone can keep up with daily FAQs.

Yes, and the reason RAW needs that common sense is that the rules are badly written. . . which is the point that was made in the post you quote as if to rebut it.

Unfortunatly RAW never really works by itself in any game. Warmachine has huge problems with its RAW policy (which it answers by FAQing that RAW is just how it works no matter how stupid or non sensical the situations that arise are). Most cardgames, systems that work by RAW alone, still have issues with its use and those are usually brilliantly simple and controlled. A lot of RAW problems can be fixed by clear writing and examples but there will always be a missing period or a graph that isn't quite descriptive enough and powergamers will grasp onto that to win more.

i agree with the last part, no matter how well written some ass who has to much time will pick it to pieces. Besides Gw is run cheaply so they dont have the option od committees that check the rules, Hell one person at a time works on the codex. Do you think JJ and priestly have nothing else to do but play test the rules all day??.

They have real work to be getting on with. stuff that we cant even comprehend. Like the day to day running of a company

beef wrote:i agree with the last part, no matter how well written some ass who has to much time will pick it to pieces. Besides Gw is run cheaply so they dont have the option od committees that check the rules, Hell one person at a time works on the codex. Do you think JJ and priestly have nothing else to do but play test the rules all day??.

They have real work to be getting on with. stuff that we cant even comprehend. Like the day to day running of a company

Hahaha, haven't laughed at one of your posts in a while, Beef. Yeah guys, remember that JJ and co. are doing serious business when they're working. They're probably looking at excel spreadsheets of all the known in-game stats every day. Give credit where credit is due.

Every sport has a rules committee that considers possible changes but GW leaves it to the guy who happens to pick up the phone when someone has a question.

Kilkrazy wrote:Every sport has a rules committee that considers possible changes but GW leaves it to the guy who happens to pick up the phone when someone has a question.

It's called multitasking. Geez, like you guys have never been cubicle workers or interns before.