Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 12:51:26
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
I think this is practically pointless, half of us are basing opinions on the fluff and the other half are saying that our opinions aren't right because the fluff can't be substituted for rules.
The fluff is the best guide in this situation, since their are no rules, so its the only thing to use.
|
Goliath wrote: Whichever they are, I'm not on the Reich ones, clearly. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 13:46:54
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
When should background ever be used to gauge the rules? background=/=rules as Space Marines have shown us. For an example the background of Raven guard supports infriltrate not fleet. Yet what do they have? IMHO you always use rules to solve rule problems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 15:51:31
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
The Bringer wrote:I think this is practically pointless, half of us are basing opinions on the fluff and the other half are saying that our opinions aren't right because the fluff can't be substituted for rules.
The fluff is the best guide in this situation, since their are no rules, so its the only thing to use.
I have to agree with arinnoor on this one. Fluff should never take the place of rules not should it be a guideline to figuring out how rules work. The fluff should have zero influence on determining how a rule should be played. In a game if there is an agruement on the rule(s) do not resort to fluff or ideas, just go off RAW. If RAW does not have an answer to the question an neither does the GW FAQ or the INAT FAQ(which is always a nice guideline), then simply do a roll off and get on with the game.
That is my two cents atleast.
|
5k and growing
4k |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 20:51:19
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
All over the U.S.
|
I have to disagree with plastic on this one. The fluff is the game developers way to show the intent of the rules when they come into question. Fluff is there to show how the Army was designed and the philosophy of warfare that it is intended to use.
This is why the fluff changes somewhat when the Army is radically redone in a new Codex.
I agree that fluff shouldn't be used in place of existing rules but in cases of rules questions and clarification fluff SHOULD have a part in the decision process.
Without the background guidance every army would slowly evolve into SMs as overly competitive players massaged the rules system to their benefit.
|
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09
If they are too stupid to live, why make them?
In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!
Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 21:05:46
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Hanging Out with Russ until Wolftime
|
focusedfire wrote:I have to disagree with plastic on this one. The fluff is the game developers way to show the intent of the rules when they come into question. Fluff is there to show how the Army was designed and the philosophy of warfare that it is intended to use.
This is why the fluff changes somewhat when the Army is radically redone in a new Codex.
I agree that fluff shouldn't be used in place of existing rules but in cases of rules questions and clarification fluff SHOULD have a part in the decision process.
Without the background guidance every army would slowly evolve into SMs as overly competitive players massaged the rules system to their benefit.
Can you liek, giev a page referance in da roolz befcause da rools aer liek so weel ritten!
|
Got 40k Rules Question? Send an e-mail to Gwar! for your Confidential Rules Queries.
Please do not PM me unless really necessary. I much prefer e-mail.
Need it Answered RIGHT NOW!? Ring me on Skype: "gwar.the.trolle"
Looking to play some Vassal? Ring me for a game!
Download The Unofficial FAQs by Gwar! here! (Dark Eldar Draft FAQ v1.0 released 04/Nov/2010! Download it before the Pandas eat it all!) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/07 21:22:17
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
All over the U.S.
|
Off-Topic, Thank You for the laugh Gwar!
|
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09
If they are too stupid to live, why make them?
In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!
Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/08 01:20:28
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
focusedfire wrote:I have to disagree with plastic on this one. The fluff is the game developers way to show the intent of the rules when they come into question. Fluff is there to show how the Army was designed and the philosophy of warfare that it is intended to use.
This is why the fluff changes somewhat when the Army is radically redone in a new Codex.
I agree that fluff shouldn't be used in place of existing rules but in cases of rules questions and clarification fluff SHOULD have a part in the decision process.
Without the background guidance every army would slowly evolve into SMs as overly competitive players massaged the rules system to their benefit.
I have just had too many agruements that revolve around "well the fluff makes me think this way, but the rules read this way". So with me if anyone want to agrue a rule they better not bring fluff. I will take poorly worded GW rules that can be seen in two different lights as grounds for misinterpation of a rule set. And if the rules don't answer it, it needs to go to a roll off I think. Not to fluff, which in most cases can be just as miss leading as the rules. So to me fluff holds no bounds in rules. Nor do I feel that it should.
The only time I liked when fluff played a part in rules is when it came to how you built your army. Though since GW is moving away from that...well that is another topic I won't ramble.
If you want to use fluff as a guideline to interpating rules you can and I won't stop you if it makes sense. Just alot of time it doesn't. Again that is just me.
|
5k and growing
4k |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/03/08 17:06:22
Subject: Farsight and Drones
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
All over the U.S.
|
@Plastic, I absolutely agree with taking it to a roll off if both parties become set in thier respective views on a rule question.
If your not to that point, however, and are still willing to actually listen to your opponent. You may find his interpretation as to why he sees a particular rules question in a certain manner isn't necessarily over-competitiveness or rules lawyering. But, rather, a logical step from the philosophical concept of his army. This is how you may find that the fluff can be very enlightening and helpful in settling or preventing disputes.
Now I, once again, say and agree with you that an actual rule should never be replaced with fluff. With the only exception being that both parties have agreed to play the game that way just to see how it works.
|
Officially elevated by St. God of Yams to the rank of Scholar of the Church of the Children of the Eternal Turtle Pie at 11:42:36 PM 05/01/09
If they are too stupid to live, why make them?
In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank what??!
Tau-*****points(You really don't want to know) |
|
 |
 |
|