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.

Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

pretre wrote: There's literally a passage that tells you how to know when a rule means player vs game turn and you're saying I'm a dick for using it? It's not even an unclearly worded rule. It is very clear.

I am not sure if "hard-nosed" = "a dick".

online dictionary wrote:
hard-nosed
adjective
tough (Informal) practical, realistic, shrewd, hardline, uncompromising, businesslike, hard-headed, unsentimental

So yea, you seem "uncompromising", "hard-headed", "hardline" and "unsentimental" in wanting to use it (or the rules in general), so I think the word wasn't far off. If there's scope in your position for "compromise" and moving away from your "line", I haven't seen it.

I must hurry and say, I didn't expect such harsh critique of 5th edition when I posted. This is not a 5th edition hate thread. So far (two games played) I really like it. I only have those minor wishes.

Also, all those wishing this and that should be weaker or stronger - how about just suggesting point changes? Make powerful units more expensive. Instead of all those rule changes. The rules are quite good as they are I think.

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Zweischneid wrote:So yea, you seem "uncompromising", "hard-headed", "hardline" and "unsentimental" in wanting to use it (or the rules in general), so I think the word wasn't far off. If there's scope in your position for "compromise" and moving away from your "line", I haven't seen it.

I completely don't understand your position is the problem. You are saying that asking to play by a completely unambiguous rule is 'uncompromising', 'hard-headed', 'hardline' and 'unsentimental'?

I'm not even sure what compromise you are looking for... You don't want the word 'turn' to mean player turn except when it explicitly is written otherwise?

pretre wrote:
I completely don't understand your position is the problem. You are saying that asking to play by a completely unambiguous rule is 'uncompromising', 'hard-headed', 'hardline' and 'unsentimental'?

I'm not even sure what compromise you are looking for... You don't want the word 'turn' to mean player turn except when it explicitly is written otherwise?

I don't care a rat's ass about the word "turn". I even acknowledged that even if the rule would explicitly mention "game turn", it would still take "work" by the players to not get loopsided results that allow the 2nd player in a game turn to gain unfair advantages.

The very point is that the RAI (possibly) appears to be that a flat-out moving vehicle destroyed crashes and burns with no survivors. As that is not the result of the application of RAW, the "golden rule" may be raised in a bid for cinematics, to produce the intended results despite the written rules, no matter how clear or unambigious they are, because, as by the golden rules, those rules (even the completely unambiguous ones) are mere guidelines to help you create a table-top representation of an unfolding battle. They are not designed or intended for the arbitration of disputes or differences of opinion (for those, the rule book recommends a die-roll instead).

Zweischneid wrote:I don't care a rat's ass about the word "turn". I even acknowledged that even if the rule would explicitly mention "game turn", it would still take "work" by the players to not get loopsided results that allow the 2nd player in a game turn to gain unfair advantages.

But because it means player turn, as listed in the rules, it does not get lopsided results. It makes it so that the player only loses the vehicle if he is exceptionally careless. In exchange for moving flat-out, he gets a cover save and can't shoot. It is a classic trade-off.

The very point is that the RAI (possibly) appears to be that a flat-out moving vehicle destroyed crashes and burns with no survivors. As that is not the result of the application of RAW, the "golden rule" may be raised in a bid for cinematics, to produce the intended results despite the written rules, no matter how clear or unambigious they are, because, as by the golden rules, those rules (even the completely unambiguous ones) are mere guidelines to help you create a table-top representation of an unfolding battle. They are not designed or intended for the arbitration of disputes or differences of opinion (for those, the rule book recommends a die-roll instead).

Sure, if you want to create a cinemetic narrative scenario, go all MI rule all you want. If, instead, you want to be able to play a game with someone from any part of the world, using the same ruleset and be fairly sure that you are playing by the same rules, go by the rules in the book. If there is a dispute, then you roll off. Why roll off if there is no dispute?

pretre wrote:
Sure, if you want to create a cinemetic narrative scenario, go all MI rule all you want. If, instead, you want to be able to play a game with someone from any part of the world, using the same ruleset and be fairly sure that you are playing by the same rules, go by the rules in the book. If there is a dispute, then you roll off. Why roll off if there is no dispute?

There is a dispute the very moment one players raises the (possible) conflict of RAI with RAW. As by the book and MI, rules are not used to settle disputes. Dice-rolls are.

Or, in short, proper gameplay using "the most important rule"

Step 1: We play the game RAW. As long as noone disagrees, no problem.
Step 2: One player makes a case that RAI might not be reflected by the RAW. This opens two options.

Step 2a: Both players agree that RAW do not reflect RAI and agree on a variation to resolve the situation RAI.

Step 2b: Players disagree over RAW and/or RAI. To solve the dispute, a dice is rolled as per the rulebook.

RAW isn't even in the running anymore beyond step 1. Once Step 2 is made, RAW is out. Disputes are either settled by agreement or by dice-roles according to the rulebook and the MI. RAW applies only as long as no controversy is raised.

If you don't like the way 40K has set up the mechanism to resolve disputes, you might want to go play chess instead. It is the very premise of the golden rule: that rules are not sacrosanct, and thus not an arbitration of disputes.

Zweischneid wrote:Step 1: We play the game RAW. As long as noone disagrees, no problem.
Step 2: One player makes a case that RAI might not be reflected by the RAW. This opens two options.
Step 2a: Both players agree that RAW do not reflect RAI and agree on a variation to resolve the situation RAI.
Step 2b: Players disagree over RAW and/or RAI. To solve the dispute, a dice is rolled as per the rulebook.

RAW isn't even in the running anymore beyond step 1. Once Step 2 is made, RAW is out. Disputes are either settled by agreement or by dice-roles according to the rulebook and the MI. RAW applies only as long as no controversy is raised.

This is wrong.

The Most Important Rule wrote:If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to roll-off and let the dice decide who is right, allowing them to get straight back to blasting each other to pieces. After the game you can happily continue your discussion of the finer points of the rules, or agree how you will both interpret them should the same situation happen again. You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule').

The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choice is entirely yours.

So where in there does it say we have to roll off for a dispute? It says we should 'work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner' and it says what many players do, but it does not instruct us as to how to do so. You saying that the dice-off is the final arbiter is simply incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:If you don't like the way 40K has set up the mechanism to resolve disputes, you might want to go play chess instead. It is the very premise of the golden rule: that rules are not sacrosanct, and thus not an arbitration of disputes.

And if you look at my quote as well, it says that you are free to treat the rules as sacrosanct or not, the choice is up to you. At least read what you're professing first.

It does also say that rules are only sacrosanct "if both players agree" (often also the pre-condition to join tournaments).

If I do not agree to treat them as sacrosanct, they are not.

Playing the game thus with RAW as sacrosanct, is merely one optional variant of playing the game that players can agree to by mutual consent. It is not the default way to play 40K.

Zweischneid wrote:It does also say that rules are only sacrosanct "if both players agree" (often also the pre-condition to join tournaments).

If I do not agree to treat them as sacrosanct, they are not.

But all of this is irrelevant. When people talk about rules on a discussion board, they are looking for the 'RAW answer', so when they go to a place where the rules are adhered to (like a tournament in your example), they will be able to give an answer based on factual information.

Of course, you can always answer every rules question with Most Important Rule, but that gets really tiring and doesn't answer the question. As well, you are free to call anyone who is looking for a RAW answer a 'hard-nosed RAW-junkie' but that is an unfair characterization of someone simply looking for the interpretation that will be most accepted by other people at an event or at a store they are unfamiliar with.

This whole dispute comes back to your unfair characterization of players because they want RAW answers. Retract that and there is no dispute.

pretre wrote:
But all of this is irrelevant. When people talk about rules on a discussion board, they are looking for the 'RAW answer', so when they go to a place where the rules are adhered to (like a tournament in your example), they will be able to give an answer based on factual information.

I am not sure what your beef is?

This is what I did. When someone brought up the "flat-out-transport" issue, I DID point out the RAW answer as this was an internet board. I also added a contextual half-sentence that this RAW might not be the RAI because of the larger theme of this thread as a 6th edition wish-list. Thus, it seemed appropriate to point out that playing more to a (possible) RAI despite the current RAW might already yield the desired effects people in this thread wish for in 6th.

Seeing how you take issue with the very idea of how going against RAW, even in a 6th edition "wish-list-game", proves my characterization of "hard-nosed RAW crowd" quite correct I would say. It is reactions precisely like yours, which did promt my initial "warning" that "some players" would take issue, which has again been proven right.

Zweischneid wrote:I am not sure what your beef is?

My beef is that you were being intentionally dismissive and negative towards anyone who prefers to play by the RAW.

Zweischneid wrote:Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ,

The whole quote is filled with negative phrasing and appears meant to disparage the target of the statement.

Seeing how you take issue with the very idea of how going against RAW, even in a 6th edition "wish-list-game", proves my characterization of "hard-nosed RAW crowd" quite correct I would say.

No, I have never taken issue with 'going against RAW'. I have consistently taken issue with you characterizing people who wish to play by the RAW as something less than people who choose to play the way you do. I completely agree with you that you don't need to always play by RAW. I don't agree that you need to look down on people who choose to play that way.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Byte wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Byte wrote:Bring back Overwatch.

Enable grenades to be thrown again.

Overwatch sounds fun, but would be a bit tricky to introduce. I am sure many will throw fits that they are being shot during their own turn.
should add some more realism in the game (and get those damned DC to GTFO...)

Throwing grenades will be a bit OP though. Just imagine a squad of Assault Marines pepper the guys they are about to charge with some 10 small blasts.

Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Ok, should be worth a shot.

Imagine nuking a squad with the Doomsday ark just as it exits cover
Oh the rage!

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

pretre wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:I am not sure what your beef is?

My beef is that you were being intentionally dismissive and negative towards anyone who prefers to play by the RAW.

I think you are reading things into this. It was you after all who translated "hard-nosed" with being "a dick".

pretre wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Well. The hard-nosed RAW-crowd has a habit of arguing that the opponent's shooting turn is not "in the same turn" as stipulated by this FAQ,

The whole quote is filled with negative phrasing and appears meant to disparage the target of the statement.

Zweischneid wrote:What is "negative phrasing" in that quote? The "hard-nosed RAW-crowd does have a habit of arguing this", as you've proved to the point of caricature. Seems fairly factual.

Whatever, Zweischneid. You apparently are completely unable to comprehend that someone could take a statement like that negatively. Simply know that you chose your words poorly.

And again, as I have pointed out, I'm not arguing your RAW point. I'm arguing that your statement made you sound like you are looking down on people who play by RAW. If that was not your intention, then fair enough, sorry to have bothered you. You might want to look into how you say some things and how they make you look though.

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Rogue Trader and 2nd were less of a wargame so much as a cooperative war-role-playing experience. 8 hours is a bit of hyperbole, but not by much.

Some 2nd edition games were really short like if you're playing orks and your opponent pulls out a virus bomb.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Not at all. The legend grows. The games didnt take that long at all.

Byte wrote:Not at all. The legend grows. The games didnt take that long at all.

The games didn't take 8 hours, but they did take significantly more time (with less points/models) than current games.

1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

pretre wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:

Byte wrote:Both worked fine in 2nd and made things interesting

Yay for 8 hour games! Oh wait... :(

Games in 2nd really took 8 hours?

I thought the old neck beards were kidding

Rogue Trader and 2nd were less of a wargame so much as a cooperative war-role-playing experience. 8 hours is a bit of hyperbole, but not by much.

Some 2nd edition games were really short like if you're playing orks and your opponent pulls out a virus bomb.

Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

1. Why would vehicles need to shoot at two targets?
2. I don't agree with it for area terrain. Maybe obscured by other models, but area terrain is supposed to be a place where you hunker down.
3. Your opponent can shoot at your guy in that tower as long as he is visible, that's how TLOS works.
4. The problem with orks is not their cost.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:1. Vehicles can shoot at more then one target
2. Area Terrain only gives a 5+ instead of 4+
3. Oppenents are able to shoot at my guy that is in a tower...
4. (This is just an ork codex thing) make orks 5 or 4 points...!!!

1) Not likely. Superheavies and machine spirit can do that already

3) Elaborate?

4) They are 6 points. That is reasonable.

Byte wrote:Obviously I agree about RT, but I just can't agree with your statement about 2nd edition. We used to have multi game "black shirt" tourneys at 2000 pts. No big deal.

We have a very different experience then. 2nd had multiple tables for everything, wargear cards, complicated statlines and very heroic characters. Things had a tendency to bog down when your vehicle could take hits in specific areas, then flip over, explode and kill a bunch of folks.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Well, it is true that snipers would be way more effective in real life than in the game. But in real war situations, there would be a lot more use of cover, sides would stay entrenched for hours, waiting for the chance to strike, there would be excessive and long artillery barrages, air support, etc. Plus, everybody's generals would stay at the rear, doing what they should be doing, coordinating the battle and not trying to fight it.

But this is a game of Napoleonics in Space, with big fancy heroes with big fancy gear and nobody wants them to all die or be gimped in the first round or two, or worse, have to keep them hidden all the time. I mean, I'm with you. I prefer games of 40K that are decided by the troops and not by the command elements or elites, but that's not really 40K anymore, lol.

Can't say Im too unhappy with 5th ed. Overwatch would be pretty sweet, and cover making BS penalty.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:But it makes no sense that the snipers can't pick their targets. That is what snipers do! Haven't you seen any war films?

Well, it is true that snipers would be way more effective in real life than in the game. But in real war situations, there would be a lot more use of cover, sides would stay entrenched for hours, waiting for the chance to strike, there would be excessive and long artillery barrages, air support, etc. Plus, everybody's generals would stay at the rear, doing what they should be doing, coordinating the battle and not trying to fight it.

But this is a game of Napoleonics in Space, with big fancy heroes with big fancy gear and nobody wants them to all die or be gimped in the first round or two, or worse, have to keep them hidden all the time. I mean, I'm with you. I prefer games of 40K that are decided by the troops and not by the command elements or elites, but that's not really 40K anymore, lol.

True, but even then, the HQ in the current meta ride around in transports, so target picking won't be that big of a deal.
And even then, it'll train people to start acting strategically and not just rush forward with everything.

However, your statement does put another item on my wishlish

3) More of an emphasis on troops, and not on heroes. This is Warhammer, not warcraft.