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.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You keep assuming that people arguing RAW also play that way.
Don't do that. It's an extremely bad assumption.

pucadubh wrote:So are you agreeing that it is an 'extra' movement preceeding the normal phases of Turn 1 (which is how I read FAQ 1.5) or that it is in fact a Turn 0?

It being a Movement Phase or not is irrelevant. It's not a turn.

Smoke Launchers state

The vehicle may not fire any of its weapons in the same turn as it used its smoke launchers

It didn't use them in Turn One, therefore it may shoot in Turn One.

As I said, this has existed since Stormtroopers in the Imperial Guard Codex, and Scout Sentinels (and Creeeeeed!) - so for it to have never been prevented is a damning indictment of fallacious 'intent' arguments.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

Actually, my gaming group doesn't tolerate people saying that they don't want to play by the rules in a way that indicates their way is the 'better' way to play.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You keep assuming that people arguing RAW also play that way.
Don't do that. It's an extremely bad assumption.

That's fair enough. Not everyone who points out a loophole uses it.

Elessar wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

Actually, my gaming group doesn't tolerate people saying that they don't want to play by the rules in a way that indicates their way is the 'better' way to play.

If your gaming group lets you pop smoke then shoot and claim a 4+ cover save, they're tools.

Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Elessar wrote:Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an
attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Yes it's in the rules. Do you even know what "loophole" means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
Yes it's within the rules.
But we are not in a court of law. It's obvious what the intention of the rule is (even if you refue to acknoledge that). It's also obvious that it gives one player a massive advantage that he is not supposed to have, namely being able to pop smoke AND fire his weapons.

Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

It's hardly all that big an advantage, but perhaps I play at a higher level than you and know that skilled players will be able to have Cover on an appropriately terrain-ed board virtually all the time anyway.

Joey wrote:

Elessar wrote:Of course they do, as I them. It's called The Rules.

It isn't my fault if you lack the ability or desire to play the game according to the rules we are given to play it by - and that you lack the social graces that are assumed in polite company. Frankly, with an
attitude like yours, I'm surprised you GET games...

Yes it's in the rules. Do you even know what "loophole" means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
"A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."
Yes it's within the rules.
But we are not in a court of law. It's obvious what the intention of the rule is (even if you refue to acknoledge that). It's also obvious that it gives one player a massive advantage that he is not supposed to have, namely being able to pop smoke AND fire his weapons.

Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

Lorek wrote:4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

We are arguing the RAW, the RAW is clear, if you want to argue HYWPI, thats fine, but please state that is what you are doing so as to avoid confusing other people reading this thread.

Oh and Elessar - Orks have deathkoptas (sp?) jetbikes with scout since the start of 5th.

Elessar wrote:Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

It's hardly all that big an advantage, but perhaps I play at a higher level than you and know that skilled players will be able to have Cover on an appropriately terrain-ed board virtually all the time anyway.

No, skilled players will grant their infantry cover 99% of the time. Vehicles are a different beast altogether.

Of course.

My apologies, I should not have forgotten a unit I've used dozens of times like a Took.

I also forgot Possessed, because they suck - but they can indeed Smoke in their Scout.

i deliberately omitted Cato Sicarius' limited tactical ability passing it onto a Tactical Squad, but no-one seems to have noticed...

Joey - it's scarcely harder to get Cover for vehicles. For Reals.

ItsPug wrote:
Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

We can because, unlike you, we have reading comphrehension abilities.
Consider the popping smoke rule. It grants you a 4+ cover save against all attacks, in return for you sacrificing shooting. We can therefore infer that the purpose of this rule is a one-off sacrifice of shooting ability, in return for prolonged durability.
The loophole described in this thread goes against that intent, by allowing you to shoot AND claim a 4+ smoke cover save. It is therefore against the intent of the rules.
Honestly, what do they teach kids these days...

Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Elessar wrote:Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

What? If you want to retain hurricane bolters' defensive weapon-ness, don't take hurricane bolters.

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

GW's games are just fine.
I'd be fine with you scouting your Bhaal then shooting, but I don't want you complaining when I lay all my models ont heir sides when I go to ground, and deny you LOS (also completely RAW).

Joey wrote:

Elessar wrote:Equally then, we can infer the purpose of Psybolt Ammo is to make your guns better.

Since not being Defensive anymore is a DETRIMENT, Stormravens' Hurricane Bolters should be able to fire at Cruising Speed, as it is the Designers' "intent".

Oh, but that's horsegak. Damn.

What? If you want to retain hurricane bolters' defensive weapon-ness, don't take hurricane bolters.
I'mma assume that's a typo...

imweasel wrote:

Joey wrote:The mental leaps people go to in order to justify exploiting loop holes like this is extraordinary. You guys must have very tolerant gaming groups.

You even admit that by RAW, it's the correct ruling. This is you make da call. We are not talking ethics here. Take that to general discussion since it irritates you so much.

We just play by the rules. Why do you think gw gets such a bad rep in game design?

GW's games are just fine.
I'd be fine with you scouting your Bhaal then shooting, but I don't want you complaining when I lay all my models ont heir sides when I go to ground, and deny you LOS (also completely RAW).

That's fine, it "shouldn't" be in the rules, but it is. Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Elessar wrote:Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Really?

I think I could point to an entire forum full of posts that would disagree with that assertion. Wait, we're posting in that very forum right now.

Their FAQ's, which are supposed to help answer questions about their rules, easily cause as much consternation as the rules they are supposed to fix.

Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

imweasel wrote:

Elessar wrote:Most of the reason GW gets a bad rep is from people not actually reading the rules properly, or not playing by them as it doesn't suit them.

The rules certainly aren't watertight, but they're a damn sight better than they get given credit for most of the time (not that that's hard...)

Really?

I think I could point to an entire forum full of posts that would disagree with that assertion. Wait, we're posting in that very forum right now.

Their FAQ's, which are supposed to help answer questions about their rules, easily cause as much consternation as the rules they are supposed to fix.

You know as well as I most of those question are easy to answer. Most people are idiots, there's no reason why most tabletop gamers would be different in that regard, and they aren't.

Sure, the FAQs also create new questions, but the game could be a whole hell of a lot worse. Imagine they never bothered with FAQs, just erratas, for instance.

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

Joey wrote:

ItsPug wrote:
Except there is no ambiguity. They are worded exactly like another rule, and differently to a similiar rule. The rules do exactly what they say. And as no one here can know the intent of the author, arguing intent is a waste of time.

We can because, unlike you, we have reading comphrehension abilities.
Consider the popping smoke rule. It grants you a 4+ cover save against all attacks, in return for you sacrificing shooting. We can therefore infer that the purpose of this rule is a one-off sacrifice of shooting ability, in return for prolonged durability.
The loophole described in this thread goes against that intent, by allowing you to shoot AND claim a 4+ smoke cover save. It is therefore against the intent of the rules.
Honestly, what do they teach kids these days...

I lack reading comprehension abilities? I read exactly what it said, and explained exactly what it means, you are the one "inferring" what the rules actually say to mean something else.

1) Smoke launchers say you cannot shoot in the same turn that you use them (pg 62, middle to end of second paragraph)
2) Smoke launchers may be triggered after the vehicle makes a normal move, irregardless of movement speed (pg 62, start of second paragraph)
3) Scouts rule allows a vehicle to make a normal move prior to the start of the game (pg76)
4) Scout moves occur before turn 1 starts (pg 92 and 93 "make any scout moves. Start the game...begin turn 1")
5) Smoke launchers grant obscured status in the next enemy shooting phase (pg 76 last sentence, second paragraph)

Still with me? Thats all RAW, citations and all.

So point 3) allows me to use point 2) to activate smoke. Point 4) means point 1) does not stop me shooting in my first turn. Point 5) means I get a coversave in your next (which happens to be your first) shooting phase.

Hopefully that'll help with your comprehension problem, the reading problem you'll have to fix yourself.

Oh and as to what they teach kids these days? in my case it would be law. can't speak for anyone else, unlike yourself, who likes to speak as to the intent of the author(s) of a document, a person or persons, you have in all likelyhood, never even met or had contact with.

You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

Elessar wrote:

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

I wish you'd stop 'forgetting' the inverted commas on the word 'loophole' since you have no proof it isn't a desired part of the game.

You can rest assured that neither ItsPug or myself would play you outside a tournament game, if I may be so bold as to speak for him. If you wish to GtG every turn that would work perfectly fine by me, personally I require a Movement Phase, it being the most important and whatever.

Also, if it were actually fine by you that people play this way, I doubt you'd have commented so many times on it, or indeed with such venom.

Elessar wrote:


keithb wrote:
Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.


You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.


Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

Saying I wouldn't trust him enough to not take advantage is not the same as saying he WOULD take advantage.

I think the subtleties of the English language are passing over you here.

To reiterate - saying I would deny him the (easy) opportunity to cheat is not the same as saying he would do so if not prevented.

Anyone who forces someone to play by something other than the rules through passive-aggression or having a 'dominant' personality and a strong opinion, however, is in fact cheating. So, if he played someone he'd never met and told them during their Scout move that he'd pack up and walk off if they tried this maneuver, (which I'm not saying he would do...) then that WOULD be cheating. Bullying the opponent into doing things your way is cheating.

So, if anyone reading this would behave that way, I'm calling THEM a cheater. And a jerk.

keithb wrote:

Elessar wrote:

keithb wrote:Elessar, I think it is a bit over the top when you guys are discussing loopholes to accuse Joey of being a cheater.

I did no such thing. Also, it is HE asserting it is a loophole. I'm saying that it has existed as long as the Edition, and is therefore an intended part of the system.

You said this:

Don't be surprised when I stand at your shoulder to ensure you don't steal distance when standing the models up again.

Suggesting you need to watch him do things to ensure he doesn't cheat, is implying he is a cheater.

Someone trying to pop smoke and shoot in the same turn, is suggesting that *I* am a cheater.
And people say dakka has no sense of irony

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

I ignored what you said as most of it was either a personal attack stating that because I did not agree with your interpretation of the intent of the author I lacked reading comprehension skills, or an argument as to the intent of an author you have, in all likelyhood, never met, spoken to or had knowledge of. I responded by showing that I had both read and comprehended the rule as it is written, and because the question is "Is this a legal action according to the rules" to which the answer is "Yes".

I ignored your inferrence of intent as its a fallacy to state you know what was in the author's head when he wrote it. I would also point out, and have done so before, that there is another rule worded in exactly the same way, which has been in the 5th edition rulebook since its very first printing, and despite numerous Erratas and FAQ's since its printing, this rule has not been changed. surely that gives the implication that the rule works exactly as intended, especially since we have another similiar rule (flat out) that does not work in this way.

And to your final point, yes I do wish to play the game by the rules, I would assume most other people do as well. if you don't wish to play by the rules then thats fine too, but you should reach an agreement with your opponent before the game as to which other rules you intend to ignore.

Oh and if you intended to lay down you models to deny LOS I would ask you to point out where it tells you you can stand them back up again when your finished. here's a clue it doesn't so I hope you can draw LOS from the ground too.

Scout moves aren't in ANY turn.

I'm not suggesting you cheat.

Suggesting you can't understand what you read, however...

ItsPug wrote:

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

I ignored what you said as most of it was either a personal attack stating that because I did not agree with your interpretation of the intent of the author I lacked reading comprehension skills, or an argument as to the intent of an author you have, in all likelyhood, never met, spoken to or had knowledge of. I responded by showing that I had both read and comprehended the rule as it is written, and because the question is "Is this a legal action according to the rules" to which the answer is "Yes".

I ignored your inferrence of intent as its a fallacy to state you know what was in the author's head when he wrote it. I would also point out, and have done so before, that there is another rule worded in exactly the same way, which has been in the 5th edition rulebook since its very first printing, and despite numerous Erratas and FAQ's since its printing, this rule has not been changed. surely that gives the implication that the rule works exactly as intended, especially since we have another similiar rule (flat out) that does not work in this way.

And to your final point, yes I do wish to play the game by the rules, I would assume most other people do as well. if you don't wish to play by the rules then thats fine too, but you should reach an agreement with your opponent before the game as to which other rules you intend to ignore.

Oh and if you intended to lay down you models to deny LOS I would ask you to point out where it tells you you can stand them back up again when your finished. here's a clue it doesn't so I hope you can draw LOS from the ground too.

Again, good luck finding opponants with your smoke popping vehicles that you still intend to shoot.
I'm outa here.

Good luck in finding opponents with your passive-aggressive 'play it my way' attitude!

Hopefully when 6th rolls around you'll decide the rules are more to your liking and won't have to ignore so many.

Pug - you up for a game in 2 weeks or so?

Elessar wrote:Except, if it were the intent of the designers, they'd have corrected it in the last four years. They haven't.

Considering it has never seen widespread abuse until recently, and how notoriously slow/bad GW is at correcting rules, this is a false assumption.

This is the same company that doggedly stated "deal with 3 different rules for stormshields, two different sets of rules for assault cannons, three different sets of rules for PotMS, etc" for over two years before deciding to fix that for their largest armies, and which still hasn't removed restrictions on a couple older armies that relate to previous edition rules that no longer exist (e.g. Black Templars still having to test for target priority even though the rule is gone)

Elessar wrote:Good luck in finding opponents with your passive-aggressive 'play it my way' attitude!

trying to use loopholes that most people have never heard of and would assume is not the way it's intended to be played without the most strict RAW interpretation is likely to lose you a lot of opponents as well.

Depends on your definition of widespread I suppose.

Where were other Assault Cannon rules? Was there a separate profile in BTs?

Elessar wrote:You know as well as I most of those question are easy to answer. Most people are idiots, there's no reason why most tabletop gamers would be different in that regard, and they aren't.

Sure, the FAQs also create new questions, but the game could be a whole hell of a lot worse. Imagine they never bothered with FAQs, just erratas, for instance.

Here are a couple of rhetorical questions:

1) Have you ever actually printed out all the faq/errata material for 40k from gw's site? it's the size of a small telephone book. Easy to answer?

2) Have you ever read the inat faq? And that's something most 'major' TO's go by!

Imagine if they (meaning gw) actually wrote some halfway decent rules that didn't require dicing off to determine who's interpretation is correct? I can point out numerous game systems that have managed to achieve this (in miniature gaming systems) and they don't have the benefit of 5 editions and 25 YEARS of feedback/play test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:You've completely ignored what I said and simply re-iterated the loophole.
If you want to play the game like that, then that's fine. Just don't expect other people to be cool with it, and if you used it on me I'd start puling out every single gamey technically legal trick I had in order to piss you off including, as I said above, laying down units to deny line of sight.

Well, if you want to start another thread about the RAW of laying down models...please, go right ahead.

You keep arguing 'ethics'. This is you make da call. It's about RAW. I'm not sure any longer about who has problems with reading comprehension at this point...