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.

It sounds like you know some peops that are really in the know!

The writer of the article very clearly states he doesn't want to play by the rules himself, as evidenced by his claim that he's going to take an armor save with a turbo boosted bike.

That is to eliminate anything else the author said in the article. This is not good practice in a debate. I once saw an ad for the Bose Wave radio. In the ad they quoted a notable audio magazine and the review they gave it. The quote read, "The best sound I've ever heard.." The actual FULL quote from the magazine was "The best sound I've ever heard next to my $2 headphones." I would hold that it's not a good idea to take out one piece or sentence of an argument and leave nothing else of the offered opinion intact.

So are you saying the author didn't say he thinks you should make a person D6 it if you want to take an armor save with a turbo boosting bike?

He either did or he didn't say he wanted to do it. Clearly he did, and clearly that is against the rules (and incidentally, the designer's intent).

Which is why the author is full of pooop.

clearly that is against the rules

It's not clearly against the official rules. Because we debated it here for quite some before there was any kind of ruling from GW. And GW's ruling was unofficial.

So, by your logic Ed, since your statement was untrue, are you now full of poop? ;-)

Now you know where I am coming from.

No reasonable need to assume I was referring directly to you, just like there is no reasonable need to assume you were insulting...

see my point?


Being that your post directly addressed talking about rolling a d6, something I stated several times in multiple posts, it was a fair assessment that you were responding to me.


Enough said there.

Now you are just being petty and down right ridiculous. If you read the WHOLE POST you would see that I directly related it to the ARTICLE and not to any one person. Here's the quote as it is posted in my original reply.

Arm chair lawyers are being created by this entire article

 

So you can see where your "fair assessment" is indeed nothing more than an assumption based off of you deciding to read my reply half-assed and take the offense from it.

And since you seem fit to keep bringing this crap back up I will restate what you said that was insulting towards me... (just to keep this whole charade going)

I'm sorry you make that assessment about me, it's quote inaccurate. I never said to not know the rules. I never said to not use the rules in defending your "side" of the disagreement. I never said I was "too lazy" to look up and know a rule. What I did say is if there is a disagreement as to the interpretation of the rules then each state your case concisely. If both sides are unwilling to cede then the quickest resolution is to use a die roll and move on. Makes for quick game flow, avoids argument, and settles the issue. Of course, as I said before, this relies on mature players

So as you can see, had you not ASSUMED that I directed my reply to you personally, then you would not have felt the need to insult me.

But since this is really getting slowed and unecessary why don't you just admit you were wrong to take what I had to say about the ARTICLE as a personal attack against you, which you were.

Now with that over I suppose we can get back to the thread? You know about the ARTICLE and not about poor flyins and poor DaIronGob who both can't seem to just let this misunderstanding die?

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/30/2006 1:44 PM

clearly that is against the rules

It's not clearly against the official rules. Because we debated it here for quite some before there was any kind of ruling from GW. And GW's ruling was unofficial.

So, by your logic Ed, since your statement was untrue, are you now full of poop? ;-)

The fact that it wasn't immediately clear what the rules said doesn't change the fact that they are not ambiguous on this point. We debated it because it wasn't obvious that what the rule was.

But now that it's been examined, it's very, very clear what the rules say, and he knows that. Yet he still calls for the D6.

Hence he's this guy:

In reguards to the bike vs psycannon example, I believe the problem is that GW went the wrong way to buff it while turboboosting. When i think of an invurnable save, i think of energy fields, the light of the Emperor shining down, or something to those affects.

IMO, a better rule for bikes is when turboboosting is to have anyone taking a shot at them reduce their BS by 1 or 2, to represent that they are harder to hit. Under the curent rules, a bike jetting down the field 20 inchs away is just as hard to hit as the side of a Land Raider 10 inchs away. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that logic?

both arguments raise relevant points, and it is the fault of the game designers that it is this way. Playing as per RAW is impossible in 40k as the rules are not written in a clear consistent manner so to play purely by RAW creates contradictions. A degree of common sense is essential to play, however, playing based on what you think the designer's intent was is impossible as everyone's opinion will be different.
Neither method works perfectly, hence debates like this, a balance must be found, with RAW being adhered to as much as possible with common sense and a rational mind set coming into play when RAW fails. GW is perfectly aware of this situation caused by sloppy rules editing, hence the whole "roll a d6 to decide" idea. Unfortunately this doesn't work in a competitive environment where every man and his dog thinks he is right.

As a result, that's why i don't play in tournaments. Thanks GW!
Taking the game that seriously would give me a headache.

Darkchild

If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack.

"If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack."

There are far too many unfortunately.

"If there was an agreed list of unclear points, tournament organisers could provide house rulings on them in the sign-up pack."
There are far too many unfortunately.

Good News! There is such a list: http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&postid=46258&view=topic

Yes BloodyT and that's part of my point as well (I think from my original post). Is it more fun and quicker to discuss all 8000 unclear points prior to a game or just go with the game and d6 it if needed?

To everyone,

Maybe we here in Dakka could write up the entire printable list with all options. Put check boxes next to them so we can mark off our "answers" and then bring that to our games so our opponents can sign off on it.

Remember everyone, just because the ruling may not involve the amries used you still must have a check off on it, because that ruling could be used as precedent for another ruling. Gotta have a signature on all of them! That should make for a fun game!

Flyins, writing as a moderator you are out of line. It was clear in DaIronGob's original post that he was making a broader point, not insulting you personally. You misinterpreted his comments and escalated the situation with your indirect dig at his (and others') maturity. Keep arguing on this line and I will delete more of your posts.

Unethical players who argue the rules to gain advantage have been a problem for many years. It is widely known among competitive gamers that GW's "d6" solution is often manipulated by said unethical gamers to try to break the rules on a 50/50 chance even after the rule which prevents whatever shadiness they are trying has been explained to them. DaIronGob was speculating that this article could have the negative effect of causing more people to try this, including both cheaters and nice-but-misguided people, to everyone's detriment.

Obviously you cannot discuss every ambiguous rule beforehand, but neither will a d6 usually be the best solution. If you can find the appropriate rule with reasonable speed and show it to your opponent, he should have the grace to back down and play by the rules. I have done so on several occasions. Only if the rules are unclear can a d6 be a reasonable compromise, but only unreasonable people will try to claim that it should be the first resort.

Flyins, writing as a moderator you are out of line. It was clear in DaIronGob's original post that he was making a broader point, not insulting you personally. You misinterpreted his comments and escalated the situation with your indirect dig at his (and others') maturity. Keep arguing on this line and I will delete more of your posts.

Clear to you, not clear to me.

Out of line? Ridiculous. Delete that if you want, we'll both know why you did.  The idea of what you let others post without even batting an eye and say I'm out of line is a joke.

It takes 2 to argue a line.

My "dig" at maturity had nothing to do with DaIronGob whatsoever. AGAIN, I've stated my views on maturity from the start in this thread. I'm shocked that one can think DaIronGob's post was not directed at me but then say that comment was directed at him. Silliness.

Russ, just because there's a debate on something doesn't mean it isn't clear.

P1: "In the following enemy Shooting phase, treat the bike's Armour Save as being an Invulnerable Save, to represent the difficulty of hitting such fast-moving targets."
P2: Psycannons ignore invulnerable saves.
C: Psycannons ignore a bike's save when it turbo-boosts.

Raef chose a poor example, damaging his argument badly. Mentioning his lord on a bike makes it even worse, because right now it appears to many people that he is trying to argue against a clear rule to gain personal advantage. You and I know him, and know this is not the case, but he shot himself in the foot a couple of times in his article. But it still rightly makes people concerned (as DaIronGob's post made clear) that Raef may be reinforcing or spreading a very bad behavior found among some GW gamers.

Clear to you, not clear to me.

Out of line? Ridiculous. Delete that if you want, we'll both know why you did. The idea of what you let others post without even batting an eye and say I'm out of line is a joke.

It takes 2 to argue a line.

My "dig" at maturity had nothing to do with DaIronGob whatsoever. AGAIN, I've stated my views on maturity from the start in this thread. I'm shocked that one can think DaIronGob's post was not directed at me but then say that comment was directed at him. Silliness.

Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster.  You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining.

Mannahnin - Don't you think it's odd that the bike would be worse off by turbo-boosting in this case though? Turbo-boosting is supposed to give the bike an advantage for moving that distance without being able to fire. In this case it actually makes them more vulnerable.

I don't think that he was trying to reinforce any bad behavior at all, I think he's relying on folks to handle the situations maturely.

Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster. You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining.

I'll hold to my previous post. I've not insulted DaIronGob one bit. Apparently I'm held to a different standard here. DaIronGob explains himself and I'm to take that and be quiet (or get my post deleted) but if I explain myself then I';m still insulting him.

Gloriously ridiculous. I guess I should have known I needed to be in the Good Ole Boys club to be taken seriously.

Again, delete away, we both know why you did. 

"Flyins, I will let this post stand on the principle of giving you enough rope to hang yourself.

The reason I deleted your post was because you were flaming another poster.  You started the insults, and despite multiple people pointing out that you were most likely misinterpreting DaIronGob's comments, and he himself explaining to you that his comments were not directed at you personally, you refused to see your error and either apologize for your error or even let the subject drop.

You started out "nice but misguided". You're quickly moving on to being seen as neither. CaptAnderton at least was somewhat entertaining."

That is so lame and onesided you should hang yourself.

You're a Mod?

Again, delete away, we both know why you did.

Whoa what did I miss!?!?!

Seriously I was merely trying to compare how posts can be misinterpreted... Man seriously just let this go...

Heck I even started bashing on myself in the last post... misunderstandings are things that happen but getting this worked up over it isn't going to help you or me or anyone.

By the way, I am not a member of the "Good ole boys club" but I would like to know where to sign up!!!

Mannahnin - Don't you think it's odd that the bike would be worse off by turbo-boosting in this case though? Turbo-boosting is supposed to give the bike an advantage for moving that distance without being able to fire. In this case it actually makes them more vulnerable.

From a RAW perspective, I think it's clear.
From a fluff/logic perspective, it makes sense to me that a guy driving his bike at twice the normal speed might be extra vulnerable to being distracted by a psychic assault from a machinegun.
From a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that there is one gun in the game which trumps this special rule.
From a designer's intent argument, when Pete Haines writes online that it does indeed work that way, it seems indicative.

Fluff and logic can be used to argue virtually ANYTHING. I think Orks should be S4 WS3. Hopefully they will be in the next codex. But until they change the RAW, I'll play by the RAW unless it's unplayable.

I don't think that he was trying to reinforce any bad behavior at all, I think he's relying on folks to handle the situations maturely.

But his intent and his effect may be two separate things. I know Raef. I think he's a nice guy and I know he wasn't trying to make it harder for us to spot people who are trying to cheat. But I think it was a badly written article and may have negative consequences.

Seriously I was merely trying to compare how posts can be misinterpreted... Man seriously just let this go...

lol I was trying to man before Mannahnin interjected. I hope you know I was not in any way insulting you, I actually respect you as a poster here than most.

I'd never get worked up over it, it's only an online forum after all. But I will defend myself when I feel it's needed. That's all.

For you and me form my perspective, you can consider this entirely and wholly dropped.

That is so lame and onesided you should hang yourself.

You're a Mod?

Again, what did I miss? Jeesh, now everyone wants a piece of the mods?

But anyway, in regards to the article and thread in general.

My feeling is that I see a common habit coming out of all of this. The players that will abuse the "d6" it by arguing over every last point they can in order to just boil everything down to a "d6".

I am NOT saying that using the d6 is a bad idea, in fact when it comes down to playable situations I would rather do just that instead of spending good quality playing time to argue over it.

Now, my labelling of those who would abuse it is "arm chair lawyers" because IMO they'd rather sit back relax and let everything boil down to a d6. It is an extreme analogy and it does not incorporate or include every person or gamer that has or will use a d6 roll off to determine the outcome. Just like Rules Lawyers, Cheesy Gits, Beardy Gamers are titles for those who take those stereotypes to the "extreme".

Now, my labelling of those who would abuse it is "arm chair lawyers" because IMO they'd rather sit back relax and let everything boil down to a d6. It is an extreme analogy and it does not incorporate or include every person or gamer that has or will use a d6 roll off to determine the outcome. Just like Rules Lawyers, Cheesy Gits, Beardy Gamers are titles for those who take those stereotypes to the "extreme".

Which goes back to my assessment that the article counts on players to be mature. Mature players (both players of cuorse) wouldn't get into these situations because they would never try to pull crap like that.

And we all know there are less-than-mature players out there that would abuse both sides of this argument, but hopefully none of us have to play folks like that too much. I know I wouldn't wish it on anyone, it sucks.

Gloriously ridiculous. I guess I should have known I needed to be in the Good Ole Boys club to be taken seriously.

Again, delete away, we both know why you did.

Again with the oversensitivity and lack of understanding. I am being perfectly honest and open about my reasoning.

If you had asked me two days ago whether we had a member with the handle of "DaIronGob", I would not have been able to tell you.

I am being perfectly honest and open about my reasoning.

If and when you apply your reasoning, "scolding", and editing to all posters here I'll start believing you. Until then, I seriously doubt your honesty.

That's excellent.

"I realize that my argument is devoid of logic or reason, but you sir are immature, therefore I must be right.".

So basically, if you don't make any sense, simply insult the other person and you win the debate, right?

You should run for office!

 

Doubt away. I am an inherently flawed and limited human being, with finite time to spend on these forums. It is logical (though unjust) that I will be able to spare more time and attention to an issue which interests me, or which occurs on a day when I have time to spare on the computer. I have also often left more inappropriate comments untouched when I felt that other posters already had the situation well in hand.

The nature of deleting posts is that only the people reading that thread and paying attention have a chance of noticing. One of the longtime members recently said "welcome back" to me in a thread where I deleted CaptAnderton's posts and "scolded" him for his behavior. Despite the fact that I have been frequenting the forums, he hadn't been aware. I just haven't had as much time to actually post as I used to, so most of my moderation has been confined to moving, deleting, or editing the occasional inappropriate post, and many posters haven't even noticed my presence. Russ rarely has time to post either, and so often gives the sense of being absent despite the constant work he puts into the site.

My feeling is that I see a common habit coming out of all of this. The players that will abuse the "d6" it by arguing over every last point they can in order to just boil everything down to a "d6".

How often have you ever had to d6 it? I rarely ever see this happen a tournament. One player is invariably a good buddy with the judge and usually gets their way... that is wot it really is.

Never happened to or against me in any tournament I've played. I would express my sympathy for your bad situation vis a vis poor judges at your local tournaments, but I am not certain that the situation is as you describe it.

How often have you ever had to d6 it?

Oh maybe once or twice that I can actually recall it having an effect on the game... but that's not really my point.

My point is that because this guy posts an article in WD that some gamers will take what is said as gospel and just start ending every argument or rules discussion with "d6 it" giving them a 50% to get their way everytime... I mean sometimes the answer is clear if you can show them but I am thinking that these players will insist on a "d6" simply because he disagrees with you..

It takes little time to flip open a rulebook to back a claim so as long as we've exhausted that route I don't mind rolling a "d6" on problematic situations.