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.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Leave it to GW to use more words then needed.

"Heavy vehicles and immobilized skimmers cannot jink."

Done.

Why they always have to be overly wordy is beyond me.

That leaves out the bit where skimmers are given Jink in the first place...

Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Leave it to GW to use more words then needed.

"Heavy vehicles and immobilized skimmers cannot jink."

Done.

Why they always have to be overly wordy is beyond me.

That leaves out the bit where skimmers are given Jink in the first place...

Isn't that given in the core rules? These are FAQ's not errata.

The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

Ah sorry, well then add a second line.

"Skimmers have the rule jink.

Heavy vehicles and immobile skimmers no longer have the rule jink."

At any rate I assume you were ribbing me by being overly pedantic You get my meaning

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.

I'm not assuming any intent as you would notice by my use of 'may have'. With such a poorly worded FAQ that this has turned out to be, it would be a mistake to make an assumption either way.

Lol geedubs.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.

I'm not assuming any intent as you would notice by my use of 'may have'. With such a poorly worded FAQ that this has turned out to be, it would be a mistake to make an assumption either way.

Fair enough, and I am not addressing this at you, but I think this is definitely a case where people some people are being overly pedantic on the internet. Makes sense in YMDC, not so much in news and rumors. I am glad you did it with a link however rather then drag it out in here.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, their wording may have cause other problems as well

Your assuming intent on that one IMHO. makes sense not to have to snapfire once your stopped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The entry under discussion is errata to the rule that gives skimmers Jink.

Ah sorry, well then add a second line.

"Skimmers have the rule jink.

Heavy vehicles and immobile skimmers no longer have the rule jink."

At any rate I assume you were ribbing me by being overly pedantic You get my meaning

Or they could simply stop insisting on wording their erratas as replacing sentences. Just refer to a specific section and simply state "btw, bros, immobilized skimmers lose the jink special rule."

As for the wording, there's a world of difference between a native speaker and someone who has learned English through formal education. I immediately read it as "immobilized skimmers do get jink" because, you know, that's what it actually says.

"Units with the skimmer type possess the jink special rule.

Units with the skimmer type that are immobilized lose the jink special rule."

Out of curiosity, I can't download the FAQs at the moment but judging from the past 3 pages I just read, is there only a single question answered in the entire series of documents? Just checking as the smell of this dead horse is pretty strong if you enter the virtual room...

As is usual, there are questions answered that nobody was asking, some questions answered poorly and massive glaring issues completely overlooked.

Just your usual FAQ update really.

Does the community have to spam their inbox or something? What passes as frequently asked to them?

A FAQ is (probably) something that leads to a fight during one of their in house test games

which explains why sometimes they are actually really useful, but usually don't answer the questions that come up on internet forums when 'RAW' gamers collides with 'RAI' gamers

Herzlos wrote:
The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Funny guy...

 insaniak wrote:
Yay for more loose wording! In trying to fix the 'issue' of immobilised skimmers Jinking, they just said that immobilised vehicles can jink...


And they've just put another nail in Captain Shrike's ability to infiltrate with a unit...




So much stuff that needs fixing, and this is the best they could do.

People argue that the wording of Shrike's rule means that he can always be joined to a nit before deployment, thus granting his USR to said unit.

General Hobbs wrote:
People argue that the wording of Shrike's rule means that he can always be joined to a nit before deployment, thus granting his USR to said unit.

People argue that, yes. And it's how I expect that most people play it. It's not actually what the rule says, though. And now we have the FAQ further complicating the issue.

It's even more frustrating because of the fact that GW are clearly aware that it's an issue, because they fixed it with errata back in 5th edition, before promptly breaking it again for 6th.

This is what we get when GW is staffed by people who seem completely unable to write their way out of a cardboard box combined with a company who could give a feth about the customer's enjoyment of their product after the sale.

The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

For example, in the dedication: "I dedicate this book to my father, John Smith, and God."

Am I dedicating the book to 3 entities, or is John Smith my father? Being the one to make the dedication, the answer is obvious to me, but not so the reader.

Similarly: "I like bacon and eggs"

Do I like bacon and eggs as one meal, or do I like both foods separately? It sounds silly, but if in the context of "I like cream and sugar" it becomes more significant; because, in my coffee, I don't like either cream, or sugar; I only like my coffee with both cream AND sugar.

In any case, in the statement, "Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilized have the Jink special rule." must mean Skimmers that are immobilized do not have the Jink special rules -- we can infer this simply because, otherwise, Skimmers that aren't immobilized don't have Jink, while Skimmers that ARE immobilized do have jink, and that would be silly Gramatically, both are possible and legitimate uses of the English language, but like enjoying cream and sugar in my coffee, contextually, there is only one reasonable resolution.

 scottmmmm wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The fact we're on page 2 shows how unclear it is. We *know* what they mean, but I'm sure we always did. The problem is that we're paying a fortune for this stuff, it should at least be clear.

I really pity anyone trying to understand it when English isn't their native language (like Glaswegians or Spaniards)

Funny guy...

I try. In case you thought I was being nasty, I'm a Weegie myself.

 Talys wrote:
The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

If you can't use English to communicate a simple concept the problem doesn't lie with English, it lies with the writers grasp of it. People with a poor grasp of language should not be writing rules. Probably because they'll end up using ambiguous terms when clear ones are available.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The problem is actually that English has the possibility ambiguity. It can be avoided, but often, the author does not notice the ambiguity when the meaning is clear to themselves.

If you can't use English to communicate a simple concept the problem doesn't lie with English, it lies with the writers grasp of it. People with a poor grasp of language should not be writing rules. Probably because they'll end up using ambiguous terms when clear ones are available.

Agreed. Rules should be as unambiguous and clear as the English language permits.

However, in the specific instance of immobilized vehicles and jink, I equate it to my "cream and sugar" anaology. Put it into context, any reasonable person would read that if I enjoyed cream and sugar with my coffee, I would want both. I don't specifically need to say that I don't want just one and not the other. Similarly, the Jink clause can either mean that only immobilized vehicles have jink, or that only vehicles NOT immobilized have jink. Put in the context of those two possibilities, I don't see how a reasonable person could read the rule as the former.

"Skimmers have the jink special rule, unless they are immobilised or heavy."

That works doesn't it?

 Talys wrote:

However, in the specific instance of immobilized vehicles and jink, I equate it to my "cream and sugar" anaology. Put it into context, any reasonable person would read that if I enjoyed cream and sugar with my coffee, I would want both. I don't specifically need to say that I don't want just one and not the other. Similarly, the Jink clause can either mean that only immobilized vehicles have jink, or that only vehicles NOT immobilized have jink. Put in the context of those two possibilities, I don't see how a reasonable person could read the rule as the former.

The difference is that in your cream and sugar analogy, the reader isn't expected to take your statement of preference as meaning the complete opposite of what you actually say.

So a more apt analogy would be expecting someone to take the statement 'I enjoy cream, but not sugar, in my coffee' to mean that you like both cream and sugar in your coffee... because, you know, that's clearly what you actually meant...

A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

What they need to do is take portion of the 75 - 150 dollars that each person paid for their rule book and hire an editor to go over the next book so that things like FAQs dont even have to happen in the first place. What people are willing to put up with for their hard earned money is just staggering sometimes.

Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:A large part of the problem is that the rules writers just write as if they're having a conversation. They need to write as if they're writing a technical document, something that will be picked apart and analysed, so you have to make sure you write rules the shortest possible way BUT also make sure you include qualifiers whenever something could have multiple interpretations.

Yep -- I agree. Most game rules writers do not seem to be technical writers, but having played games for my entire life, I've just accepted this as a reality, and don't expect my RPG and wargame rulebooks to have the clarity of contracts, laws, and and legal documents.

Besides, have you read any recent bills put through the US Congress? It seems that most of them have ambiguity if you look hard enough (some purposely fuzzy); and the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court seem to enjoy blowing billions of dollars every year ruling over what a few words mean, when the original authors never imagined the context of the argument

Accolade wrote:Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

I'm pretty happy with stating that GW often has rules that use ambiguous language. It just doesn't bother me or diminish my enjoyment of the game or hobby. Frankly, I see way more discussion on the internet about what rules actually mean, than I do at games. There are a couple of guys that most people avoid like the plague because they seem to enjoy rules lawyering, but most people are pretty easy going about rules interpretations. After all, it is, just... a game