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.

Dark reapers both do and don't hit on 3's in Overwatch.

Autarch Path of Command and Captain General Trajaan both can and cannot regenerate command points during deployment.

Cadre Fireblade's Volley Fire only works at half range but FAQ states it works at full range.

Paroxysm prevents a unit from using the "Fight next" stratagem, but the identical effect from the Vexator Mask does allow you to, and no clarification on whether it works with the Armour of Russ or not.

I am certain I am missing a couple more but I cannot find/remember them right now.

Is it really too much to ask for a company that sells 50 pence of plastic for £100 to have even the most basic level of quality control when it comes to the rules?

95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

He's also ruining dakka for some people by derailing many threads in an attempt to justify his hate for GW/the game. Its getting really irritating at this point.

Oh hey, I love gish gallops. It's so fun to come in guns a' blazin' with a bunch of references to arguments you probably had somewhere else, without linking those arguments, or backing up your assertions in any way. Just reference 'em and hope people take your word on it as an authority! After all, you just said a lot of things.

Seems like your first, second, and fourth examples here all rely on the game system not having "general rules are trumped by more specific rules/rulings" as a foundation of game design.

If a FAQ answer says, generally "treat overwatch like the shooting phase" and then another FAQ answer says "this ability does not work in Overwatch" that would appear to be an example of a specific exception being added to a general rule to preclude a particular abuse case of a new rule. Wouldn't it?

Your second point does indeed appear to be an example based on a mistaken reading of the Fireblade's rule, which specifically says the ability only works within half range of the weapon. Though I don't the examples given as hypotheticals in the FAQ are usually taken as Rule Gospel, at least not by your congregation?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

You're saying in order to play the game "properly" you need to ignore the rules? Does that not immediately show the game rules are poorly written? I have not ruined anything, GW has.

You guys are being pretty Obtuse I think. BCB has a great point. This company makes millions and doesn't care about their rule products at all...like...why don't they do a preliminary release so we can find all their mistakes and then they fix it with a final product? It doesn't take a lot of a brain power to figure that out. It is as BCB states. Sheer incompetence. It needs to be pointed out and criticized.

Complaining for the sake of complaining is bad. Not complaining for the sake of not complaining is worse IMO.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

You're saying in order to play the game "properly" you need to ignore the rules? Does that not immediately show the game rules are poorly written? I have not ruined anything, GW has.

Just stop, clearly we dont play the game for the same reason. When at the core of the game rules there is a "roll off to decide" its clear that it wont have perfect rules, and you keep bargin in with your RAW is god bs. People have tried to reason with you but you keep coming back with the same old arguments and pestering people in hopes of them suddenly agreeing with you.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Just stop, clearly we dont play the game for the same reason. When at the core of the game rules there is a "roll off to decide" its clear that it wont have perfect rules, and you keep bargin in with your RAW is god bs. People have tried to reason with you but you keep coming back with the same old arguments and pestering people in hopes of them suddenly agreeing with you.

"Just ignore the rules" is not reasoning.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You guys are being pretty Obtuse I think. BCB has a great point. This company makes millions and doesn't care about their rule products at all...like...why don't they do a preliminary release so we can find all their mistakes and then they fix it with a final product? It doesn't take a lot of a brain power to figure that out. It is as BCB states. Sheer incompetence. It needs to be pointed out and criticized.

BCB is a guy in the subway day after day screaming about the betrayals of the government.

You can have a point, even a good point, about the injustices committed by that government. But after yelling the same way in the same tone day after day and never once getting out of the subway car and yelling somewhere else, like say, the state house, it becomes increasingly obvious that the guy is in the subway car because it's comfortable and warm and they don't kick him out, and he's yelling about the government because it's the thing he knows he'll get attention for if he does.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Just stop, clearly we dont play the game for the same reason. When at the core of the game rules there is a "roll off to decide" its clear that it wont have perfect rules, and you keep bargin in with your RAW is god bs. People have tried to reason with you but you keep coming back with the same old arguments and pestering people in hopes of them suddenly agreeing with you.

"Just ignore the rules" is not reasoning.

Ok lets take the pregame CP regen vs tactical restraint as an example.

(obivously i will be praphrasing but please dont use that against me, my message is clear)

Would you rather that the rule say :

Tactical restraint : You cannot regen CPs for pregame stratagems except if by the ability of the autarch, trajann, x, y, z (keep enumerating the exceptions)

OR :

Tactical restraint : You cannot regen CPs for pregame stratagems.
Path of Command : This ability works for pregame stratagems.

the second way is much cleaner and follows the basic principle of specific rules overriding generic rules.


In both these , you still arent ignoring a rule, youre just using the more specific rule for a certain ability.

Wait, so does dark reapers hit on 3+ or 6's only during overwatch?

Yeah BCB can be obnoxious (most of the time) but this is actually very important note.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

You're saying in order to play the game "properly" you need to ignore the rules? Does that not immediately show the game rules are poorly written? I have not ruined anything, GW has.

"Properly", "correct", and "right" are each context-dependent.

The "correct" way to do something varies by a number of factors. For instance, if terrain is set up per some set of rules, the game is a "friendly" game, and both players would rather make the same alteration to the terrain because it makes the board more "narrative"-friendly or whatever, the "correct" way, in this case is to make the change. However, all else being the same but it being a formal tournament game where that's not permitted, the "correct" way is to *not* make the change.

Similarly with Overwatching on 2s with Maugan Ra. If two people are playing the game and what they enjoy is being as pedantic as possible, the "correct" way is to have Maugen Ra overwatch on 2s. In almost every other case, players would rather play with him overwatching on 6s - and so that's the "correct" way.

All that said, there's an explicit rule saying Reapers can't use IA on Overwatch, and no rule that explicitly says they can, as discussed in YMDC (although there is either an outdated explanation, or a rule clarification that changes nothing, immediately after that rule - either way, doesn't matter). Leman Russes can't fire twice in Overwatch because of how the rules are written. So even in places where GW did some questionable rules writing, the actual rules still work much better than expected.

Bharring wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
95% of players know how to properly play the game. I don't know if this brings you pleasure, or if you honestly care about this, but wow, this is kinda sad.

This reminds me of a professor I once had in college. Mr. Tempesta would flip out when students would stumble over the correct dates and names of the various historical events he would have us research. No one student could possibly ever succeed, and he was always taking this perverse pleasure in pointing out weakness and mistakes.

You have completely ruined the game for yourself. Which begs the question: why bother? This can't be enjoyable for you.

You're saying in order to play the game "properly" you need to ignore the rules? Does that not immediately show the game rules are poorly written? I have not ruined anything, GW has.

"Properly", "correct", and "right" are each context-dependent.

The "correct" way to do something varies by a number of factors. For instance, if terrain is set up per some set of rules, the game is a "friendly" game, and both players would rather make the same alteration to the terrain because it makes the board more "narrative"-friendly or whatever, the "correct" way, in this case is to make the change. However, all else being the same but it being a formal tournament game where that's not permitted, the "correct" way is to *not* make the change.

Similarly with Overwatching on 2s with Maugan Ra. If two people are playing the game and what they enjoy is being as pedantic as possible, the "correct" way is to have Maugen Ra overwatch on 2s. In almost every other case, players would rather play with him overwatching on 6s - and so that's the "correct" way.

All that said, there's an explicit rule saying Reapers can't use IA on Overwatch, and no rule that explicitly says they can, as discussed in YMDC (although there is either an outdated explanation, or a rule clarification that changes nothing, immediately after that rule - either way, doesn't matter). Leman Russes can't fire twice in Overwatch because of how the rules are written. So even in places where GW did some questionable rules writing, the actual rules still work much better than expected.

I thought the issue was GW confirming that for all rules purposes overwatch is a shooting attack made in the shooting phase wasn't it? I missed that discussion can you link me?

 skchsan wrote:
Wait, so does dark reapers hit on 3+ or 6's only during overwatch?

Yeah BCB can be obnoxious (most of the time) but this is actually very important note.

Check YMDC. The argument is based on using IA in Overwatch.

The FAQ for IA for "Can I use it in Overwatch" says "No.". Then something about IA can only be used in the shooting phase.

Since Overwatch is now the shooting phase, the argument is that since it can only be used in the shooting phase, you can now use IA.

Note that such a reading requires you to ignore the flat "No." given as an answer to the question

Almost everybody agrees that, RAW, the answer is "No.".

 skchsan wrote:
Wait, so does dark reapers hit on 3+ or 6's only during overwatch?

Yeah BCB can be obnoxious (most of the time) but this is actually very important note.

Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer
mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on
Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in
the Shooting phase.


it litterally tells you that they don't hit on 3's.

What is more specific, overwatch being treated as in the shooting phase, or the flat "No" to the answer?

Bharring wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Wait, so does dark reapers hit on 3+ or 6's only during overwatch?

Yeah BCB can be obnoxious (most of the time) but this is actually very important note.

Check YMDC. The argument is based on using IA in Overwatch.

The FAQ for IA for "Can I use it in Overwatch" says "No.". Then something about IA can only be used in the shooting phase.

Since Overwatch is now the shooting phase, the argument is that since it can only be used in the shooting phase, you can now use IA.

Note that such a reading requires you to ignore the flat "No." given as an answer to the question

Almost everybody agrees that, RAW, the answer is "No.".

RaW the answer is no, but the FAQ ignores the RaW by stating that anything that applies to the shooting phase now applies to overwatch.

FAQs are Rules, and FAQs as written are Rules as Written.

QED, FAQs are RAW by definition.

And then even if they do clear up Dork Reaper in the Overwtach, they most likely will fail to fix Inescapable Death. So Maugan Ra will be hitting on 2+ in Overwatch forever.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Wait, so does dark reapers hit on 3+ or 6's only during overwatch?

Yeah BCB can be obnoxious (most of the time) but this is actually very important note.

Check YMDC. The argument is based on using IA in Overwatch.

The FAQ for IA for "Can I use it in Overwatch" says "No.". Then something about IA can only be used in the shooting phase.

Since Overwatch is now the shooting phase, the argument is that since it can only be used in the shooting phase, you can now use IA.

Note that such a reading requires you to ignore the flat "No." given as an answer to the question

Almost everybody agrees that, RAW, the answer is "No.".

RaW the answer is no, but the FAQ ignores the RaW by stating that anything that applies to the shooting phase now applies to overwatch.

so then for it to satisfy you, the "as if" rule should use this template : anything that applies to the shooting phase now applies to overwatch except for the dark reaper's inescapable accuracy (+ all the other would be exceptions)?

I mean, the thrice contradicted statement is pretty bogus.

P1: IA works only in shooting phase.
P2: Overwatch is counted as shooting in the shooting phase.
P3: IA doesn't work in overwatch.

But yeah, there's noway IA should work in overwatch but that GW writing doe...

 skchsan wrote:
I mean, the thrice contradicted statement is pretty bogus.

P1: IA works only in shooting phase.
P2: Overwatch is counted as shooting in the shooting phase.
P3: IA doesn't work in shooting phase.

But yeah, there's noway IA should work in overwatch but that GW writing doe...

i agree that the wording needs work, but the most specific of these 3 is that IA doesnt work in the overwatch.

Thats not the point of this threat however. I have to agree with BCB that the rules provided by GW should be written better. What ticks me off is his RAW vs intent war that he seems to be raging, with his TFG attitude when it comes to respecting the RAW. That and his tendency with derailing threads.

Maybe they just missed some of the stuff, like paroxysm and the mask for example, and they will just fix those later on.

 skchsan wrote:
I mean, the thrice contradicted statement is pretty bogus.

P1: IA works only in shooting phase.
P2: Overwatch is counted as shooting in the shooting phase.
P3: IA doesn't work in shooting phase.

But yeah, there's noway IA should work in overwatch but that GW writing doe...

...I don't know if you intentionally swapped "shooting phase" with "overwatch" there? But if you didn't, it seems totally logical to say

Rule 1: IA works in shooting phase.

Rule Change 2: Overwatch is now counted as shooting in the shooting phase.

Rule Change 3: IA doesn't work in overwatch.

Even if you make RC3 before RC2...you still end up in the same place. An exception exists for IA that prevents it from working in overwatch.

the_scotsman wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I mean, the thrice contradicted statement is pretty bogus.

P1: IA works only in shooting phase.
P2: Overwatch is counted as shooting in the shooting phase.
P3: IA doesn't work in shooting phase.

But yeah, there's noway IA should work in overwatch but that GW writing doe...

...I don't know if you intentionally swapped "shooting phase" with "overwatch" there? But if you didn't, it seems totally logical to say

Rule 1: IA works in shooting phase.

Rule Change 2: Overwatch is now counted as shooting in the shooting phase.

Rule Change 3: IA doesn't work in overwatch.

Even if you make RC3 before RC2...you still end up in the same place. An exception exists for IA that prevents it from working in overwatch.

Yeah that was a typo.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Autarch Path of Command and Captain General Trajaan both can and cannot regenerate command points during deployment.

The FAQs are not exclusively for Matched Play. 'Tactical Restraint' is a Matched Play rule. You can regenerate Command Points during deployment in Open and Narrative games.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Autarch Path of Command and Captain General Trajaan both can and cannot regenerate command points during deployment.

The FAQs are not exclusively for Matched Play. 'Tactical Restraint' is a Matched Play rule. You can regenerate Command Points during deployment in Open and Narrative games.

This is the best proof that rules should be considered with a specific > generic approach.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Autarch Path of Command and Captain General Trajaan both can and cannot regenerate command points during deployment.

The FAQs are not exclusively for Matched Play. 'Tactical Restraint' is a Matched Play rule. You can regenerate Command Points during deployment in Open and Narrative games.

That doesn't change the fact that we have contradictory FAQs for Matched play. The Autarch FAQ does not change when in matched play, you have now contradictory FAQs.

BCB is indeed being very pedantic but he is nonetheless right. The patch fixes are all over the places.

Again, it's not contradictory. Different ways to play have different rules. and only Matched Play has the 'Tactical Restraint' rule.

All "games" are defined by rules.

It would utterly "ruin" your favorite sport on TV if they ignored the rules, especially if it was not in favor of your favorite team.
So before people spout off how "sad" discussing the minute details of the rules, think how much the talking heads of sports broadcasters go on for hours about games.
In this same vein, every so many years no matter how established a game is, they tweak a rule here and there to make the game more challenging or fun when certain elements of the game get pushed/abused.
There needs to be a certain minimum level of care taken to not anger your game players/viewers by passing a "poor" rule.

American "football": Fumble out of the end zone.
Football (Soccer): Goalkeepers coming off their line at penalties (and shot not retaken).
Hockey: 3-on-3 overtime format.

Mention of some of the above will make many grown men froth at the mouth.

Why should tabletop, be any different?
Anyone moving a piece wrong in chess would be a table flip event.

Contradictory rules is a fundamental no-no which is a case of bad editing and the consumer/fan not losing their minds enough to harrass for a change.
I can relate to BaconCatBug's irritation of badly reviewed changes.
I must admit that compared to mistakes in the past, these seem trivial in comparison but that is just focusing on Eldar, nevermind other errors.