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.

I've been looking through some of the issues BCB highlights in his sig block recently. Now I know the intent from a lot of these is clear, but I think it would be great if the intent was unambiguously written as well as being common-sense clear. To that end I've made a sheet summarising the issues, the references, the RAW issues caused, and what I/we think the rule should mean as well as a proposal to make the rule read as I/we think it should in order to make that intent clear.

I fully accept a lot of these things are relatively minor, and I suspect this is one of the reasons some of them have not been addressed: clarifying that Assault weapons can fire after advancing (duh!) is lower priority than balance and gameplay changes. That's where the "proposed fix" comes in: if GW merely need to copy/paste this stuff then it might be low enough workload to be worth doing. That's the "pull" factor for GW: this method makes it easy to do.

So the "push" factor: playerbase. What I'd really like to do is get to a place where the proposed fixes are sufficiently backed that GW know unambiguously that they are de facto rules even if they are not the de jure rules. To that end I'd like lots of feedback on these proposed fixes which could, in a month, translate into a petition to back a Fan-made Errata for Warhammer (FEW) from the playerbase - the many. The plan would be to leave this up for discussion for a month or so and finalise a version which would be put up for backing by petition along the lines of "we, the undersigned, ask GW to take into consideration the following issues with the rules...". With enough people behind it, and with a set of fixes handed to them on a silver platter, GW may bring a good number of these issues - minor as some of them are - into line with how they are intended to be played.

It may well be that my/our interpretation of intent is incorrect and GW may well decide to clarify that intent where I/we've got it wrong - either result is positive, clarifying where there is currently confusion.

To that end I would like comments on, and ideally support of a final version of, the FEW from the many - from you. Please.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XEffZ5iLNjMsIkXBwPCkTCzHmpa3UrVCR5Hg6LRQ4pQ/edit?usp=sharing0


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Would a moderator please explain why this has been moved from YMDC to here?

The purpose of here as stated in the sticky: "The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game."

The sub-heading of YMDC: "Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place."

This thread is not about changes to the actual rules but about clarification. As such the latter seems the better place. This move may be a misunderstanding, but it is coming across as an attempt to dump the conversation into a back alley.

Because you are not asking for rules clarity. You are proposing changes to the RAW.

Its the definition of what this forum is for.

While i like the idea of the mountain of work you have made for yourself, no petition will ever do anything. Then again maybe wh community will do a spot light post on what you submit? Then again it would be a post highlighting the vastness of their incompetence. Why would they shine a light on that?

Maybe I was unclear, then. I want clarity on whether the interpretations made in the "inferred intention" column lines up with expectation, and whether that is aligned with the "proposed fix". That's not a change to RAW, it's an interpretation of HIWPI vs RAW. The *next* step would be proposing a RAW change to align RAW with how it is played.

No I got that. Were you intending to start a second thread for the next step, here, in the proposed rules forum or does it just make sense to have one location for feedback and clarity and the proposal of the final product?

If the second, you are in the correct forum.

I was planning on a separate thread for the finalised proposal.