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.

bigtmac68 wrote:Just ask the guys involved in the INAT FAQ how much time is involved. Read one YMDC thread. It's not as easy as it seems.

I disagree completely. Alot of the arguments on YMDC are because the rules are not clear, and can be interpreted one of two ways. If GW would just say that it's one way and not the other, there wouldn't be any arguments. How hard is it to say, "Well hey, we didn't intend for Painboyz to have 'eavy armor." Problem solved.

Danny Internets wrote:

Just ask the guys involved in the INAT FAQ how much time is involved. Read one YMDC thread. It's not as easy as it seems.

Trying to accurately decipher the intentions of others based on some scraps of poor written rules is difficult, however it takes hardly any effort at all for GW to simply state their own intentions.

The only effort required on their part at all is really to identify the questions that need answering. Half of the FAQs consist of rules changes rather than clarifications anyway. It would take a competent intern all of 10 minutes to slap a PDF together and upload it to the GW website.

Sure once that intern has the answers to the questions. That requires taking the time to get the questions and taking the time to get the answers, neither of which the sole intern is qualified to do. That is the problem, I just dont think they care enough to take the time because people like you and me who actually care about well written rules are in such a minority.

And remember its not just that they feel we are not as important as the casual gamer, but that we actually drive them away so are a detriment to the hobby as a whole. Im not saying I agree, only that this is thier repeatedly published point of view. ( Primarilly Jervis here again)

I agree that it would not take much effort to maintain it, or to post it, but I do think that the effort to actually think it up is one they are reluctant to do. Especially since no matter what they rule, they get only negative feedback about it. Thats why I think that we almost never see anyone from GW online other than the event staff ( who have been doing great lately!!!! ) no matter what they rule or say, the will just get beaten over the head about it by the people who did not like the ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:

bigtmac68 wrote:Just ask the guys involved in the INAT FAQ how much time is involved. Read one YMDC thread. It's not as easy as it seems.

I disagree completely. Alot of the arguments on YMDC are because the rules are not clear, and can be interpreted one of two ways. If GW would just say that it's one way and not the other, there wouldn't be any arguments. How hard is it to say, "Well hey, we didn't intend for Painboyz to have 'eavy armor." Problem solved.

You see, that is where the disconnect lies. In ther mind the answer is

"Who Cares, play how you want."

I have had this conversation with some of the GW UK crew back when I used to own an FLGS. They always just shook thier head at me and said. " What is it about you americans, the book says that the rules are just a guildine, why cant you just lighten up and have fun. Its just a game mate." or words almost exactly to that effect every time.

It is not that they cant, or even that they wont. Its more that they culturally (as a company) do not understand the reason to. I think thats why the FAQs we get are always so odd and never seem to answer the questions most of us had.

Your right that most of the questions shoudl be simple, but who in GW makes that call? Since they do not have a single person with that supervisory authority ( if they did we probably would not have all these problems )


Again, im not defending this position, or agreeing with this position. Hand me the puppy and I'll kill it right now if It would give us a solid FAQ or Errata system. Im just telling you that unless something very serious changes in GW corporate culture you are not likley to see it.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Gornall wrote:

Sarigar wrote:Just remember, by your rationale, if you don't have a Deff Rolla modelled onto your Battlewagon, you can't use it. You've previously advised you had to proxy a couple items of wargear since GW doesn't make the model. WYSIWYG is written into the Ard Boyz rules. All I'm saying is be careful what you demand in regards to the rules.

You can use the "Counts As" rule to handle that sort of stuff. Just because it says WYSIWYG doesn't mean it has to be GW stuff.

QFT.

WYSIWYG means that each model must have upgrades clearly delineated by some sort of addition. The majority of the model must consist of GW parts.

That doesn't mean that a Deff Rolla needs to be a big circular spiky ball, it means that a battlewagon must have a clearly identifiable feature demonstrating that it has a Deffrolla that seperates it from other battlewagons without a Deff Rolla, and that the majority of the the pieces making up the battlewagon and Deff Rolla must be citadel parts.

Semantics at this point because I've stopped using Deff Rollas because I'm tired of the arguments. Also irrelevant to compare with flamers firing out of ports. One is a modeling issue, one is a rules issue. There's not really any comparison.


-@ Gorall and Dash: Umm, I didn't claim it had to be GW parts for a Deff Rolla.

-My point being is the Ard Boyz did place the rule that I posted, not a Counts As rule. I agree that there needs to be something identifiable to claim it is a Deff Rolla. However, by your own previous admission on another thread, you could not build conversions and GW did not make a Deff Rolla, therefore you would simply claim a BW had a Deff Rolla. By simply stating a model has something, yet there is nothing identifiable on the model, this is what I meant by 'proxying'. I may have used the incorrect term, but you never claimed to have converted something in place of a Deff Rolla.

-Your claim it is a modelling issue is actually a rule in the Ard Boyz packet. If someone didn't have WYSIWYG on their models, I could just as well call over a judge and request the person not get the use out of the item in question b/c the player has broken a rule.

-I simply advise to be mindful of any and all rules. If you are going to remain unflinching on one rule that may be up for debate, be prepared for an opponent to make the same claim of a different rule being violated, whether or not you deem it as important.

From the rules of "What you see is what you get" on page 47:

"The rule is that such equipment most be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing."
Later in the rule: "A player might decide that for his next game a model's power sword will simply count as a close combat weapon, but he will also equip the model with melta bombs."

You must visually represent wargear. However you wish to do it is up to you. If I take the big gakking front shield looking thing that comes with the Battlewagon and model it on and call it a deff rolla....I have visually represented that it is there, and there is no mistake; in which case we're in the clear. That's WYSIWYG. Doesn't matter if my piece of wargear doesn't look like how YOU think a piece of wargear should look, as long as it is visually represented and distinct in itself.

so how did you do?

I don't think his sister's baby shower was a sanctioned 'ard Boyz location ;-)

Krootman wrote:so how did you do?

Somnicide wrote:I don't think his sister's baby shower was a sanctioned 'ard Boyz location ;-)

I correctly guessed the length of toilet paper that would be needed to wrap around my sisters waist, but so did some other lady. So we had to guess a number for a tiebreaker and I lost.

Then i got 19 out of 26 correct questions about my sisters childhood and how she met my brother in law. I lost to my mom who got 26 out of 26. Broken...

All in all, 0-1-1.

I won a beach towel.

As an aside, now having infiltrated the hidden mysteries of baby showers, I have one thing to say to women on the matter. No need to make them coed. Just keep having them on your own please.

Ard boys is always on the worst days, I myself was getting sh*t faced with my family at my aunts house which was quite fun...

Nothing beats good food, a warm pool, all the expensive booze you could ask for....not even a battleforce.

Yeah, mine was a Rockie's baseball game with the fiance and her parents!

I knew we should have play tested the number guessing scenario more.

I call shenanigans on the older sister childhood questions. Your Mom must have been in league with the TO.

Mwahahahaha!!!!

In real life, every day is a die roll!!!!

What sane woman ever expects a man to come to a baby shower??

Every woman that expected you to go to that shower should be required to go to your next decent RTT. They should have to sit or stand quietly around you for the entirety of every game without interrupting or detracting from the event.

When done, query then about the absolutely monolithic boredom they experienced, and let them know that's exactly how you felt at the baby shower.