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.

Are you being paid?




Of course, it is not free of debate, thus the fun times here.

editing to add:
Ooops, thought this was the other, not the poll thread.

I went with C.

I will play assuming he can not gate in cc, but bring up to my opponent every game the option to let me use gate in cc.

Basically plan on the harshest interpretation of the rules but see if my opponent cares. If it turns out to be a disaster he probably won't let me next game

GeneralRetreat wrote:Gee, guys... Tell us all again why you still play this game, then?

Because it's fun. In any game there will be people who complain and nitpick at the rules just because. It always happens.

And you really can't say GW writes clear rules, I mean, just look at Shrikes rule.

Also, to stay on subject, I voted B.

Maybe this will show you exactly how much work goes into something of this scale, and inspire some respect.

There's a problem with this line of reasoning...

I'm a software engineer. I spend a lot of my time thinking about the best way to design a system to accomplish a given task. This informs how I view gaming systems.

Now, I don't question that it's fully non-trivial to build a full miniatures gaming ruleset, along with all the related army lists, etc. etc. I've worked out my own rules, just to see what it's like.

That said, designing any system is about thinking of ways to make your task LESS difficult. So, the problem I see with your line of reasoning, is that you're assuming that the self-inflicted difficulties that GW face are unavoidably part of writing a system. But they're not, they're part of writing a system BADLY.

In painting, in writing systems, in doing mostly anything, the real trick is to make things easy on yourself. Don't just TRY REAL HARD, try to be smart.

That's why they need to think about creating building blocks of well-defined, well-tested rules, which they can then link together to do more complex tasks. They need to use standard language, reserved words, etc.

They still think that being sorta chummy and sloppy leads to a fun "beer and pretzels" game, of the sort they personally enjoy.

That's stupid.

You can still have fun, beer and pretzels while playing a game that's well architected. You don't have to feel confused in order to enjoy yourself. And if you do, that's what the beer is for.

Also, they don't work for free, neither will I. Arrange a cheque for me and I will be glad to do as you ask once it clears.

This is also important to note. GW's staff is being PAID to do this. We've got people writing FAQs on their free time, just to make up for how poorly GW's staff does their actual paid job.

One other point, if I may.

The people who write the rules and codexes do it for a living. They spend their days doing this and also playtesting the rules.

Since they have been doing it for quite some time, there are probably rules and interpretations that they take for granted. These are their "unwritten rules".

When they compile a rulebook, it might not even occur to them to include these rules or clarifications because they use them so much without thinking.

However, this is no excuse for sloppy rule writing. There are enough forums and enough rules discussions for them to sit up and take notice.

IMHO, it's high time they did so!

Phryxis wrote:
That's why they need to think about creating building blocks of well-defined, well-tested rules, which they can then link together to do more complex tasks. They need to use standard language, reserved words, etc.

They still think that being sorta chummy and sloppy leads to a fun "beer and pretzels" game, of the sort they personally enjoy.

That's stupid.

You can still have fun, beer and pretzels while playing a game that's well architected. You don't have to feel confused in order to enjoy yourself. And if you do, that's what the beer is for.

Also, they don't work for free, neither will I. Arrange a cheque for me and I will be glad to do as you ask once it clears.

This is also important to note. GW's staff is being PAID to do this. We've got people writing FAQs on their free time, just to make up for how poorly GW's staff does their actual paid job.

(Hugs Phryxis ) Yes. I share exactly the same sentiment .

I definitley think it would be option A. If there is an ability that conflicts with the current rules, the ability wins. (this is how almost every other game works, and that's what I say for this.) If the ability states that you may use it in the movement phase, let them use it then.

You see more complaints about the rules here than anywhere else. The results of the poll speaks volumes. I can't help but have a bias since it has been said friends don't let friends play power armor.

G

A

Nowhere does it say deep striking is movement. It is simply an action which occurs, in this case, at the beginning of the movement phase.

Why at the beginning of the movement phase? Because that directly follows the end of the opponent's player turn.

Deep striking takes the place of the unit's movement; it is not itself movement. Since the rules forbid movement as opposed to actions taken in the movement phase, deep striking out of CC is permitted.

As a software engineer (in training), i agree with Phryxis. When writing code one of the major things I need to do is make sure that I account for every single possible situation of inputs to make sure my programs work. GW is obviously skipping this 'unit testing' phase of design and writing, leading to situations (like this) where they either didnt think of the possibility that the unit could be in combat, or thought it was so obvious that they skipped over it, both of which are considered poor practice (at least in my industry)


@ GBF: the reason there are so many big rules complaints here is that (somewhere along the line) the decision was made that this forum be a 'strict RAW' forum.... which seems (to me) to be a very silly idea considering that the writers themselves don't show any indication that you should resolve disputes in a RAW fashion, or that they have any inclination to resolve disputes with RAW canon.

@ Everyone: Has anyone attempted a serious fan rewrite in technical style of the rules? Maybe that could be a dakkadakka contribution to the community

Please refrain from continuing to post off-topic conversation into this thread or your posts will be deleted.

You've been warned...