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.

The point of the article is not to d6 everytime there is a question but to apply common sense and interpret the rules. d6 was offered as a last resort. I will say here I am not a fan of d6.n it either coz as has been pointed out there are those that will try a 50% chance of overturning a solid rule. I've seen teenage power gamers do this a lot too.

I would have to agree about the "d6" approach just excusing lazy rulesmaking. I can tell you that in tournaments Ive been to, that if you call over a judge or force a d6 roll (and I did use the word 'force' on purpose), your opponent will think you are a rules lawyer. When I hear, "Don't be a rules laywer." I really hear, "Roll over and accept my view of it already."

I, for one, don't want an entire game to hinge on whether my debating skills are honed to razor edge. I see it over and over again. I call it the "Steamroll"....two guys shake hands and smile at a tourney game, and one of them proceeds to rig the game by calling terrain certain ways or gently contest everything your opponent does. The smoothest of them can do it and still get a good rating from their opponent. They really should screw old ladies out of their pension and credit card numbers over the phone - they would probably be good at it.

Case in point: This is repeated on another thread, so forgvie me - I will try to summarize. We all know that ICs can be targeted speperately in a HtH combat, and that this rule is a powerful and rarely questioned one. most people dont have debates about this in tourney. However, the individual codices clearly state that command squads (et al.) can change the status of a character to ordinary squadmember. The wording couldn't be more clear. Ok. Go to a tournament and try to remove a command squadmember when your lord is hit by the Powerfist, or even try to take you lord's attacks when he isnt personally in BtB, but his bodyguard is. The judge will be on his way over before the dice hit the table.

The book backs me up, and I am right. But the judge, Pete Haines and most of the people I play against disagree, very iritating. I learned this lesson very paiinfully, but Ive learned to move on and ignore the bodyguard wordings in the codex.
What is the designer's intent here? What do bodyguards do if they do not "guard bodies"? Anyone but me remember "Look out sir, Aaargh!"? President Reagan is good enough to have a guy throw himself in front of the shot, but my Marine Chapter Master isn't?

Oh, and by the way, for the MOD haters. Just realize that if this were the GW Games Development board, the thread would already be locked.

Apply common sense to a game set in a fictional world?

Just like with the Turbo Boosting Psycannon blasted bike, common sense isn't a replacement for the basic rule.

P1: A Psycannon round ignore invulnerable saves,
P2: The turbo boosting bike's save becomes Invulnerable

C1: The bike gets no save if blasted by a psycannon.

The is the rule as it is currently written.
Common sense WON'T WORK in this situation as we base common sense on our own reality and what we have learned. In the real world yes bikes move fast, bullets move faster but what we don't have in real life is a psychically charged mega bullet. So we having nothing but a one sided jaded view of how "common sense" effects this rule.

Just a reminder...

Common sense does not mean "How would it work in the real world?"

Common sense means "What do the game mechanics support/intend...i.e. what is the spirit of the rule?"

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule.  It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

I know that GW has later 'unoffically' clarified the above argument.  However I think you can see how a rational individual, who is not necesasarily full of poop, might draw the above reasonable argument.

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule.  It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

You didn't seriously post that as an argument, did you?

At least some of the premises in an arugment should be supportable Russ.

P1. Marines are super tough.

P2. Lots of stuff in 40k is T4

Conclusion: marines must be much better than T4.

So from now on, all my marines are T6.

It's common sense.

Common sense means "What do the game mechanics support/intend...i.e. what is the spirit of the rule?"

Says who or what? Common sense, is a whole different topic in regards that some people don't have any and some people have different definitions obviously.

How can we have your definition of common sense? Common sense is also referred to as "street smarts" or basically knowing the environment you are in. Common sense tells you not to stick your finger in a light socket or not to touch an oven burner while it's on. How do you obtain this knowledge? By learning it through life's experiences and those you come in contact with it. An infant won't know to not do those things until they either learn by doing or are taught by their parent(s). Example, I have learned through coming to these boards that trying to even remotely draw a common sense conclusion to a RaW debate will get you smacked around faster than agreeing with CaptAnderton in a RaW debate. ;-)

What really irks me is the premise and effect this article is apparently having on the gaming community. This person writes an article that basically says "quit beating on the GW editors and writers for their mistakes in rule writing" and puts the fault of said mistakes back on the player because some players "won't use common sense" to determine the "writer's intent".

My God I love this forum!

 

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

 Please attack my argument premises if you like.  Just stating I am wrong is both childish and obviously not a logical discussion.  Which of my premises are incorrect? P1, P2, or P3? Can you add additional premises to break my argument?<?

Your argument fails because I can interject additional premises that are true:

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0> <TBODY> <TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"> <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" vAlign=top>

 

</TD> <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">

P1. Marines are super tough.
P2. Lots of stuff in 40k is T4
P3. More units in the 40k games system are T3 or less than T4 or more.
P4. The toughness value of marines is clearly stated many times in many places in a variety of books

Conclusion: Marines are T4, it is unlikely that this is a misprint or unintentional mistake.

My point is that it is rational to assume that there may have been a mistake made with the bike boosting  psycannon issue.  It is very logical that this may have been an unintended consequence.  It is in no way logical to somehow form an argument that marines are unintentionally T4.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yes you should indeed rebutt the article.

heh, now the question would be "how to rebutt the article without seemingly flaming the original writer... mehehehehehe

IronGob wrote:

My God I love this forum!

Yeah, me too.  I love discussions like this.  That's why I like the article.  Get's folks thinking about the deeper stuff.  I like stuff that get's me thinking, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.  I think if folks look over my posts, you'll notice that I never said I really AGREE with the author, just that I see where he's coming from, why he might draw those conclusions, and that he is perhaps not entirly full of poop.

Although, to be fair, he IS a lawyer, so there must be some poop someplace. 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.)

Then let's get together like you did for the FAQ and write a rebuttal to White Dwarf!!

This Lawyer turned Author named Dakka and basically, IMO, called us out. Let's answer and see if we get any airtime in the magazine!!

Please attack my argument premises if you like. Just stating I am wrong is both childish and obviously not a logical discussion.

This has been part of my point from the start.

That's excellent.

"I realize that my argument is devoid of logic or reason, but you sir are immature, therefore I must be right.".

So basically, if you don't make any sense, simply insult the other person and you win the debate, right?

You should run for office!

I see nothing illogical or unreasonable about what I have stated in this thread so far. It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe it was a hastily and poorly written rule that a normal buff for bikes would actually be worse off against psycannons. It's also perfectly logical and reasonable to expect both (or all for larger games) players to act in a mature fashion that supports a smooth, quick, and most importantly fun game. I feel that part of acting mature (and I feel part of the article's point includes this) means using common sense for contraversial rulings, and if there is still a disagreement that solving those situations in the GW-recommended easy fashion (d6 roll) is perfectly reasonable as well. Stating things like "My terminators now have jump packs and my marines are T6" do nothing to further the discussion in a positive manner whatsoever.

It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe it was a hastily and poorly written rule that a normal buff for bikes would actually be worse off against psycannons.

Yes, you are correct. But there is nothing we can do about it other than make a house rule clarification for friendly games as you suggested. But when playing in tournaments we are bound by the interpretation that is given to use by the judges on hand.

Yes, you are correct. But there is nothing we can do about it other than make a house rule clarification for friendly games as you suggested. But when playing in tournaments we are bound by the interpretation that is given to use by the judges on hand.

1000% agree and I did say that before as well. So I no one thinks I'm going after them I'll use myself as the example. Say I am playing in a tournament and a ruling comes up that is contraversial, we'll use the discussion in here about Necron Lords and the WBB while an enemy unit is on top of them, and the ruling from the judge does not go in my favor. As a mture player I should then move on with the game, adapt to the situation, and have fun! I should NOT sit there and pout, give my opponent a low sportsmanship score (assuming they were mature about it as well), and then whine about it. After the game I can then talk to the judge and let them know why I feel my position is correct, in a calm and rational manner. After that, move on to the next level (because of course I won the game )

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:10 AM

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Oh goody. We should all make one and flood their mailboxes and emailboxes.

 

No, because then mine's less likely to actually get published.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:16 AM
No, because then mine's less likely to actually get published.

Oh for the love of all that's holy that would be a tragedy.

I honestly doubt WD will have the balls. Maybe the rest of us should send letter to Dirty Steve and give our comments to him.

No, directly countering the original argument just gives it more weight.

There is no point in attacking the original, the rebuttal will handle the issues independently.

Of course, Ed, yours is less likely to be published anyway. GW has made it clear for some time that the most important rule is to "have fun." All other rules are mutable.

I suppose we can pray. A lot. That might help.

P1: MEQ Bikes are hard to kill with a psycannon normally
P2: Turbo Boosting is a Buff.
P3: Buffs should make models better, not worse.
C1: Although the RaW does state that the psycannon should easily kill a boosting bike, this is probably an unintentional consequence of a hastily written rule. It is reasonable to assume that the bike still has an armor save.

P2 and P3 are not supportible. There is no such thing as a "buff" in 40k. This isn't WoW or EQ, Russ.

All you have to do is make the argument that clear consistent rules enhance the fun of the game as it lets you spend more time actually *playing* then deciphering the often cryptic and bizzare logic that is the 4th edition rules!

Argument: People should just d6 it whenever there is a rules disagreement to preserve fun.

Counter Argument: GW should write better rules because rules arguments leading up to a "d6 it to see who's right" scenario detracts from the fun and enjoyment of the game.

Argument: A rules lawyer is someone who ruins the fun of the game.

Counter Argument: A rules lawyer is someone who bends the interpretation of the rules to gain advantage during a game. A lawyer is an advocate for a particular point of view (read: THEIR point of view). We are rules *judges* who are simply trying to interpret the rules and come up with a clear ruling on a difficult situation. The more clear the rules are, the less room there is for rules lawyers to bend the rules, and judges wouldn't be needed anywhere near as much. This would enhance the fun of the game making play go faster, giving rules lawyers less leeway to bend the rules, and making rules judging and interpretation much less difficult. *This would also enhance the play value of the game for the younger audience, allowing more people to enjoy GW products!*

All it would take in the case of the biker invulnerable save vs. psy cannon is changing *one* sentence to read "A turboboosting bike GAINS an invulnerable save equal to their armor save..." to resolve the issue. 

Of course I'm sure Mauleed has the article well in hand. I just hope it gets published.

Yes but it should be edited for content.

Posted By mauleed on 03/31/2006 10:10 AM

Edit: I think, we or someone should write a "rebuttal" article and submit it to White Dwarf to see if they "GW" have the balls to print it!

Already working on it. Almost done.

Crap, just when I was about to let my subscription drop, thanks Ed.  Looking forward to it if they ever print.

Has a non "fanboy-esque" article ever made it into White Dwarf? Man, I would LOVE to see it get in, but I think we can all agree it would be a cold day in hell before that happened. I'm not trying to take anything away from your project Mauleed. I'm just stating the obvious. GW is not going to print anything in their publication that criticizes their product, regardless of how true it is.

Pessimism aside, I think you should definitely follow through on it. Maybe, just maybe, it could turn out to be the proverbial straw that gets them to hire the talent they need to support this game. At a minimum, maybe they'll get the balls to hop on Dakka and heed the problems that are discussed throughout the site.

I'd love to see an honest letter from you go out to GW. Then I'd like to see a another letter to GW written together by you and HBMC. THAT would be some nice reading. Mind posting your rebuttal after you've completed it?

Flagg, I don't think Ed's really out to vilify GW as much as he is out to prove that you should play RAW whenever the rules explain something, as opposed to whenever "common sense" "should" prevail.

I just mailed in my letter this morning.

Maybe, just maybe, it could turn out to be the proverbial straw that gets them to hire the talent they need to support this game.

It takes some major conjones to make such a statement... or sheer stupidity. GW is cranking out some great codices for the most part. Wot we need are FAQs, which the present staff should be able to handle.

 

At a minimum, maybe they'll get the balls to hop on Dakka and heed the problems that are discussed throughout the site.

Dream on.

A demonic voice is whispering something into my ear, everytime I hear people complain about GWs poor rules support. Its something like this:

P1: Deep in our hearts we enjoy to be smartasses and enjoy proving it in rules debates.
P2: GW rules provide a lot of opportunities for smartass debates.
C1: We enjoy the way GW writes their rules.


Well, kidding aside, have you ever considered that aspects of the game that seem to be its major flaws, might be an essential part of the overall fun?

In soccer its easily possible to use ingame-video instead of real judges for the important games. But its not done, even though the masses often loudly complain about wrong decisions (by imperfect human judges). I think its not the strong judge-lobby that has prevented video-judgement by now. IMO its the fact that these real judges add a lot of drama to the game, which maintains strong emotions in the audiance, which again keep the game interesting and give fodder to discussions among friends.

So honestly I dont think its only about smartasses. Its about emotion and battle of whitts and about having something interesting to talk about.

The social aspect of WH40k seems to be an important factor to its success. Maybe part of this success are ambiguous rules?

Some of the people who frequent this forum are out to win at all costs, so social interaction is out the door for them, other than having another victim to trash time and time again. But that said I agree with you and find the social part of the game as much fun as winning. I will say I have never met anyone who plays the game that enjoys losing.