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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...

Well played

 Dysartes wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...

Zing! The irony will be lost on him though...

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.

Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.

Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.

-

It`s in human nature to try to win or get benefits for abusing the system.
Just recently one American abused the wording and bough practically the some item twice and that allowed his tzangors to be +2 on charge.
Everyone agreed it was dumb, but that was allowed by the current GW rules, so the organizer allowed it.

Marin wrote:
Everyone agreed it was dumb, but that was allowed by the current GW rules, so the organizer allowed it.

And that's a risk you take when you participate in organized events. It's a given you should be aware of when you give away control of the game to a TO.
But in normal games, 2 players can discuss the solution together and if a reasonable consensus cannot be reached, both roll off.
The rules allow this and thus can never be broken.

People will try to abuse the system, I agree, but those are generally rare individuals (at least in my experience) that apply that to a game with plastic toys. If you encounter those people often enough to ruin your games, it's not GW's fault, nor is it their responsibility to curb that kind of behavior. Just avoid those people (and maybe even organized events) and you'll be fine

-

 Galef wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.

Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.

Back up a step. The OP's point is that the game is poorly-edited. You're now saying it's okay that the game is poorly-edited because it isn't supposed to be well-edited?

I'm going to go afield a bit for an analogy here, so bear with me. The most important determining factors in how good a tabletop RPG is are how good the GM is and how cooperative the players are. If everyone is on board with the experience, well-prepared, understands the setting and their characters, and the GM is prepared to take the players' actions and roll with them, you will have a good time. It doesn't matter what the game system is. So the question then becomes: what is the game system for? I posit that the game system exists to make everyones' lives easier; if anyone wants to do something specific, dramatic, and risky the rules provide a mechanism for doing that other than the GM arbitrarily deciding "it works" or "it doesn't". This makes life easier for the players because they have a sense of what their characters can and can't do that would be a lot harder to communicate in a rules-less improv theatre exercise, and it makes life easier for the GM because it allows them to be "fair" to the players when figuring out whether the things they're doing work or not. A good system is therefore comprehensive enough to give the players freedom, balanced enough that success/failure rates feel "fair" to all involved, and straightforward enough to allow the GM and the players to figure out the results of an action quickly. A good GM might not need rules to make everyone have a good time but the rules are there to make it easier.

Now take us back to Warhammer. The function of the game is to allow us to play a game of make-believe toy soldiers while giving us answers to questions about what happens when our toy soldiers shoot each other. The entire purpose of the game is to be clear, precise, and easy to use so we can answer our questions quickly and get back to the business of playing toy soldiers. I put it to you that by being poorly-edited and requiring out-of-game consensus/editing on the players' part/a roll-off to see whose interpretation of the rules stands Warhammer is worse at being a wargame than it would be if it were a tight ruleset requiring no subjective interpretation, because it takes us out of the business of playing the game to try and figure out how it works.

 Galef wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.

Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.
-

Is`t this kind of thinking the reason 7 edition was a failure ?
People can make their own rules with consensus and don`t give GW any money for books.

The idea that Common sense will solve all arguments is terrible.

Even clearly written rules have debate about them. Poorly written rules just cause arguments. Arguments at the game table are no fun.

Marin wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.

Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.

The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-

This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.

The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.

This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.

Calm down, you don`t have any rights to attack someone on personal level, just because you don`t like the person and don`t agree of what he/she is saying.

It`s true that mistakes can be found everywhere, but especially big and obvious could have been avoided, especially when they are cough by the community hours after the release.
We had the the stratagem problem in the daemon codex already, so why is it repeating again ?
After the great job they did with the Ynnari, removing all chances of exploits of keywords, i`m starting to thing its intentional.

wait, what? I'm pretty confident that there are zero personal attacks. If you feel that way...sucks to be you.

I just pointed out a couple of things. Forgive me for making observations about the pattern being revealed by their own posts.

Fact: BCB doesnt play. been stated numerous times by them.

There's a way to discuss errors and inconsistencies in the rules without inciting a riot. If there was an attempt to gain clarity on the verbiage it should have gone in YMDC but it was posted here for the explicit purpose of "a discussion on GWs continued incompetence".

Yay troll post. Congrats getting people arguing. Internet playing to it's strengths today.

Reemule wrote:
Even clearly written rules have debate about them. Poorly written rules just cause arguments. Arguments at the game table are no fun.

I 100% agree with this. But what I am trying to say is that the examples on rules editing presented by the OP are hardly poor enough to caused arguments (or at least they should not cause arguments). We can all see the intent. It's pedantic to argue over the difference between "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad". We all know what is meant, or at the VERY LEAST can come to an agreement about the intent. 99% of us would agree those 2 are the same, so where is the argument?

In most cases, and again this is just in my personal experience, any discrepancies in the rules writing can be easily cleared up in 2 seconds by either talking it out with your opponent, or asking the TO and accepting their ruling.
The claim that seems to be presented is that due to the "poor writing/editing" 40K is a garbage heap of a game that is unplayable. I vehemently disagree with that claim

-

 Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Even clearly written rules have debate about them. Poorly written rules just cause arguments. Arguments at the game table are no fun.

I 100% agree with this. But what I am trying to say is that the examples on rules editing presented by the OP are hardly poor enough to caused arguments (or at least they should not cause arguments). We can all see the intent. It's pedantic to argue over the difference between "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad". We all know what is meant, or at the VERY LEAST can come to an agreement about the intent. 99% of us would agree those 2 are the same, so where is the argument?

In most cases, and again this is just in my personal experience, any discrepancies in the rules writing can be easily cleared up in 2 seconds by either talking it out with your opponent, or asking the TO and accepting their ruling.
The claim that seems to be presented is that due to the "poor writing/editing" 40K is a garbage heap of a game that is unplayable. I vehemently disagree with that claim

-

Except "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad" are not the same, and even GW say they aren't the same (see the Vigilus Defiant book).

ValentineGames wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

in an age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game you NEED to pick hairs.

no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.

Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.

A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.

Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?

Well, unfortunately I'm too old to just enjoy making pewpew noises with my minis, so having some rules and an actual game is nice

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.

A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?

I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.

Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?

I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.

You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.

You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down. BCB fixates on the ones that are mostly minutiae and comes off as pretty prickly sometimes, but can you not admit that he has a point? Like, the issue with the Master in Gravis. That is a problem, full stop -- you play with your buddy and you probably let them have that extra wound. Your buddy plays in a tournament and they probably don't get that extra wound. That sucks! We, as a community, should demand the billion pound market cap company to do better, because we have purchasing power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.

A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?

I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

Is it not? Yes, fundamentally, that should be how people play... but should it patch up things like Masters in Gravis with fewer wounds?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.

Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?

I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.

You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.

In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

Is it not? Yes, fundamentally, that should be how people play... but should it patch up things like Masters in Gravis with fewer wounds?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.

Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?

I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.

You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.

In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.

However whilest bcb is extreme we should also consider that Gw by no means is a small or unprofitable company.

And they have the audacity to demand money for what is in essence a balance Patch.

So gw in this case is far from not beeing at fault here.
Infact it is their shoddy work that even allows such RAW laweyring in the first place.
And I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised that if GW would finally implement quality standards in regards to rules then this phenomenon would stop quite rapidly.

BrianDavion wrote:
<snip>

Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.

Do you think a tournament organizer is going to concur, or are they idiots incapable of independent thought too? Cool it with the strawman.

BrianDavion wrote:
In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.

Actually, if you had been keeping track, I did indeed used to allow house rules in my games. However, before I stopped playing 40k, I took a hard-line approach and stopped using house rules. Yes, that included not allowing advancing and using Assault weapons. I then decided that the poor rules writing and Knights destroying any semblance of balance wasn't worth carrying on with.

I have had more fun with Kill Team and more recently Apocalypse. I still keep appraised of normal 40k in the event of some sort of miracle and GW decides to clean up their act. Suffice to say I have been disappointed.

I also think it's important to acknowledge that TOs can make rulings one way or the other for things that were otherwise clear. I.E. they can make their own house rules whether they are needed or not.
So the assumption that if GW had better rules editing than you'd get consistent organized events is just wrong. Those events can change the rules to suit their opinion of them.

And that's fine. But when GW releases the "canon" rules with "errors", we only have 2 choices: Stop buying the product (and preferably stop complaining about it) or drink the Kool-Aid and try to make the best of what we paid for in a positive way.
I prefer the Kool-Aid, especially the Tropical Punch flavor

-

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.

Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.

* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
<snip>

Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.

Do you think a tournament organizer is going to concur, or are they idiots incapable of independent thought too? Cool it with the strawman.

Actually I do think most TOs are likely to concur,

 Crimson wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.

Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.

* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)

*2 considering gw always just sucked at rules writing it is no achievement though.

 Crimson wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.

Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.

* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)

On your first point, that's fair. On the second point -- I agree that 8th is as tight as it's ever been without calling the breakdowns rare. For instance, the tourney list that uses a strat multiple times at the end of the turn because "at the end of the turn" is not a phase. Really!? That was based off of a TO interpretation I believe, but that's a pretty important aspect of the game that needs to be codified by GW.

BrianDavion wrote:
Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.

Why is that so obvious? There are all kinds of cases where special snowflake marine chapters have units that are slightly different. Why should a wolf lord and a captain be assumed to be interchangeable units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.

 Peregrine wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?

That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.

Not to switch "sides" on this issue, but I did once see a real @$$-hat use the roll-off rule to force a ruling in his favor on an issue that was 100% covered in the rules. I can't remember what the issue was, but it was 7E and he didn't like the rule, tried to refute it and when his opponent refused to relent, he "envoked" the roll off.
This "person", however, was later asked never to come back to the store.

-