Switch Theme:

Codex: DakkaDakka  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Ok gentlemen, ladies and anyone I may have missed.

 

This thread got my wheels turning and once the rust fell off I got to thinking.

What if we as Dakka-ites, put down all of our thoughts of the current GW rules and wrote out a "Codex" of clarifications that we could pass around the net to other tournament organizers?

I know we all don't agree on the interpretations but I know that we all can agree on what would be the LEAST advantageous of those brought up thus far.

I feel that we might be able to come up with a template that could catch on world wide, whos knows we might become famous for something OTHER than the RaW.

 


Can you D.I.G. it? 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


We tried to do something like this before but it became quickly apparent that it isn't really possible to do with a group of people. It just isn't feasible to get a group of peope to agree on exactly how a FAQ should be ruled. Do you stick purely with RAW even when most can agree that the designers likely intended otherwise, or do you make that assumption and rule the other way?

What exactly constitutes enough of a grey area in the rules to essentially make up your own rulings?

Etc, etc, etc.


The thing is, the game designers can always choose to either follow the rules they wrote for their FAQ answers, or they can say: yeah we messed up this part it should be played this other way. Any fan FAQs will always struggle with this second part because they can never truly know when or if the designers meant the game to be played the other way.


I've seriously considered taking the master FAQ list and making my own full FAQ along with my personal opinions on the answers. Obviously this would only be good for people who completely agree with my opinions, but it could also be useful for tournament organizers looking for a FAQ. They could look down my FAQ answers and any they disagree with they could simply change.

I think I might get on that. . .


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Canada

I really like the idea of the big dakka gaming brains putting their money where there mouth is. Can Mauleed really make rules and tournie formats that would please more gamers? I think he could, and maybe if he did they'd grow in popularity. Same goes for all the rest of our big gaming brains (and mouths )! Maybe this'll help diswade people of the pesimistic air Dakka is looked upon with at times.

"Nothing from the outside world can be imported into Canada without first being doused in ranch dressing. Canadian Techs have found that while this makes the internet delicious it tends to hamper the bandwidth potential. Scientists are working furiously to rectify the problem. "

--Glaive Company CO 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Yak, you write it and I'll do my best to sing it's praises.

"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Canada

Cop out :p Maybe you can take care of the tournie system comments?

"Nothing from the outside world can be imported into Canada without first being doused in ranch dressing. Canadian Techs have found that while this makes the internet delicious it tends to hamper the bandwidth potential. Scientists are working furiously to rectify the problem. "

--Glaive Company CO 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





We tried to do something like this before but it became quickly apparent that it isn't really possible to do with a group of people. It just isn't feasible to get a group of peope to agree on exactly how a FAQ should be ruled. Do you stick purely with RAW even when most can agree that the designers likely intended otherwise, or do you make that assumption and rule the other way


My idea isn't related to finding the RaW on every issue but coming to an agreement that is the least advantageous for any player(s).


I mean I already know that we can kill each other with RaW... but maybe if we agree on a neutral area that is fun to play.

Can you D.I.G. it? 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Mauleed's psyker power, Lawyer's Chains, makes all enemy units within 12 inchs roll a D6. On a 1 or 2, nothing happens. On a 3, 4 or 5, the unit will spend its next turn argueing whether the a Marine carrying a Lascannon can also carry a bolter. On a roll of 6, the unit takes D6 wounds as they try kill themselves rather than argueing this point yet again!

Oh wait, I thought we were going to make a codex for a DakkaDakka army. :p

Edit: Maul, <3 <3 <3
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I like the idea. Perhaps some of the rules interpretations can be decided with a poll. An argument is written for each interpretation, i.e. one interpretation with RAI (rules as intended) in mind, one with RAW, one with an alternative take on RAW. The poll decides how the rule is entered into Codex: Dakka Dakka.

On second thought, I think that's a horrible idea. I vote Yakface for benevolent dictator.
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

Why not come up with a list of everything that has a point of contention. Then we create a thread for each item, with a poll for which way it could go. Have everyone vote it out, discuss it, whatever. Majority wins. Simple enough.

1st Legion Dark Angels

Eldar Craftworld Eth-Kariel
Spear of Kornous - High Elf Expeditionary Army (Retired) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Majority wins is an absolutely idiotic way to handle a logical debate.

 


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

Sounds like what something that would be said by someone who isn't in the majority.

The rules are illogical. Hence the contention. The majority of people finding a logical answer to the question, should determine the belief right?

Or are we gonna play Democratic Liberals and pander to the minority?

1st Legion Dark Angels

Eldar Craftworld Eth-Kariel
Spear of Kornous - High Elf Expeditionary Army (Retired) 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The thing is, one ruling can have a domino effect which has implications on other rules. Voting indepenently on each ruling would cause a random mish-mash. You've got to look at the game as a whole to decide what the answers need to be in order for the game to be balanced and enjoyable. Besides, how are we to guarantee that the majority truly knows what's best? If a bunch of kids just decided to vote for whatever ruling would benefit their army the most, it'd create an environment heavily weighted towards certain armies.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The rules are illogical? Did you seriously just say that?

Every single person who ever comes with any mathmatical proof or any engineering inovation is not "in the majority". That doesn't make them any less right.

Feel free to give idiots votes in politics. We have no need to listen to them here.


"I've still got a job, so the rules must be good enough" - Design team motto.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



Brotherhood of Blood

I would back the Yak on his compilations. Logical, precise, and 99.9% times has it right.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Carnifex





I wanted to give my high-sign for making clarifications toward intent and playability. Adjust really stupid things. Clarify things in the way that most suits the spirit of the game according to Yakface.

I'd recommend doing the rulebook first, then going codex by codex.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

Posted By mauleed on 08/23/2006 12:06 PM

Majority wins is an absolutely idiotic way to handle a logical debate.

 

Its also the worst form of government ever... well except for all those other forms of governement that have been tried.


**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







You guys might want to hold off on that a bit... There's a work in process with AdeptiCon to come up with a comprehensive FAQ, for AdeptiCon.


"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.

Doesn't Direwolf do something like that for fantasy? They have a committee that makes ruling and FAQs because GW can't be bothered to? (I am not sure about this since I am not a fantasy player).

And majority rules are not the way to go. Everyone votes to upgrade their own army. So, for an example since marine armies are in the vast majority, most rulings that benefit marines would be upheld, and the ones that limit them would be overturned.



 
   
Made in ca
Infiltrating Broodlord





Canada

I can't believe no one has said this yet, so I'll be the one:

We shall dub it: the YAKFAQ!!!


-S

2000 2000 1200
600 190 in progress

 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

Posted By Strangelooper on 09/07/2006 3:45 PM
I can't believe no one has said this yet, so I'll be the one:

We shall dub it: the YAKFAQ!!!



Too late. That's what the document is already called (great minds think alike?).

It's in progress. All these Polls in YMTC are part of the process.

 

 


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in ca
Infiltrating Broodlord





Canada

Woot!

-S

2000 2000 1200
600 190 in progress

 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt




Posted By Blackmoor on 09/03/2006 3:37 PM

And majority rules are not the way to go. Everyone votes to upgrade their own army. So, for an example since marine armies are in the vast majority, most rulings that benefit marines would be upheld, and the ones that limit them would be overturned.

Based on my experience running a large League, Blackmoor is very much correct. If you are going to vote on rulings then you need to use a system where each Codex has a representative to argue for specific decisions to be made. When a vote is taken the entire Codex Counsel votes. In this way each Codex at least has a chance of being fairly represented.

That being said, it worked better in our League when we did not vote and the League FAQ was decided by a Benevolent Dictator.


   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: