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.

Noir wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not really. Not at all in fact.

Really you play 40K 100% by the books, WOW.

There are a lot of books but I've never really run into issues with playing it as the rules are written for it to be played personally. I can't speak for everyone but I just haven't had any major problems with the rules or anything.

I've had issues with balance, such as OP units and such, but the rules I can work with.

It's the Year 40,000. Why is Anti-Aircraft so hard to come by?

And you can't shoot at an unoccupied building???

Well, glad I got that off my chest. Now back to festering over DLC, Overpriced models, and this week's new codex release.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've had issues with balance, such as OP units and such, but the rules I can work with.

Which is a far different issue than "the game is unplayable because the mechanics don't work".

The mechanics are functional (if in need of some refreshing in places), it's the stuff that's in the codexes that causes problems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daughter started 40K yesterday.

Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?

Congrats to her ! How old is she, and what were her views about the state of the game ?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I'm willing to bet that you've never had a single game of 6th without ANY change or restriction to the rules of the game.

I have, every single game I have played in 6th.

So, you always use mysterious objective ? At my FLGS, the staff encourage a no-hold-barred with everything allowed, yet there is just one thing, only one, that we do not use (voluntarily, because there are lots of stuff we just forget to use), and it is mysterious objectives.

Nm

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I'm willing to bet that you've never had a single game of 6th without ANY change or restriction to the rules of the game.

I have, every single game I have played in 6th.

So, you always use mysterious objective ? At my FLGS, the staff encourage a no-hold-barred with everything allowed, yet there is just one thing, only one, that we do not use (voluntarily, because there are lots of stuff we just forget to use), and it is mysterious objectives.

Yes, because it says to. I only play with people other than my brother rarely because It's an hour drive to the nearest place. We don't play competitively and find them entertaining. We often play missions that are not in the BRB such as the altar of war mission in the suplements though.

No change or restriction?

So Wraithguard can't shoot or charge?

How can they not?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How can they not?

No eyes.

You measure line of sight from a model's eyes according to the BRB.

No eyes = no LoS anywhere.

Eye just means the models head right?

Nope, says eyes in the rulebook.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Nope, says eyes in the rulebook.

Good thing I play Sisters and the only armies I've played against this edition have eyes.

Ever heard of something called interpretation? It means figuring out what something means.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ever heard of something called interpretation? It means figuring out what something means.

The point still stands, the game is playable even with their Line of sight from eyes example. Just means models without eyes cant shoot.

Game is still playable.

You are right though, they are just being a pain. Best thing, is to not do what I do and leave.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Nope, says eyes in the rulebook.

Good thing I play Sisters and the only armies I've played against this edition have eyes.

So nobody plays Tau? All Marines (and SoB) do not wear helmets?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ever heard of something called interpretation? It means figuring out what something means.

IOW, you're so used to the game being broken that you don't even realize that your house rules are house rules anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Game is still playable.

You have a strange definition of "playable" if it includes entire armies standing around unable to shoot or charge because they have helmets on.

No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.

The moment a rule is subject to interpretation, it becomes a bad rule, because it can be interpreted differently by different people, and then you get YMDC threads 50+ pages long.

It is essentially a practical impossibility to get to a point where every possible combination of rules is anticipated in advance and the rules are written to account for it, but with FAQs and errata, it is possible to get much closer than GW do. This eyes thing is your classic RAI vs RAW debate, and to the overwhelming majority (both of us included) the resolution is obvious. That doesn't stop it being an assumption that runs contrary to the rules as they are written though. Easy fix for GW no? Shame they don't take the time.

Speaking of weird LOS rules, did they ever solve the problem with Exorcists being restricted to short-range AA fire because their weapon barrels point straight up and vertical swiveling is limited to a 45 degree up/down tilt?

 Happyjew wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Nope, says eyes in the rulebook.

Good thing I play Sisters and the only armies I've played against this edition have eyes.

So nobody plays Tau? All Marines (and SoB) do not wear helmets?

Those models with helmets still have eyes you know. Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?

And like 95% of the Sisters models don't have helmets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Speaking of weird LOS rules, did they ever solve the problem with Exorcists being restricted to short-range AA fire because their weapon barrels point straight up and vertical swiveling is limited to a 45 degree up/down tilt?

Old FAQ said to draw LOS from any of the pipes. Which means you can be hull down and still shoot thanks to LOS without exposing the tank, or shoot sideways thanks to some pipes that are angled that way.

Total cheese from that FAQ.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Those models with helmets still have eyes you know.

No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.

Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?

Fluff =/= rules. Fluff-wise of course they have eyes. Rules-wise the models do not, therefore they can not draw LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.

Except there's no possible way to make "eyes" mean anything other than "eyes". This isn't a failure to understand what GW is saying, it's a failure to write rules that actually say what GW wants them to say.

 azreal13 wrote:
It is essentially a practical impossibility to get to a point where every possible combination of rules is anticipated in advance and the rules are written to account for it, but with FAQs and errata, it is possible to get much closer than GW do.

The difference between the 40K YMDC page and the WM/H one is telling. GW has is larger, has more resources and are running a simpler system yet they can't even get the same level of clarity a much, much smaller company does with a more complex system. Given GWs age, resources and size there is absolutely no excuse for this. I want GW rules to be up to that standard. The fact that smaller groups with a fraction of the resources are doing better should be embarrassing for GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Those models with helmets still have eyes you know.

No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.

Or what do you think looks through the lenses on the helmets?

Fluff =/= rules. Fluff-wise of course they have eyes. Rules-wise the models do not, therefore they can not draw LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, I think "I don't know what this means, I'm going to think about it. Aha, that is what it must mean." You look at words and figure out what they mean. It's not a difficult concept.

Except there's no possible way to make "eyes" mean anything other than "eyes". This isn't a failure to understand what GW is saying, it's a failure to write rules that actually say what GW wants them to say.

That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist. But that's just me. This isn't YMDC so I'm not going to partake in an internet shouting match over it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist.

No, it's just reading what the rules actually say. The point here is that GW's rules are so bad that most people don't even realize that their house rules are house rules because they're so used to fixing GW's mistakes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That whole line of thinking strikes me as being intentionally obtuse for the sake of making a rules argument exist.

No, it's just reading what the rules actually say. The point here is that GW's rules are so bad that most people don't even realize that their house rules are house rules because they're so used to fixing GW's mistakes.

Like I said, this isn't YMDC so I don't think an arguement on if a model should be treated as if it has eyes or not behind their face mask is really that important here.

I also don't think we're house ruling it as much as just applying the same logic that we would in real life: that there is a face behind that mask, even if we can't see it. But that's my take on it, and we've already established yours is different so I don't see a need to carry that train of thought any further.

And yes, GW does write rules in a fairly loose manner sometimes (some rules they do a great job on, but others make you scratch your head). This is one of those ones I feel was written more for flavor of trying to get players into the mindset of TLOS rather than saying that eyeless models couldn't shoot (unless your poor ol Zogwart. He can't shoot AND he's eyeless).

At least they're getting better about how to approach USRs by consolidating them in the core rulebook instead of rewriting them all the time under different names in each codex (Night Vision/Acute Senses in 5th anyone?).

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Those models with helmets still have eyes you know.

No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.

Actually, there is not a single model that has eyes. They have plastic, eye-shaped details, but not actual eyes. Your argument is so ridiculous and detached from reality here that it makes you look funny.

Also very important regarding 40k rules, many people seem to dismiss on of the most important parts of it; it is the 'Spirit of the Game' part in the front of the book.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Those models with helmets still have eyes you know.

No they don't. They have eye-shaped details on their helmets (sometimes, Tau helmets for example do not), but not eyes.

Actually, there is not a single model that has eyes. They have plastic, eye-shaped details, but not actual eyes. Your argument is so ridiculous and detached from reality here that it makes you look funny.

Also very important regarding 40k rules, many people seem to dismiss on of the most important parts of it; it is the 'Spirit of the Game' part in the front of the book.

So, in your interpretation of the rules, they have no eyes, ergo can never have LOS.

But, you're missing the point here. It was to highlight how hippy dippy 40k's rules are and how you have to rely on your common sense (or the "spirit of the game", or whatever) and thus modify the rules as written to make them work as you think they should. How individual people interpret the above rule is unimportant for this thread. The very fact such a fething simple thing is so open to interpretation is a shocking indictment on the state of the game.

Are there any other examples of this?

There was a long debate during 4th edition that confirmed that Terminators did not have Terminator armour.

There was another long debate about AP1 versus Skimmers Moving Fast. Eventually GW announced that the rules given with mathematical precision in the rulebook were not to be followed.